SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - Ending a split among state appellate courts, the California Supreme Court ruled a law protecting police officers against claims of wrongful prosecution doesn’t immunize them against other claims, including one that officers had left the body of a man shot by police in the street with his genitals exposed.
Section 821.6 of California’s Government Claims Act immunizes police against liability for “prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” and some state courts had interpreted it to include activities related to investigating a crime. That stretched the law too far, the Supreme Court said in a June 22 decision affirming its narrower reading of the immunity statute.
“While other provisions of the Government Claims Act may confer immunity for certain investigatory actions, section 821.6 does not broadly immunize police officers or other public employees for any and all harmful actions they may take in the course of investigating crime,” the court ruled.
Dora Leon sued Riverside police after a neighbor shot her husband José in the chest outside her mobile home. As police arrived, somebody started shooting from the mobile home across the street and officers dragged his body behind one of their vehicles, exposing his genitals. It lay there for several hours while officers tried to find the shooter.
Leon sued police for negligent infliction of emotional distressed by failing to promptly cover up José’s body or remove it from the scene. The trial court dismissed the case and the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, citing its reading of Section 821.6, which provides immunity even if officers act “maliciously and without probable cause.”
The decision highlighted a division among California courts, with the Fourth Circuit applying a more liberal interpretation than the Supreme Court. Federal courts, which must apply California law according to their understanding of how the state Supreme Court would rule, also adopted a narrower interpretation. Contemporary records about the legislative debate over the law show it was written to preserve existing common-law immunity for police officers against malicious prosecution claims, the court wrote.
“If a law enforcement officer has initiated an official proceeding, the officer will enjoy immunity for that conduct under section 821.6, regardless of whether the officer’s conduct may include certain acts described as investigatory,” the high court ruled. “Where, however, the plaintiff’s claim of injury does not stem from the initiation or prosecution of proceedings, section 821.6 immunity does not apply.”
Other sections of the Claims Act could still protect the officers from liability, the court concluded. Government must cover the defense costs for police officers, for example, and section 820.4 provides immunity for any “act or omission, exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law.” Nothing in this decision affects those other defenses, the court said.