Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

1,419 chars

The most recent California Supreme Court case
interpreting the Bane Act is Venegas v. County of Los
Angeles (Venegas II), 87 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2004), in which two
plaintiffs alleged that sheriff’s deputies violated the Act when
they searched plaintiffs’ home without a warrant and without
consent, arrested one of the plaintiffs based on evidence
obtained during the warrantless search, and detained the other
for two hours. Plaintiffs did not allege threats, intimidation,
or coercion separate from, or in addition to, the conduct that
constituted the violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. See id. at 3–4. Without extended analysis, the
California Supreme Court held that “plaintiffs adequately
stated a cause of action under Section 52.1.” Id. at 14. The
Court’s holding in Venegas II had been prefigured in Jones v.
Kmart Corp., 949 P.2d 941 (Cal. 1998), in which KMart
employees pursued, seized, struggled with, and handcuffed
Jones, a suspected shoplifter. The California Supreme Court
held that no cause of action had been stated under § 52.1
because the KMart employees were not state actors. Id. at
943–44. But the Court noted that Jones’s rights under § 52.1
might have been “put in jeopardy . . . if [the] defendants had
called the police and then coercively interfered with Jones’s
Fourth Amendment rights when he attempted to exercise
                    RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ                       41

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text