Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, et al, No. 11-15655 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendants alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff was arrested for trespass under California Penal Code 602.8 because he was standing by himself inside a playground that was surrounded by a fence that had "No Trespassing" signs posted at every entrance. The court rejected defendants' argument that the grounds for custodial arrest specified in California Penal Code 853.6(i) applied not only to misdemeanors but also to infractions. Consistent with precedent, the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity, and other persuasive authority, the court held that California Penal Code 853.5 provided the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's state law false arrest claim and remanded for further proceedings. If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the district court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and proceed to a trial on damages. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining contentions.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment, entered following a jury trial, and remanded in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful search and false arrest. The panel held that California Penal Code § 853.5 provides the exclusive grounds for the custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction. The panel rejected defendants’ argument that California Penal Code § 853.6(i), which provides additional broader grounds for the custodial arrest of a person arrested for a misdemeanor, also applied to the nonrelease of a person arrested for an infraction. The panel therefore vacated the judgment in favor of the defendants on plaintiff’s state law false arrest claim and remanded for further proceedings. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s unlawful search claim. The panel held that plaintiff had not shown that the district court’s error on the false arrest claim tainted the jury’s finding that he was not subjected to a strip search.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.