8/10/2019 Prima Facie, The Law Presumes That the Defendant is Innocent of Crime or Wronge

1/3

Prima facie, the law presumes that the defendant is innocent of crime or wrong.

Going v. Dinwiddie(1890), 86 Cal. 633

...one who interferes with another's liberty does so at his peril.

Knight v. Baker (1926), 117 Ore. 492

When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by

the defendant, "the law presumes it to be unlawful."

People v. McGrew(1888), 77 Cal. 570

Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was

made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.

People v. Holguin(1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520

False imprisonment is treated as a tort, and also as a crime..... If the conduct is unlawful,

neither good faith, nor provocation, nor ignorance of the law is a defense to the person

committing the wrong.

Kroger v. Passmore(1908), 36 Mont. 504, 93 Pac. 805

...traffic stops are technically arrests...

"Investigative Detentions", Spring 2010 POINT OF VIEW, ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEYS OFFICE. P. 1

A traffic arrest occurs when an officer stops a vehicle after seeing the driver commit an

infraction. ...the purpose of the stop is to enforce the law, not conduct an investigation.

Arrests, Spring 2009, POINT OF VIEW, ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, p. 1

Reasonable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the

particular person stopped of criminal activity. Twilley, 222 F.3d at 1095 (quoting United

States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted)).

UNITED STATES of America, v.Maurice Lashaw KING(2001), No. 00-30113, United States

Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Turning to the applicable legal standards for a traffic stop and detention, this court in People v.

Podesto (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 708 [133 Cal.Rptr. 409] recently summarized the frequently

stated rules as follows: [1] "It is well established that circumstances short of probable cause tomake an arrest may warrant a temporary detention for purposes of investigating possible

criminal activity. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 22 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906-907, 88 S.Ct. 1868,

1880].) Before such a detention may be undertaken, however, there must be a rational

suspicion that something out of the ordinary has taken place, that the activity is related to a

crime, and that the person detained is connected to the activity. (Irwin v. Superior Court (1969)

Page 1 of 3

8/10/2019 Prima Facie, The Law Presumes That the Defendant is Innocent of Crime or Wronge

2/3

1 Cal.3d 423, 427 [82 Cal.Rptr. 484, 462 P.2d 12].) The test in determining the validity of a

temporary detention is to inquire whether the circumstances 'are such as to indicate to a

reasonable man in a like position that such a course is necessary to the proper discharge of the

officer's duties, ...' (People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 739, 744 [104 Cal.Rptr. 907].) The

circumstances must be such as to distinguish the activity of the detained person from that of

any other citizen and must be based on an objective perception of events rather than thesubjective feelings of the officers. (See Irwin v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 426; People

v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 683 [72 Cal.Rptr. 800, 446 P.2d 800]; People v. One 1960

Cadillac Coupe (1964) 62 Cal.2d 92, 95-96 [41 Cal.Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706].) Moreover, where

the events are as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity, a detention based

on those events is unlawful. (Irwin v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 427; cf. People v.

Superior Court (Acosta) (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1088 [98 Cal.Rptr. 161]; People v. Higbee

(1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 944, 950 [112 Cal.Rptr. 690].)" (62 Cal.App.3d at pp. 716-717.) And it

must be added that the detaining officers must be able to point to "specific and articulable

facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that

intrusion." (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 21 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880].) A

mere hunch or subjective suspicion will not justify a temporary detention. (People v. Perez

(1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 528, 531 [52 Cal.Rptr. 514]; People v. Hunt (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 311,

314-315 [58 Cal.Rptr. 385].) Unusual activity alone, unless there is some suggestion that it is

related to criminality, is insufficient. (People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 986, 988 [61

Cal.Rptr. 545]; People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 653, 660 [74 Cal.Rptr. 423].) [65

Cal.App.3d 932]

People v. Evans(1977), 65 Cal.App.3d 924

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

1866. When a statute or instrument is equally susceptible of twointerpretations, one in favor of natural right, and the other against it, the former

is to be adopted.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when, acting in his discretionary capacity, he

violates clearly established constitutional or federal law of which a reasonable person would

have known.

Koch v. Rugg, 221 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2000)

Even if the officer is not expected to know the law of all 50 states, surely he is expected to

know the California Vehicle Code,...THE PEOPLE v. JESUS SANTOS SANCHEZ REYES, (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 856

Every officer knows, or should know, that he needs a warrant which correctly identifies the

arrestee, or probable cause, to arrest a particular individual.

Julian C. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jake GREGORY, United States of America,

Page 2 of 3

8/10/2019 Prima Facie, The Law Presumes That the Defendant is Innocent of Crime or Wronge

3/3

Defendants-Appellants, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant (2004), No. 02-57132,

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Heres but a small list of some of our CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED

rights secured by the 4thAmendment and its State counterpart, that are affected or impacted

when a peace or law enforcement officer stops us:

1. Freedom from arbitrary state interference

2. Free Passage

3. Autonomous self-positioning (going where you want)

4. Autonomous other-encountering (interacting with who you want)

5. Privacy

It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use

thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.

Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, (1924)

Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950)

The facts alleged show that Hanson violated Stevens' right not to be arrested in the absence of

probable cause to believe Stevens had committed a crime, and that right was clearly

established and would be known to a reasonable officer in the circumstances.

Keith K. STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott ROSE, Esq.; Kenny Moore; County of Lander,

Defendants, Troy Hanson, Defendant-Appellant(2002) No. 00-15840. US 9thCir.

As is the case of illegal arrests, the officer is bound to know these fundamental rights and

privileges, and must keep within the law at his peril.

Thiede v. Town Of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218. 231 (1944)

...the police officers acted beyond the scope of their constitutional authorityin detaining

Nicholas for questioning.

It is clear that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Nicholas at the time they

stationed themselves on either side of his automobile.

UNITED STATES of America, v. George Willie NICHOLAS, Jr.(1971), 448 F.2d 622, United States

Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breachof any of the duties connected with his

office... The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his

'individual', not his official capacity..."

70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability

Page 3 of 3