CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM
April 29, 2003
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs
From: Martin J. Mayer & Dean J. Pucci
TETER V. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
On April 28, 2003 the California Supreme Court decided a city can claim immunity for jail injuries sustained by an arrestee who was released without charges. Martin J. Mayer and Michael R. Capizzi filed an amicus brief on behalf of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Police Chiefs Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association.
The plaintiff (Teter) was arrested and booked into the city jail for public intoxication. No detoxification facility was available and the city had a policy of releasing persons arrested (without charges) for public intoxication provided they met certain eligibility criterion. The morning following the plaintiffs arrest, but prior to his release, another prisoner was placed in the cell where the Plaintiff was sleeping. Plaintiff was subsequently beaten severely by the cell-mate. Plaintiff sued the city for negligence and the city defended citing Government Code section 844.6(a)(2) (injuries to a prisoner) and 820.2 (discretionary act immunity).
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and an appellate court affirmed the judgement entered by the trial court. The California Supreme Court focused exclusively on the applicability of Cal. Gov’t Code section 844.6(a)(2) which provides generally: a public entity is not liable for [a]n injury to any prisoner. Plaintiff had argued that he was not a prisoner but rather in civil protective custody pursuant to Penal Code 647(g). The appellate court agreed with plaintiff’s argument. The Supreme Court, however, found that no civil detoxification facility was available, plaintiff had been lawfully arrested and booked into the jail facility and thus was a ‘prisoner’ as defined by Government Code section 844 when he was injured.
Both Plaintiff and the appellate court relied principally on Meyer v. City of Oakland, (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 770. The Supreme Court distinguished Meyer by finding that “unlike the City of Newport Beach, the City of Oakland had a civil detoxification facility. The supervising officer of the Oakland City jail knew that Mr. Meyer was being held in civil protective custody pursuant to section 647. . . .” Furthermore the Supreme Court rejected “the underlying premise of the Meyeropinion- that a 647(f) arrestee being held in jail pending transfer to a civil detoxification facility is not a prisoner for the purposes of section 844.6(a)(2).
The Supreme Court specifically refers to CSSA’s involvement and sponsorship of the 1996 amendment to Government Code section 844. “The bill sponsored by the CSSA clarified that a lawfully arrested person who is brought into a law enforcement facility for the purpose of being booked becomes a prisoner, as a matter of law, upon his initial entry into the facility.” This shows, once again, the influence law enforcement can have in major court decisions. That influence is even greater when both management and labor are joined together in support or opposition of a law enforcement issue.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in greater detail, please feel free to call Martin Mayer or Dean Pucci at 714-446-1400 or at mjm@jones-mayer.com or djp@jones-mayer.com.
*********
Vol.18#9 Website