Opinion
No. 16375
12-21-1955
Pearl SARAFINI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, Alvin Nicolini, Henry J. Kiernan, William C. Sullivan and Lester Eugene Hance, Defendants and Appellants.*
Dion R. Holm, City Atty. of City and County of San Francisco, Edward F. Dullea, Robert M. Desky, Deputy City Attys., San Francisco, for appellants. Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard & Sibbett, George R. Andersen, Rubin Tepper, San Francisco, for respondent.
Pearl SARAFINI, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, Alvin Nicolini, Henry J. Kiernan, William C. Sullivan and Lester Eugene Hance, Defendants and Appellants.*
Dion R. Holm, City Atty. of City and County of San Francisco, Edward F. Dullea, Robert M. Desky, Deputy City Attys., San Francisco, for appellants.
Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard & Sibbett, George R. Andersen, Rubin Tepper, San Francisco, for respondent.
DOOLING, Justice.
This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco entered in favor of plaintiff following a jury verdict.
The judgment recited that respondent Pearl Sarafini should recover from appellants Henry J. Kiernan, William C. Sullivan, Lester Eugene Hance and Alvin Nicolini (four individual police officers of the City and County of San Francisco) the sum of $3,000. The City and County of San Francisco is not a party to this appeal as the court sustained a demurrer to the complaint as to it without leave to amend.
The complaint alleged that on or about February 24, 1950, at or about the hour of 11 p. m. the appellants, without any just or legal excuse or reason therefor, and without being in possession of any legal process of any kind, forcibly and violently broke into respondent's home. At the time respondent and her child were alone in the home. Respondent further alleged that appellants did not inform her as to their identity, used heavy instruments in breaking into the premises, created a great deal of noise, and terrorized her. As a result of this manner of breaking into her home respondent asserted that she was subjected to great and severe mental and nervous shock.
It appears that three of the appellants (Sergeant Henry Kiernan, Patrolman Lester E. Hance, Patrolman William C. Sullivan) were sent to the apartment or flat of respondent at 1665 Grant Avenue by their superior, appellant Lieutenant Alvin J. Nicolini. Apparently the first three officers were told that there was a house of prostitution in operation at respondent's address but when asked this question the court ruled that the person who gave them this information (possibly Lieutenant Nicolini) could come to court and so testify. Nicolini was not present at the trial and it was stipulated between the parties that if he were called he would testify he knew nothing about the incident.
Respondent's apartment is one of eight located in a four-story building. There is a common entrance and stairway for all of the apartments.
Appellant Hance arrived at the 1600 block of Grant Avenue about 7:15 p. m. on the night in question. He remained in his car parked across the street from the building in which respondent's apartment was located until about 10:30 p. m. During this time he observed from 15 to 20 oriental male persons enter this building. About 10:30 p. m. Hance met appellants Kiernan and Sullivan and the three of them continued to observe the building for a while during which time other male orientals entered the building. Then Kiernan and Sullivan went up to the front entrance of respondent's apartment while Hance went to the back.
Respondent testified that on February 24, 1950, she was at home alone with her daughter; that about 11 p. m. while she was sleeping her door bell rang; that she went to answer the door in her sleeping garments and pushed back the curtain on it to see who was there; that she saw a strange man there; that the strange man started to bang on the door and batter it down; that she then started to run in order to escape out the back entrance; that a man coming up the back entrance grabbed her by the arm; that she was dressed in her pajamas at the time of this incident; that she thought the men were trying to burglarize or rape her or something. Respondent further testified that she did not remember much about what happened; that she did remember being in the kitchen with two of the men (Hance, one of the appellants, intercepted her on the back stairway and led her back into her kitchen); that her husband came home later; that she was nervous and hysterical the next day and that her husband called a doctor who came to see her; and that the following Monday she went into the hospital where she stayed five days. She further testified to her continued nervousness and ill health.
Appellant Kiernan testified on cross-examination that although he saw some orientals going into the building, he did not see any enter respondent's flat or apartment. He further testified that after respondent came to her door in response to his ring he said 'police officer' and held his badge up in his hand. Respondent denied that anything was said to her or that the badge was displayed. It was stipulated that all of the officers were in plain clothes.
Appellant Sullivan testified that he and appellant Kiernan forcibly broke into and entered respondent's apartment by battering down the door after they saw her go towards the rear of the premises.
Appellant Hance testified that he first saw respondent when she ran out her back door and at that time she was upset and nervous. He further stated that he seized her left arm with his right hand and held her to keep her from getting away. She was then taken by him back to her kitchen where the other two officers were present.
Respondent apparently in answer to inquiries of the police officers as to the location of the house of prostitution told them to 'try downstairs.' Such a house was found by them at 1655 Grant Avenue and arrests and convictious followed.
As one of their contentions, appellants assert that respondent failed to plead of prove a cause of action without establishing filing of claims with the individual police officers as required by Government Code, § 1981. The section provides in part:
'Whenever it is claimed that any person has been injured or any property damaged as a result of the negligence or carelessness of any public officer or employee occurring during the course of his service or employment * * * within 90 days after the accident has occurred a verified claim for damages shall be presented in writing and filed with the officer or employee and the clerk or secretary of the legislative body of the school district, county, or municipality, as the case may be. * * *' (Emphasis ours.)
We have emphasized the words 'negligence or carelessness' in this claims statute because they delimit the cases in which such claims are required to be filed. The tort here involved is an intentional, not a negligent or careless, one. The three officers who invaded plaintiff's home did so intentionally and deliberately. Their reason or motive for the intentional invasion of plaintiff's home may have been a negligent belief that a house of prostitution was being conducted therein, but the invasion itself was none the less a deliberate and intentional act. We are satisfied that this cause of action does not fall within the limits of the claims statute. Cf. Ward v. Jones, 39 Cal.2d 756, 249 P.2d 246.
At the outset of the consideration of the case on the merits we will state that nowhere in the record do we find any evidence to support the judgment against the appellant Nicolini. A superior police officer is liable for the tortious acts of his subordinates only if he directs, cooperates in, or ratifies them. Michel v. Smith, 188 Cal. 199, 205 P. 113; Kangieser v. Zimk, 134 Cal.App.2d 559, 285 P.2d 950. There is no evidence that Nicolini directed the other defendants to break into plaintiff's home nor that he either cooperated in their conduct in doing so or ratified it. It was stipulated that if called as a witness Nicolini would testify that he knew nothing about the incident. The judgment against appellant Nicolini must be reversed as finding no support in the evidence. Hereafter, in referring to appellants or defendants, it will be understood that we are referring to the appellants-defendants other than Nicolini.
It will also simplify the discussion to point out that evidence of the prima facie tortious conduct of appellants is to be found in their own testimony. Appellants Kiernan and Sullivan testified that they battered down the door of plaintiff's home and forcibly entered it; appellant Hance testified that he went to the back entrance to intercept anyone who might attempt to escape that way and grasped plaintiff by the arm and forced her back into her home when she was attempting to flee in her night clothes. This admitted conduct was clearly tortious unless there was legal justification for it, as to which the burden of proof was on the defendants. Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469, 289 P.2d 428.
The attempted justification of appellants is that they had reasonable cause to believe that criminal conduct was being engaged in in the plaintiff's home. The defendants submitted the following instructions on this theory which were given by the court:
'You are instructed that a police officer, in all cases, may break open a door of a house in which a person to be arrested is or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing him to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.
'If you find from the evidence that the defendant police officers made a reasonable mistake in breaking down the door of the plaintiff, if they acted on facts which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person or persons sought to be arrested were in the flat, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired, then you must return a verdict in favor of defendants.'
So far as the record shows these were the only instructions on the subject of justification of their conduct proposed by the defendants. They cannot therefore complain that more detailed or other instructions on the subject were not given. Ornales v. Wigger, 35 Cal.2d 474, 478-479, 218 P.2d 531; Gioldi v. Sartorio, 119 Cal.App.2d 198, 201, 259 P.2d 62; Mehling v. Zigman, 116 Cal.App.2d 729, 735, 254 P.2d 141.
They are also foreclosed, by the doctrine of invited error, from the contention which they seek to make on appeal, that the trial court committed error in submitting to the jury the question of probable cause for appellants' conduct. Collyer v. S. H. Kress & Co., 5 Cal.2d 175, 181, 54 P.2d 20. Appellants themselves in the instructions above quoted submitted to the jury the question whether 'they acted on facts which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person or persons sought to be arrested were in the flat.' Having invited this error they cannot complain of it. Nevis v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 43 Cal.2d 626, 630, 275 P.2d 761; Jentick v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 18 Cal.2d 117, 121, 114 P.2d 343.
Appellants complain on several grounds of the following instruction given at the plaintiff's request:
'If you find from the evidence in this case that the defendant police officers broke into and entered the home of the plaintiff * * * without her permission and without a search warrant, and that no crime had been or was being committed by the plaintiff at the time, and if you find that one of the defendants grasped the arm of plaintiff, you are instructed that the defendants, and each of them, did then and there commit an assault upon the person of the plaintiff.
'Having committed such assault, the defendant police officers are individually and jointly liable in damages to the plaintiff for any injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of the assault--unless you believe they had reasonable grounds for believing a misdemeanor is being committed in 1665 in the home of Mrs. Sarafini and you believe they explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.'
As to appellant Nicolini, as we have seen, the portion of the instruction which states that defendants 'are individually and jointly liable' was erroneous since there was no evidence to support a finding of liability as to him. The other appellants on their own testimony were acting in concert in making their raid on plaintiff's home and the instruction that, if liable at all, they would be jointly and severally liable was correct. Weinberg Co. v. Bixby, 185 Cal. 87, 106-107, 196 P. 25; Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501, 515, 86 P.2d 102.
Appellants argue that the instruction on assault was not within the issues and constituted a fatal variance. The use of the term 'assault' was not a happy one but the instruction must be read as a whole and so read it simply told the jury that if they found the facts, which were admitted, that defendants broke into and entered the home of plaintiff, without her permission and without a search warrant, and that one of the defendants grasped the plaintiff's arm, then the defendants are jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for her injuries 'unless you believe they had reasonable grounds for believing a misdemeanor is being committed' etc.
The fact that this instruction characterizes the admitted conduct of appellants as an assault unless the justification is proved does not injure appellants in any way. The name given to their conduct is immaterial since the fact remains that unless they established a legal justification for their conduct they must be held legally liable and that was what the jury was told by this instruction.
They complain of the use of the word 'misdemeanor' in this instruction. In this respect the instruction is more favorable to appellants than the law. For a misdemeanor, not committed in his presence, an officer would not be entitled to break into a home without a warrant, Pen.Code, § 836; 5 Cal.Jur.2d Arrest, sec. 8, pp. 155-156, and a crime is only committed in the presence of an officer if it is apparent to one of the officer's senses. People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 290 P.2d 528. Appellants enumerate a list of felonies that they argue must be committed in a house of prostitution and contend that reasonable ground to believe that any one of these was being committed in plaintiff's home would justify their conduct. If so they were fully protected by this instruction. Since the basis of their belief that any of these felonies was being committed would be their belief that plaintiff's home was a house of prostitution, the instruction that their reasonable belief that a misdemeanor was being committed in plaintiff's home would justify their conduct would cover as well their belief that any felony was being there committed, because such belief could only rest on their primary belief that it was a house of prostitution.
Appellants' counsel on two occasions asked one of appellants whether the information on which they were acting was 'that there was a house of prostitution at that address.' An objection to this question was both times sustained. This was error since in determining whether probable cause exists for an arrest the information on which the officer acted is a relevant factor. People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 290 P.2d 535; Aitken v. White, 93 Cal.App.2d 134, 145, 208 P.2d 788. However it remains to determine whether this error was prejudicial. Appellants made no offer of proof so that all we have before us is that appellants might have testified to information (the source and reliability of such information being undisclosed) that prostitution was being carried on in plaintiff's home.
It would require a very strong showing to justify officers breaking into a private home in the middle of the night. Certainly general information that prostitution was being carried on in plaintiff's private home, coupled with the circumstance of a considerable number of men of whatever race entering the common entrance which served seven other homes as well as plaintiff's would not be enough to justify appellants' conduct in forcibly battering down plaintiff's door in the middle of the night. If this were the law any busybody gossip by telling an officer that prostitution was being carried on in the home of the most reputable person in a multiple apartment building could justify the officer's breaking into that apartment after he had observed 20 men enter the common entrance of the building. The absurdity of this is too obvious for elaboration. In the absence of an offer of proof we are in no position to say that appellants were prejudiced by the trial court's ruling. Price v. Price, 71 Cal.App.2d 734, 738, 163 P.2d 501.
Appellants cite cases such as Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 239 P.2d 876; Allen v. McCoy, 135 Cal.App. 500, 27 P.2d 423, 28 P.2d 56; and Lowry v. Standard Oil Co., 54 Cal.App.2d 782, 130 P.2d 1. A detailed discussion of these and other cited cases is unnecessary since they vary widely from the present case on their facts. The industry of counsel has discovered no case where a forcible entry into a private home in the middle of the night has been held justified on any such grounds as here urged.
Judgment against appellant Nicolini reversed; judgment against the other appellants affirmed.
NOURSE, P. J., and KAUFMAN, J., concur. --------------- * Opinion vacated 300 P.2d 44.