In February 2018, Antonio Juarez found a cellphone on the ground and placed it in his truck. Later that afternoon, Police Officer Alejandro Brown tracked his cell phone location to the home of Jose Hinojosa. Officer Brown worked for the San Bernardino City Unified School District (District). Officer Brown went to Hinojosa’s home and approached Juarez, Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin (collectively, Plaintiffs).
Officer Brown, carrying his firearm and displaying his badge, identified himself as a District police officer, and demanded that the group comply with his commands. Officer Brown then pulled his firearm, cocked it, and aimed it at Juarez, Espinosa and Hinojosa, who were outside the home, while Morfin watched from inside. Officer Brown demanded they turn over the cell phone and repeatedly asserted his authority as a police officer. Juarez retrieved the phone and attempted to hand it to Officer Brown, but Brown ordered Juarez to put the phone on the ground. As Juarez went to do so, Officer Brown struck Juarez in the face with his gun, causing Juarez to fall back, hit his head on the ground, and lose consciousness. Officer Brown then took pictures of Plaintiffs and told them he knew who they were.
Officer Brown later pled guilty in to assault by a public officer and threatening the Plaintiffs under color of law. Brown admitted that he had acted under the color of authority as a District police officer when he detained the Plaintiffs and assaulted Juarez.
The Plaintiffs then sued the District, alleging negligence, among other things.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the District was liable for harm Officer Brown caused. Plaintiffs argued Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment based on: the vast authority the District gives its officers; and the fact that the incident occurred while Officer Brown was investigating what he believed to be the theft of his cell phone.
The District demurred and the Superior Court dismissed the case. The court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts: to hold the District directly liable for Officer Brown’s acts; that Officer Brown acted within the course and scope of his employment; or that Officer Brown was exercising arrest powers pursuant to the Penal Code at the time of the incident. Plaintiffs appealed.
The California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court found the Plaintiffs had plead facts sufficient to establish Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs had established a connection between Officer Brown’s duties as a District officer and his misconduct because: 1) he had a duty to ensure the security of property; and 2) the District authorized and equipped him to use force to do so. Finally, the Court concluded that whether Officer Brown was off duty at the time of the incident was not dispositive given the alleged breadth of his off-duty authority.
The Court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer and conduct further proceedings.
Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist., 106 Cal.App.5th 1213 (2024).