False Imprisonment Action Against Counties To Proceed.

The allegations are that a man was stopped by police for driving while talking on a cellphone. He handed over his driver’s license, which showed his name as Freddy Pantoja Rodriguez, his registration, and his proof of insurance. After the two officers held a discussion, appellant was told to step out of his car, and one of the officers said, “We got you now RAMOS.” Appellant replied that his name was Rodriguez, not Ramos. One of the officers slammed him against a wall and asked if he had any weapons or tattoos, to which he replied “no.” The officer then looked under his shirt, and placed him in the patrol car. It turns out that more than 20 years earlier, a no-bail bench warrant was issued by the Superior Court for the arrest of another man for a parole violation. The bench warrant stated the name as “RODRIGUEZ Alfredo Ramos.” In jail, he was placed in a gang cell and feared for his life. After spending 11 days in jail, it was adjudicated that he was not the person named in the bench warrant. The man brought an action for false imprisonment against two counties, the one where he was arrested and the one where he was held. His case was dismissed after the trial court determined the defendants were immune from liability, following Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, [87 P.3d 1; 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 692], [sheriffs act on behalf of the state when performing law enforcement activities].  The appellate court reversed, following Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 12 Cal.3d 710, [527 P.2d 865; 117 Cal.Rptr. 241], instead of Venegas [a county can be held vicariously liable for false imprisonment by county employees]. Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 2; July 2, 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 806, [158 Cal.Rptr.3d 866].