Gisske v. Sanders
Before: Allen
Synopsis
Action fob False Imprisonment Against Police Officer—Finding Against Evidence—Appeal.—Held, upon appeal in an action against a police officer for false imprisonment, in which the findings and judgment were for the plaintiff upon trial by the court, that there is no evidence in the record to sustain the finding that the plaintiff was in fact unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the defendant, but that the uneontradieted evidence shows, on the contrary, that all that the police officer dicl was in the lawful exercise of the authority conferred upon him as such officer.
Id.—Authority of Police Officer—Suspicious Circumstances—Inquiry as to Identity—Refusal of Plaintiff to Answer—Search for Weapons.—When, the plaintiff was found by the police officer at a late hour of the night in a vicinity where he had been specially ordered to search for a suspicious character, and where previous crimes had been committed, he had authority to inquire as to his identity and business, and it was the duty of the defendant to answer him, knowing him to be a police officer in uniform, and when he refused to answer, the officer properly proposed to take him to the police station, if he persisted in such refusal, and had the right to search him for any concealed weapons.
Id.—Waiver by Plaintiff of Formal Arrest.—The plaintiff waived a formal arrest by the police officer, by his voluntary action in urging the officer to come along with him and go to the police station, at which he arrived in company with the officer.
Id.—Report by Officer to Sergeant—End of Duty—Irresponsibility for Order of Sergeant for «Imprisonment.—The duty of the police officer was at an end when he reported to the police sergeant where the plaintiff was found, and his refusal to answer.. He could not be held responsible for the action of the sergeant in taking plaintiff into custody, and ordering him imprisoned until further investigation should be made. The sergeant was alone responsible for such imprisonment.
ALLEN, P. J.
Action for false imprisonment. Trial by the court without a jury. Findings and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals therefrom, and from an order denying a new trial.
The primary question for determination upon this appeal is whether or not there is any evidence in the record to support the finding that plaintiff was in fact unlawfully restrained of his liberty by defendant. The uncontradicted evi
[15]
dence is, that shortly before September 24, 1906, both a burglary and a highway robbery had been committed in the vicinity of Figueroa street and Sunset boulevard, in the city of Los Angeles; that on that date, about 11 o’clock P. M., defendant, a regular police officer, was notified that a suspicious character was in that vicinity, and was directed to repair to that point and investigate, which he did, and there found plaintiff, who was quietly walking along the street on his way home from a public entertainment. Defendant, who was in uniform and known by the plaintiff to be an officer, accosted plaintiff with an inquiry as to where he was going and where he lived, which questions plaintiff answered, and, in addition, questioned the right of the officer to make such inquiry. The officer then asked him: “Why are you hanging around here? What is your business anyway?” The plaintiff replied: “I don’t know if you got a right to question me that way for walking on the street—for walking home.” The officer replied: “If you don’t want to answer I will take you down to the station.” The plaintiff then said: “All right; just go down there; I like to find out down there if you got a right to talk to me this way.” The officer again asked him: “Don’t you want to answer me any more?” Plaintiff said: “No; let’s go down to the station”; and thereupon plaintiff and defendant walked to the police' station. On the way down defendant searched plaintiff to see if he had any concealed weapons on his person. The conversation heretofore given is that narrated by plaintiff. Defendant, however, testified, and it is not denied, that the officer asked plaintiff to give his name, which he refused to do, and plaintiff, when asked by the court to state why he did not tell the officer who he was, evaded the question; and, further, that defendant offered to walk with plaintiff to the place given as his residence, which offer he declined, saying that he could go home alone. Upon the arrival at the station defendant said to the sergeant in charge of the station: “Here is a man I took on Sunset boulevard. He refuses to answer me.” The sergeant thereupon took plaintiff’s name and searched his person; took from him his money and personal property and confined him in jail with other prisoners until the following morning, when he was released. The sergeant refused plaintiff’» request
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)