The two women mistaken for Christopher Dorner during the manhunt for the former LAPD Officer have tentatively settled their lawsuit with the City of Los Angeles for a total of $4.2 million. According to NBC News, the LA City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, confirmed that the settlement has been reached, subject to approval by the City Council on May 21st.

In a federal court trial taking place this week, a jury has been listening to a hotly contested civil rights/wrongful death claim arising from the shooting of 35-year-old Douglas Zerby. According to the report in the Long Beach Press Telegram, Derby was shot while in his backyard in 2010 while holding a "pistol-grip" hose nozzle. Zerby's family claims he was shot by Long Beach police officers without any warning and likely when his hands were raised.

As the extensive, high-profile search for shooting suspect Christopher Dorner was in full swing, two women delivering newspapers were shot by members of the Los Angeles Police Department. KTLA news has report that the victims, Emma Hernandez, 71, and her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47, were somehow mistakenly identified as Dorner before their pickup truck was riddled with gunfire. The incident happened at about 5:30 a.m. on Thursday in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue in Torrance. Hernandez w

A 20-year-old skateboarder who was arrested by members of the Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday afternoon is making a claim of excessive force.  According to the KTLA news story, Ron Weekley, Jr., was stopped by police because he was riding his skateboard on the wrong side of the street.  The stop ultimately turned into a violent arrest, and Weekly ended up suffering a broken nose, broken cheekbone and concussion.  A spokesperson for LAPD has indicated Weekly violently resisted arrest, a charge now being brought against him.  Interestingly, there is a cell phone video which clearly shows one officer punching Weekly in the face while he is being held on the ground by a total of four officers.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

How does the stop and detention of a skateboarder for riding against the flow of traffic end up in such a violent arrest?  While it is entirely possible for a suspect to resist so violently that broken facial bones could be warranted, it seems hard to imagine this could occur when the officers outnumber the suspect four to one.  A police officer making an arrest for a nonviolent crime is entitled to use a reasonable amount of nondeadly force to effect the arrest.  What is reasonable is obviously subject to interpretation, but it doesn't likely include punching a suspect prone on the ground in the face with a clinched fist, as can be seen in the video.  Where the amount of force employed exceeds the bounds of reason, the police officers and their department may have crossed the line and deprived the subject of their civil rights as guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions.

Compensation for the victims of civil rights violations by the police should be an important concern for all Californians.  When someone who has been taken into custody is deprived of their civil rights and unnecessarily injured by the police, the governmental entity should be held accountable for all of the injuries and damages sustained.   An Orange County trial attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.   He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a civil rights violation?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

A 23-year-old UC San Diego student has filed a 20 million dollar claim after he was taken into custody by the DEA and left in a cell unattended for five days.   According to KTLA news, the student, Daniel Chong, had been taken into custody in connection with a raid intended to snare those involved in an Ecstasy distribution operation.  Chong was thereafter forgotten in a County detention center for five days where he reportedly had to drink his own urine to survive.  After his discovery and as a result of his ordeal, Chong spent five days in the hospital, including three in the intensive care unit.

See the KTLA news story HERE.

Regardless of whether Chong was involved in the Ecstasy distribution operation, the failure of law enforcement to treat him humanely while in custody may expose the involved public entities to significant civil liability.  While the facts of how and why this happened are far from clear, it would seem the County of San Diego may share some responsibility for their apparent neglect in allowing a "prisoner" to remain in a cell with no food, water or toilet for a period of five days.  At a minimum, assuming this is an allegation that is proven by Chong later, the County would be liable for the neglect of their employees in allowing this to happen.  Additionally, such conduct under "color of law" might subject the County to liability for the deprivation of Chong's civil rights.  He has not been convicted of any crime, and the reported mistreatment would seem to rise to the level of "cruel and unusual" punishment, prohibited by the Federal Constitution.  All of this is to say nothing of the potential liability of the DEA for leaving someone they took into custody in this situation.

Compensation for the victims of civil rights violations by the police should be an important concern for all Californians. When someone who has been taken into custody is unnecessarily injured or killed by the police, the governmental entity should be held accountable for all of the injuries and damages sustained.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a civil rights violation?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

Last week, 19-year-old Abdul Arian was shot and killed by members of the Los Angeles Police Department following a high speed pursuit on the 101 freeway in Woodland Hills.  Prior to the shooting, Arian had called 9-1-1 to report that he had a gun and was going to use it against the police.  Reportedly, he also indicated during his conversation with the 9-1-1 dispatcher that he had a history of being in possession of explosive devices and was not afraid to use them.  From all indications, Abdul seemed set on committing "suicide by cop".  When he exited his vehicle on the freeway and pointed an object in his hands (apparently a cell phone) at police, he was brought down in a hail of gunfire by LAPD officers, who fired perhaps as many as 90 to 120 rounds.  Abdul's family has since brought a suit or claim against the City of Los Angeles, seeking 120 million dollars in damages.

See the latest report concerning the Arian shooting from KTLA news.

Assuming the Arian family pursues their civil claim all the way to trial, then a jury will be called upon to determine whether the LAPD officers acted reasonably under the circumstances.  As for the law applicable to cases like this, there are a few things that should be kept in mind.  First, Arian clearly violated the law for his evasion of the police and failure to obey their lawful commands at the scene of the shooting.  Some force could reasonably be used to effect Arian's arrest.  California statutory law obligates every person to "refrain from using force or any weapon to resist" a police officer's arrest.  However, the critical issue in the Arian shooting will be a determination of whether the LAPD officers "had probable cause to believe that [Arian] posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."  In this case, Arian pointed what is now believed to have been a cell phone at the police.  From the video of the shooting, it can be seen that Arian was running away from police and had not fired a single shot since he possessed no weapon.  One has to question whether deadly force was necessary since the suspect was running from police and, to the point of the shooting, had injured no one.  Perhaps less lethal force (a canine or taser) could have been employed.

Compensation for the victims of excessive force by the police should be an important concern for all Californians.  When someone being taken into custody is unnecessarily injured or killed by the police, the police department should be held accountable for all of the injuries and damages sustained.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of excessive police force?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

Over the weekend, Disneyland's California Adventure theme park was the site of a violent incident involving an apparently intoxicated patron and a member of Disney security.  The incident, captured on tape and available on You Tube, shows an apparently intoxicated guest (identified by KTLA news as 53-year-old Glenn Horlacher) swinging at a Disney security host and then refusing commands to get on the ground.  After being wrestled to the ground and pepper sprayed a number of times, Horlacher still refuses to comply and is eventually taken to the ground by security and other patrons at the park.  According to the news report, at least one Disney employee was transported to the hospital and treated for minor injuries.  Horlacher was reportedly cited and released.

See the KTLA news story and photograph HERE. 

The videotape on You Tube shows only part of the incident, but there is no doubt Horlacher should have been arrested for assault and battery when he took his first swing at the Disney security host.  After charging the Disney employee a second time and then swinging wildly while on the ground, additional crimes of assault and battery were committed.  All of this misconduct justified an arrest that should have been effectuated by Disney security.  What is perhaps more shocking than Horlacher's actions is the miserable job Disney security did handling the situation.  While some might argue the security staff was patient and did not overreact, their inaction and failure to effectively control Horlacher prolonged the incident, heightened the risk of injury to guests and park employees and ultimately led to the negative attention now being paid to the incident.  The security staff at Disney should have immediately arrested Horlacher for assault and battery and placed him in handcuffs, before quickly removing him from the public's view.  It was nothing short of negligent to handle the situation in the manner shown in the video, and fortuitous that other patrons were not injured.  At one point in the video, near the end, Horlacher is on the ground being restrained by patrons at the park and not one Disney employee.  In this context, with security and other employees already on the scene, that should never have happened.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When security employees are negligent or commit intentional acts of misconduct, their employer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County security misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of  negligent or intentional misconduct by private security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

 

A 43-year-old man died on Sunday night following an altercation with police in which the man was shocked with a taser.  The subject, Hutalio Serrano, had been contacted by Colton police after a 9-1-1 called was placed, reporting a family disturbance.   According to a report by KTLA news, Serrano apparently refused to obey the officers' commands and became combative, resisting their efforts to calm him down.  During the altercation, an officer deployed his taser at least once on Serrrano without success.  It reportedly took three officers to subdue and handcuff Serrano who continued to resist even after he was restrained.  According to the news report, Serrano suffered some sort of medical emergency after being arrested and had to be transported to Loma Linda university Medical Center where he was pronounced dead a short time later.

See the KTLA news story and photographs HERE.

When an incident like the one occurs, the question of whether the amount of force used by the police was reasonable comes quickly to mind.  With a family disturbance call, officers are often thrust into violent situations.  however, the use of force used by police officers to overcome any violence directed at them must be reasonable.  'The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.  From the description of the incident above, we simply do not know how much force was reasonable and whether deployment of a taser (perhaps multiple times) was warranted.  Beyond that,  where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation, he may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force.  In other words, an officer may be liable for using deadly force if his own actions provoked (violence or an escalation in the violence) from the party being apprehended or arrested.

Compensation for the victims of excessive force by the police should be an important concern for all Californians. When someone being taken into custody is unnecessarily injured or killed by the police, the police department should be held accountable for all of the injuries and damages sustained. An Orange County civil rights attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of police brutality?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

 KTLA news has reported that a mentally ill woman in Bellflower was struck in the face with a fist or elbow by a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff.  According to the news report, and related video footage, the woman,  42-year-old Julie Nelson, was allegedly causing a disturbance aboard a bus on Monday when the incident occurred.  While Nelson's version differs from that of the Sheriff's Department, the video clearly shows Nelson had her hands down (held by the deputy) at the time she is hit in the face by the deputy.  The incident is being investigated by the Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Lee Baca has been quoted as calling the video "disturbing."  Nelson reportedly has a history of mental illness and violent behavior in the past.

See the KTLA news story and cell phone video HERE.

Analyzing a case like the one above to determine whether the amount of force used was reasonable is often very difficult, even when a video of the incident exists.  A police officer attempting to make an arrest is justified in using as much force as appears reasonably necessary to enable them in safety to themselves to compel submission to the process of the law.  With regard to the suspect's legal obligations, the law in California is clear: "If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest."  (California Penal Code § 834a)  In the videotape of the arrest above, it appears the officer has Nelson's hands pinned at her sides in the moments before the blow is struck.   It is not clear, however, what had transpired before the cell phone camera was activated and if Nelson had physically (at least to that point) resisted arrest.  Assuming that she had, the law still does not permit a police officer to strike a blow to a suspect's face if the threat or resistance has passed.   It will be interesting to see just what will come of Nelson's claim of excessive force.

Compensation for the victims of excessive force by the police should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a member of the public is subjected to police brutality, the police department should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim or the victim's family. An Orange County police misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type. He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of excessive police force?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

According to an ABC news report, a Safeway security guard was fired after interrogating a 4-year-old girl for alleged shoplifting after he saw her eat from a bag of apricots and put the bag back on the shelf.  The little girl’s father apparently hadn’t noticed what his daughter had done and was quite surprised when he and his daughter were stopped by security after leaving the Safeway in Everett, Washington.  After the initial stop, the guard then interrogated Savannah Harp about the alleged theft.  The girl’s mother, Alissa Jones, reported that the guard told Harp’s father that the girl was banned from the store and that Safeway would be pressing charges.  Savannah, who can’t read or write yet, was forced to scribble on the piece of paper, presumably an acknowledgement of her wrongdoing.  Generally, anyone under the age of 14 is presumed incapable of committing a crime because they cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. 
Safeway officials were apparently outraged over the guard’s treatment of the little girl and issued a formal apology to her family. 

See the ABC news story HERE. 

Had the incident above occurred here in California, there is little doubt Safeway and/or their guard would be held liable for false imprisonment and a whole host of other torts.  Even though California law provides a retailer and their agent (the security guard) with a probable cause defense in situations similar to this, it would appear to have little to application to the facts here.  In order for the privilege to apply (and a defense to a civil claim to follow), the store security guard must have "probable cause" to believe the person to be detained has "unlawfully" taken or has attempted to unlawfully take merchandise from the store's premises.  Observation of a 4 year-old girl eating from a bag of apricots would hardly seem to meet that standard since the guard would have to reasonably believe the 4 year-old intended to steal or unlawfully deprive the store of their property, the apricots.  Since the so-called "merchant's privilege" would appear to have no application, the merchant and their agent would likely be civilly liable for any emotional injuries and economic damages sustained.  Since Safeway seems to have at least taken the right approach after the incident came to light, they may have spared themselves from the potential for a punitive damages award.

Compensation for the victims of store security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is apprehended and then detained by security, without adequate cause, the retailer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County false arrest lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrrest or detention by store security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

 

Last Wednesday, a 28 year-old, pregnant mother, Nicole Leszczynski, and her husband, Marcin, were arrested at a Safeway store in Honolulu for shoplifting when they forgot to pay for two sandwiches they ate while shopping.  To make matters even worse, because their 2 year-old daughter was with the couple when the incident occurred, she was taken away from her family and into state custody.  The Leszcynski family had only recently moved to Hawaii from California when the now nationally publicized incident occurred.  Nicole and Marcin were handcuffed, taken to the police station and released only after paying their bail and being held for several hours.

See the AP/Yahoo News story HERE.

In California, and in Hawaii, the crime of theft or shoplifting requires that the actor intend to permanently deprive the owner of their property.  In the case above, assuming that the Leszczynskis intended to pay for the sandwiches but simply forgot the wrappers in the cart at the check-out line, there was no crime.  In that scenario, their intent was not to deprive Safeway of their property.  Their actions in eating the sandwiches openly while shopping would seem to suggest they were not intending to conceal a crime.  Instead, their condcut would be consistent with an honest mistake, a lapse of memory.  Under the law, generally there must be a nexus between the act required to commit a crime and the intent to do so.

While it would appear there may not have been a crime committed, the store security involved in the Leszczynskis' apprehension was likely entitled under the law to detain the couple.  However, under the law in Hawaii, just like California, the store owner or their agent is only permitted to detain someone for a reasonable length of time to conduct an investigation, the so-called "merchant's privilege.".  Once it is determined no crime has been committed, however, the person or persons detained should not be formally arrested and charged with a crime.  In California, if the store agent goes beyond the limits of the merchant's privilege and prosecutes a patron unlawfully, the store can be held liable for false arrest and perhaps a host of other civil wrongs.

Compensation for the victims of store security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is apprehended and then arrested by security, without adequate cause, the retailer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County false arrest attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrrest or detention by store security?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case. 

 

Yesterday, the Orange County District Attorney's office announced that two of the Fullerton police officers involved in the Kelly Thomas beating were being charged with, among other crimes, involuntary manslaughter.  Officer Manuel Ramos was charged with second degree murder and with involuntary manslaughter and Officer Jay Cicinelli was charged with involuntary manslaughter and battery by a police officer. 

See the Los Angeles Times story HERE.

As for the crime of involuntary manslughter, it seems somewhat puzzling at first blush why that charge would be leveled against the officers.  However, under California law involuntary manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a person without malice "in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection." (California Penal Code, § 192, subd. (b).).  According to case law, the definition of the crime can be otherwise stated this way:  if a misdemeanor such as simple assault, battery or unlawful discharge of a firearm results in death, the homicide may be involuntary  manslaughter.  Similarly, if someone lawfully acts in self-defense but uses excessive force, the homicide may be involuntary manslaughter. By definition, involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing.

To support a theory that someone used excessive force while acting in self-defense, there must be evidence from which a jury could find the nature of the attack did not justify the resort to deadly force in self-defense or that the force used in self-defense exceeded that which was reasonably necessary to repel the attack.  Deadly force is justified only to repel an attack which is itself deadly or likely to result in great injury. .

In the Thomas case, there appears to have been reason for the Fullerton Police to contact Thomas in order to investigate a report that he or someone looking like him was burglarizing cars.  Assuming that Thomas resisted the efforts of the police to investigate (and there is at least some indication he ran from them), then they were entitled to use a reasonable amount of non-deadly force to detain and/or arrest him.  However, the conduct of Ramos and Cicinelli as described by the District Attorney's office would seem to go well beyond what was reasonable or justified in these circumstances, perhaps fitting the definition of involuntary manslaughter. 

The reasoning behind the other two charges of second degree murder and battery by a police officer in the performance of his duty seem obvious.  If this was a murder, it is unlikely it was committed with premeditation and deliberation, the requirements of first degree murder.  Under California, law any murder not meeting the technical definition of first degree murder is considered murder in the second.  Assuming that Cicinelli went beyond the force reasonably necessary to effect the detention/arrest of Thomas, then the force he used would be unlawful and considered a battery. 

Compensation for the victims of excessive force by the police should be an important concern for all Californians. When a member of the public is subjected to police brutality, the police department should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim or the victim's family. An Orange County civil rights attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of police brutality?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Finally, the Orange County Coroner's Office has completed its report on the death of Kelly Thomas, the mentally ill homeless man who died after a violent confrontation with officers from the Fullerton Police Department.  According to a KTLA news story, the findings of the Coroner have been turned over to the Orange County District Attorney's Office for consideration.  Reportedly, a news conference is scheduled for tomorrow during which District Attorney Tony Rackauckas is expected to discuss what, if any, charges will be filed against the officers involved in the controversial arrest.  

See the full KTLA news story HERE.

Medical records previously released show Thomas was originally taken from the scene of the incident to St. Jude Hospital in Fullerton.  However, because his heart stopped, and he required a higher level of care for that and other reasons, he was emergently transported to UCI Medical Center.  By the time he arrived there, Thomas' pulse rate was very high, and his blood pressure dangerously low.  He was exhibiting seizure activity, and one pupil was unreactive.  For all intents and purposes, he was severely brain injured and the likelihood of any meaningful recovery was grim.  The assessment of the emergency room physician was that Thomas had suffered blunt trauma, facial fractures, prolonged oxygen deprivation, facial lacerations, and shock, among other things.  Also of note was the presence of a taser dart in the left chest area, suggesting a taser had been deployed by one of the Fullerton officers in violation of industry recommended guidelines.  From the records released to date, it seems likely the Coroner's Office will conclude the cause of Thomas's death was homicide.

The extent of the beating Thomas received at the hands of the Fullerton Police is almost impossible to understand.  With reports that at least six officers were present during the arrest, one has to wonder why so much trauma to the face and head would be necessary to control this rather diminutive man.  The purpose of an arrest is to secure a subject's presence in court before a judge, not to punish.  Police officers are generally taught to use the least amount of force reasonably necessary to control a subject and take him into custody.  In the Thomas case, he was reportedly being taken into custody for auto burglary, a property, nonviolent crime.  The amount of force used on Thomas, as evidenced by the injuries documented in his medical records, would seem well beyond justification.  Ideally, the Thomas family will see justice in both the civil and criminal courts.

Compensation for the victims of police misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians. When someone is beaten excessively by the police, the police department should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim or the victim's family. An Orange County police misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of an unlawful arrest or excessive use force at the hands of the police?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

As has been reported by a number of media outlets, the beating of Kelly Thomas by officers with the Fullerton Police Department has garnered national attention because of allegations of excessive force.  Five days after the altercation with police officers, Thomas, a 37 year-old homeless man with a history of mental illness, reportedly died from injuries he sustained at the hands of as many as six Fullerton Police officers.  Currently, multiple investigations are under way and witnesses to the incident on July 5th are being sought. 

See the Los Angeles Times article HERE.

Since the videotape of the incident emerged, serious questions have been raised concerning the use of force by Fullerton officers to subdue Thomas, who was apparently unarmed.  Court records indicate Thomas was 5'10" tall and possibly weighed less than 150 pounds at the time of the incident.  In the videotape, witnesses to the beating appear disgusted with the repeated use of a taser to subdue Thomas and the overall use of force on a man who was already on the ground.  Unfortunately, the quality of the video is fairly poor, and the incident appears to have been captured only after a considerable amount of interaction between the police and Thomas had taken place.  However, it remains to be seen what other videos (perhaps one from a dash mounted camera) will surface.  In addition to the video already released, a horrific picture of Thomas' face taken after the incident is circulating, and it would seem the Fullerton Police Department may have a hard time explaining the extent of the injuries sustained. 

Under the law, a police officer may only use a reasonable amount of non-deadly force to effect the arrest of someone suspected of a nonviolent crime.  The determination of reasonableness of the officer's actions must be considered in light of “the totality of the circumstances at the time,” including “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the [person arrested] posed a reasonable threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether the [arrestee] was actively resisting detention or attempting to escape."  In addition to this, and in the context of a civil rights claim, the initial step in the analysis here must include whether the Fullerton Police officers had "reasonable suspicion" to believe criminal activity was afoot and that Thomas was involved in that activity.  If the initial contact and detention by the police was unlawful, then Thomas may have been deprived of his civil rights in this regard and what followed may have been illegal as well.

Compensation for the victims of police misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians. When an innocent patron is unlawfully detained and/or beaten by the police, without adequate cause, the public entity should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim or the victim's family. An Orange County false arrest attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type. He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrest or use of excessive force at the hands of the police?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

KTLA news has reported the family of Bryan Stow has filed a lawsuit against the Dodgers organization earlier this week.  The lawsuit alleges that security cutbacks and antiquated facilities at Dodger Stadium contributed to the severity of the injuries Bryan Stow sustained in the attack.  The complaint filed with the court sets forth claims for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Since the attack on Stow on March 31st, security has been tightened at Dodger Stadium, and LAPD stepped up its presence at the game, with officers on foot, horseback, bikes and Segways.

See the KTLA news story HERE.

In the civil case filed o n behalf of Bryan Stow, it must be shown by the plaintiff that the Dodgers organization was negligent, not just that the incident took place on Dodger Stadium property.  Evidence relevant to the negligence claim would likely include the history of violent criminal acts on the property, the training and qualifications of the security staff and the security policies and procedures implemented by the Dodgers.  In general, business proprietors (such as the Dodgers) owe a duty to their patrons to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty includes an obligation to undertake reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.  Additionally, even if you assume the amount of security provided to be adequate in a particular situation, then the question becomes whether the security employees acted reasonably under the circumstances.  In the Stow case, the discovery conducted by the parties (the process through which the parties to a lawsuit formally exchange information and evidence) will enable both sides to determine whether the claims are meritorious and if the case should be resolved without the need for a jury trial.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a business establishment?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

KTLA news is reporting today that the Dodgers are looking for ways to improve fan safety in the wake of the Brian Stow beating on opening day.  For example, half-price beer will no longer be sold during baseball games at Dodgers Stadium, presumably in an effort to reduce the number of intoxicated and unruly fans at the park.  Dodgers owner Frank McCourt also agreed to create a computer mapping and crime tracking system for the stadium similar to the one the LAPD uses to monitor crime patterns and hotspots throughout Los Angeles.  LAPD Chief Charlie Beck promised to dramatically increase police presence at games as well.

See the full KTLA story HERE.

Dodger Stadium has long had a reputation for having inadequate and/or heavy-handed security.  A number of videotapes on You Tube depict Dodger Security Department employees using what appears to be excessive or unnecessary force.  Currently, Mr. Ralph's office is representing a Dodger Stadium patron who was thrown violently to the ground and handcuffed after he allegedly "pushed" a member of the security staff.  The patron denies making any physical contact with the security employee, and, even though the Los Angeles Police Department was called to the scene, the patron was not taken into police custody nor was he ever charged with any crime.  Interestingly, the paperwork completed by the security staff banishing the patron from the park indicates he was told to leave the park for using profanity, not assaulting a security employee.  The civil lawsuit against Dodger Stadium is currently set for trial in April of 2012.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is assaulted and/or arrested by private security, the business owner should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County security misconduct attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrest by security?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

In a recent case, a patron (who was a frequent shopper at an upscale retailer), traveled to the Beverly Hills store on  in order to return a sweater.  He entered the store just before 3:00 p.m. with a store bag containing the sweater.  He looked around a bit for something that he may possibly want to exchange for the sweater.  While walking around the store, the customer noticed two people who he believed were watching him.  He didn’t think too much of it before selecting a pair of pants and walking into the dressing room area.   The pants the client tried on were a high fashion “skinny fit” pair of jeans, but he could barely get them over his upper leg.  He took them off, left them in the changing room and went back and gave the sweater to the saleswoman to begin his exchange. 

As the saleswoman began the exchange, Mr. Ralph's client saw a jacket and went over to it and tried it on.  He ultimately decided against the jacket so he returned to the customer service counter and completed his exchange.  The client then exited the store.

As the innocent customer stepped out of the store he was approached by the two loss prevention agents he had seen earlier.  They said they wanted to ask him some questions, and they brought him back inside to a room where they accused him of trying to steal the pants.  The loss prevention agents and a store manager made several attempts to coerce the client into signing a piece of paper admitting guilt.  When the client refused, the accusations continued and a report for the police was apparently prepared.  During this time, it was becoming more and more apparent the client was being detained for damaging the pants, as opposed to attempting to steal them.

It is important to note that this customer did not have any ink on him and the loss prevention agents refused to show him the pants.  He also possessed several hundred dollars in cash as well as credit cards in his wallet.  After several hours, the police were summoned, and the client was taken into custody.  The store's agents insisted on arresting the  client for vandalism, and he was taken out of the store in handcuffs.

At the police station, this wholly innocent shopper was fingerprinted and put in a holding cell and then a single cell.  After posting the $1,000.00 bond and having his background checked for prior convictions and/or warrants (of which there were none), the client was released sometime between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

 THE MERCHANT'S PRIVILEGE

In general, merchants are protected from civil liability for false imprisonment by a common law privilege that permits the merchant to detain for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for investigation any person whom the merchant had probable cause to believe had unlawfully taken or attempted to take merchandise from the premises. (See Collyer v. S.H. Kress Co. (1936) 5 Cal.2d 175; People v. Zelinski (1979) 155 Cal. Rptr. 575, 594 P.2d 1000)   The “merchant's privilege” has been codified as subdivision (f) of California Penal Code section 490.5.  In this case, however, there was no cause whatsoever to believe the client had stolen or attempted to steal anything.  The arrest for vandalism was a thinly veiled attempt to cover the unlawful detention for shoplifting.  The ruse did not work as the criminal charges were dropped, and Mr. Ralph successfully pursued the retailer for unlawful arrest.  The matter was settled for a confidential sum.

Compensation for the victims of store security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When an innocent patron is apprehended and then arrested by security, without adequate cause, the retailer should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County false arrest attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has nearly 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you been a victim of an unlawful arrrest by store security?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.  

In California, a retailer may hire employees to detect, apprehend and arrest suspected shoplifters.  Traditionally, retailers hire "officers" to wear uniforms in order to deter crime and assist in the apprehension and arrest of suspected thieves.  Security "agents" (sometimes referred to as "asset protection agents" or "loss prevention agents") are generally employed to work undercover on the sales floor to detect and apprehend suspected shoplifters.  A statute enacted many years ago (California Penal Code § 490.5) permits the retailer and their agents to stop and detain suspected shoplifters whenever there is probable cause to believe the person stopped has attempted to take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the store's premises.  This same statute protects the retailer and their agents from civil liability so long as they have acted with probable cause, and the detention was in all other respects reasonable.  This code section is commonly referred to as the "merchant's privilege."

However, it is not terribly uncommon for an overly zealous shoplift agent to apprehend someone without adequate cause or use more than that force necessary to effect the detention.  The law only permits the agent/security officer to use a reasonable amount of non-deadly force to apprehend and detain suspected law breakers.  Once the amount of force crosses this line or the detention is longer than is reasonably necessary, the store and its employees may be held liable for damages.

The damages that can be recovered are often determined by the actions of the store employees.  For example, where physical restraints are used (such as handcuffs) or there is a physical altercation of some sort, the amount of damages awarded is likely increased.  Additionally, if the retailer elects to criminally prosecute the suspected shoplifter (who is in reality innocent), the merchant's privilege does not apply beyond the detention, and damages may be awarded for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution.

Beyond the damages already mentioned, the victim of security misconduct may be able to pursue a claim for a violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 and/or §43, which reads in part as follows:

....every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.

There are a host of civil claims that may be brought to vindicate the rights of those falsely detained or arrested by store security agents and officers.  The laws in California operate to protect the store owners to an extent, but also to ensure the innocent are fairly compensated when their rights have been trampled.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a security officer or agent acts outside the bounds of the law, they and their employer should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Does the California law protecting retailers and their agents, at least in a limited fashion,  seem fair?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

According to a KTLA news story, two women have been charged after a video showing their brutal attack on a teenage girl at a Baltimore-area McDonald's restaurant surfaced on the internet last Friday.  Citing the Baltimore Sun, KTLA reported police have charged a 14-year-old girl as a juvenile, and charges are pending for her 18-year-old accomplice.  The attack reportedly occurred on April 18th at the 6300 Kenwood McDonald’s location in Baltimore.  The Sun is also reporting that State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger says the assault may be classified as a hate crime because the attackers were both black, and the victim white. See the KTLA news story and video HERE. In the video, employees of McDonald's are seen half-heartedly intervening during the beating that appears to go on and on.  The attack does not stop until after an elderly woman attempts to stop the assault the victim goes into convulsions.