Lopez v. City of Oxnard
| Decision Date | 10 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. B028882,B028882 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Javier C. LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF OXNARD, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. |
Brown & Goldberg and Louis Goldberg, Oxnard, for plaintiff and appellant.
Kosmo, Cho and Brown and Duane Skavdahl, Ventura, for defendant and respondent City of Oxnard.
Spray, Gould & Bowers and Susan B. Gans-Smith, Ventura, for defendants and respondents County of Ventura and Bornand.
Plaintiff Javier C. Lopez was arrested three times on an outstanding warrant issued by the municipal court. The person named in the warrant had the same name, birth date, address and physical description as plaintiff Lopez. There was, however, a problem. Lopez was not the person named in the warrant. The court offered a solution. After his first arrest, the court prepared a document called a "disposition sheet" for Lopez to carry with him. It stated that Lopez was not the person named in the warrant. When arrested again, he showed the disposition sheet to the arresting officers and the sheriff. They refused to verify its validity.
Lopez filed an action for damages for false imprisonment and for negligence against the defendant public entities and their employees.
He appeals the judgment of dismissal, entered after defendants' demurrers to his second amended complaint were sustained without leave to amend.
Lopez asserts, among other things, that the court erred in its ruling because the arresting officers and the jail personnel should have verified the validity of the court order he held. Because neither the police officers nor the jailers breached any duty in refusing to consider the disposition sheet he showed to them, we affirm the judgment.
On April 26, 1981, the Oxnard City Police Department arrested and booked an individual for driving under the influence and driving without a license. The man arrested gave Lopez' date of birth, address and name as his own. He posted bail and was released the next day. On May 12, 1981, he failed to appear in the municipal court and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
On July 23, 1981, the Oxnard City Police Department arrested Lopez for a misdemeanor. The outstanding warrant of April 26 came to light, and ultimately the court determined Lopez was not the individual sought under the warrant. The municipal court gave Lopez a "disposition sheet" stating he was not the person named in the warrant. 1
On November 4, 1983, Ventura County Sheriff's Deputy Bornand arrested Lopez on the outstanding warrant. Lopez showed his disposition sheet to Deputy Bornand and to sheriff's personnel. Nevertheless, he was held in the Ventura County jail for three days before being released.
On April 20, 1984, an Oxnard police officer stopped Lopez for speeding. After the officer discovered there was an outstanding warrant for someone named Javier Carrillo Lopez, plaintiff Lopez was taken to the Oxnard City jail where he was held for three hours before the authorities determined he was not the person named in the warrant.
In Lopez' second amended complaint, he alleges six causes of action. They include: 1. negligent failure of the County of Ventura and the City of Oxnard to correct their records to enable authorities to distinguish between Lopez and the criminal they seek, 2. false imprisonment for the November 1983 imprisonment of Lopez, 3. intentional infliction of emotional distress, 4. battery against the County of Ventura and Deputy Bornand regarding the November 1983 incarceration, 5. negligence against the City of Oxnard for disregarding his proffered disposition sheet during the April 1984 arrest and detention, and 6. false imprisonment against the City of Oxnard.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that on September 28, 1981, the court found Lopez was not the person charged under the warrant and that the court provided him with a "disposition sheet" which so stated. Lopez alleged he showed this disposition sheet to the arresting officers and to the sheriff's deputies at the jail to no avail.
All defendants demurred to Lopez' complaint. On June 17, 1987, the trial court sustained all demurrers without leave to amend as to all causes of action. In its order, the court took judicial notice of the 1981 disposition sheet. But no order of dismissal appears to have been made on that date. The City of Oxnard filed a notice of entry of judgment on June 26, 1987, which states judgment was entered for the City and against plaintiff on June 17, 1987.
On June 30, 1987, Lopez filed his notice of appeal regarding the "judgment" entered in favor of the City of Oxnard and the County of Ventura. On July 2, 1987, the court awarded judgment to the County of Ventura and to Ventura County Sheriff's Deputy Bornand. We construe the notice of appeal liberally in favor of adjudication on the merits. (9 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 59, pp. 82-83; §§ 375-376, esp. pp. 377, 379-380; § 412, pp. 410-411; id. (1988 supp.) § 59, p. 6; §§ 375-376, pp. 32-33.) 2
We do not view the failure to designate Deputy Bornand as an appellee in the notice of appeal as fatal to our consideration of the appeal as to him under these particular facts. (Beltram v. Appellate Department (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 711, 715, 136 Cal.Rptr. 211.) The parties stipulated to consolidation of the demurrers for hearing. We construe the order of June 17, 1987,
and the judgment entered on July 2, 1987, as a timely entry of judgment as of June 17, 1987, as to all parties defendant. (See fn. 2, ante.)
The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law. (Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, [207 Cal.App.3d 7] 20, 223 Cal.Rptr. 806.) Demurrers are treated as admitting the truthfulness of all properly pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, but not of its contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 827, 134 Cal.Rptr. 839; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 765, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222.) In ruling on a demurrer, the court is entitled to consider matters which may be judicially noticed. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241.)
A general demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, states a cause of action on any theory. (Rader Co. v. Stone, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 20, 223 Cal.Rptr. 806.) On appeal, however, all intendments are in favor of the regularity of the proceedings and the judgment below. Unless clear error or abuse of discretion is demonstrated, the judgment will be affirmed. (Whitcombe v. County of Yolo (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 698, 141 Cal.Rptr. 189.)
False imprisonment is defined by statute as "the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another." (Pen.Code, § 236.) To state a cause of action for false imprisonment, one must state facts showing either that one was unlawfully arrested and then imprisoned, or that an unreasonable delay occurred in presenting the arrestee before a magistrate. (City of Newport Beach v. Sasse (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 803, 810, 88 Cal.Rptr. 476.)
The arresting officers
Civil Code section 43.55 provides immunity to and precludes actions against "any peace officer who makes an arrest pursuant to a warrant of arrest regular upon its face if the peace officer in making the arrest acts without malice and in the reasonable belief that the person arrested is the one referred to in the warrant." Penal Code section 847 precludes actions for civil liability against any peace officer for false imprisonment if he was acting within the scope of his authority and the arrest was lawful or if, at the time of the arrest, the officer had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.
A police officer must use reasonable prudence and diligence to determine whether a party being arrested is the one described in the warrant. The officer may not refuse to act upon information offered him which discloses the warrant is being served on the wrong person. But, the prudence and diligence required of an arresting officer in determining whether to make an arrest must be balanced against the need to act swiftly and to make on-the-spot evaluations, often under chaotic conditions. (See Whirl v. Kern (5th Cir.1969) 407 F.2d 781, 790.) He need not choose between the possibility of being charged with dereliction of duty for failure to arrest and the possibility of being held to answer in damages for unlawful arrest or false imprisonment. (See Pen.Code, § 142.)
It is not the function of an arresting officer to investigate the procedure by which the warrant was issued, nor is it his duty to consider the propriety of its issuance provided the warrant is regular on its face. (See Herndon v. County of Marin (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 933, 936, 102 Cal.Rptr. 221, disapproved on other grounds concerning malicious prosecution in Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 12 Cal.3d 710, 722, fn. 10, 117 Cal.Rptr. 241, 527 P.2d 865.)
The facts alleged here do not show a lack of reasonable precaution on the part of the arresting officers. (Smith v. Madruga (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 543, 546, 14 Cal.Rptr. 389.) The instant warrant accurately described Lopez, and included his proper name, address, telephone number and driver's license.
Lopez makes no allegations that the warrant was either irregular on its face or that it did not adequately describe him. The trial court took judicial notice of the warrant and found it to be regular. (Code Civ.Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1040, 232 Cal.Rptr. 542, 728 P.2d 1177.) There are no allegations the officers were acting outside the scope of their duties at the time of the arrests. It is presumed the officers acted regularly in the performance of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. United States
...upon its face it appears to be valid in the judgment of an ordinarily intelligent and informed layman. See also Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 207 Cal.App.3d 1, 8, 254 Cal.Rptr. 556 :"Peace officers must execute all process and orders which are apparently regular on their face and issued by compe......
-
Castro v. City of Hanford, CV-F-05-1405 LJO DLB.
...is unlawful or if they are put on official notice sufficient to require investigation of its validity. Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 207 Cal.App.3d 1, 10, 254 Cal.Rptr. 556, 561 (1989). In Lopez v. City of Oxnard, a person arrested for drunk driving gave plaintiff Lopez's name, address and date ......
-
Rivera v. County of Los Angeles
...or if, at the time of the arrest, the officer had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful[,]" Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7, 254 Cal. Rptr. 556 (1989), and under Cal. Civ. Code § 43.55, which "provides immunity to and precludes actions against any peace officer wh......
-
Neylon v. Cnty. of Inyo
...acts without malice and in the reasonable belief that the person arrested is the one referenced in the warrant. See Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 207 Cal.App.3d 1 (1989). The Inyo County Defendants acted in reasonable reliance on a facially-valid warrant issued by the State of Indiana. Discussio......