Facts

In November 2002, defendants Michael Rowe and Johnny Hobson, police officers for the city of Suisun, arrived at the home of plaintiff Kyle Valpando. They were responding to a domestic violence call. The defendants opined that when they showed up at the residence, a woman told them in broken English that the plaintiff was beating her. The defendants thought the woman was the plaintiff's wife. They handcuffed the plaintiff and placed him in the police car. In actuality, the woman was the plaintiff's niece. Before the defendants left, the plaintiff's wife informed them that the plaintiff was beating both of them.

While in the back seat of the car, the plaintiff kicked and used profanity. When the defendants opened the door, the plaintiff kicked one of them and fled from the car. The defendants ran after him and used their tasers to restrain him. While these events took place, the plaintiff's wife continued to make allegations that the plaintiff was beating her. The plaintiff was arrested and taken into custody.

The plaintiff sued the defendants and others, alleging battery, false imprisonment, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendants used undue force, were negligent, and falsely imprisoned the plaintiff. State law prohibits an officer from making a warrantless arrest when he has not actually seen the attack, unless it is the spouse alleging domestic violence. Here, defendants' conduct was based on claims of abuse inflicted upon plaintiff's niece. Thus, the plaintiff was detained in violation of the law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended there was only a 20 minute gap from the time the defendants were told of the allegation of abuse from the niece and when they heard the allegation from the plaintiff's wife. The defendants also had difficulty understanding the niece and both believed her to be the plaintiff's wife. Further, the amount of force used was appropriate, as they were restraining a violent person who attempted to escape.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed that the events of that day caused scarring on his back. Further, as a result of the tasering, he suffered from recurring headaches and cognitive defects. He also claimed that the incident led to emotional distress which rendered him unable to work.

Result

The claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress were dismissed. The jury determined that the defendants did not falsely imprison or batter the plaintiff.

Poll

12-0 (battery), 11-1 (false imprisonment)

Length

five days