Even though the chief of police and the city manager were authorized to act for the city and duly prescribed section 4242 (see fn.
#Standard notes city of long beach ca code#
The failure of Officer Vershaw to comply with Section 4242 of the City of Long Beach Police Department Manual, in discharging his firearm herein, does not constitute a negligent or a wrongful act, so long as his conduct was within the permissible limit of the California Penal Code and it was within such limit."ĭefendants argue that, when the Legislature in Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a) enacted the phrase "statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity," the intent was to cover local ordinances but not local regulations like section 4242 of the police manual. The City of Long Beach Police Department Manual, Section 4242, though it may serve as a guideline for the conduct of Long Beach police officers, does not constitute a minimal standard of care for the use of firearms by said police officers. The court's conclusions of law included these paragraphs: 2 further, that "Officer Vershaw, in firing his weapon at Roland Peterson, failed to comply with the guidelines.
#Standard notes city of long beach ca manual#
The trial court found that "there was in existence Section 4242 of the City of Long Beach Police Department Manual which prescribed certain guidelines for the discharge of a firearm by a City of Long Beach police officer" fn. The question is pertinent to Vershaw's use of deadly force because in 1967 the Legislature enacted Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a), which provides: "The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if. Our first question is whether the Long Beach Police Department Manual contains regulations of a public entity. The trial court should have considered, but did not consider, whether that presumption was rebutted by evidence that Vershaw did "what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
California law creates a presumption that Vershaw did not exercise due care here. We conclude that the ruling on use of force was error. The trial court, ruling that Vershaw's use of deadly force was justifiable, held in favor of both defendants. Plaintiffs, Peterson's parents, sued Vershaw and his employer, City of Long Beach, for wrongful death. Vershaw had had no report of, nor did he see, any weapons, violence, or threat of violence at the apartment. Vershaw had responded to a radio call erroneously reporting a burglary in progress at the apartment. At the time of the killing Peterson was running from his apartment. In 1972 Police Officer Vershaw shot and killed Roland Peterson. Saltsman and Emanuel Cowitt as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, Stephen Warren Solomon, William J. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. Shannon, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.Įvelle J. Amsterdam as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Waranoff, Jacobs, Sills & Coblentz, Vilma S. Finch and Finch, Castello & Tennant for Plaintiffs and Appellants.Īmitai Schwartz, Margaret C. Separate dissenting opinion by Richardson, J., with Clark and Manuel, JJ., concurring.)ĭavid R. CITY OF LONG BEACH et al., Defendants and Respondents OTIS PETERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
0 kommentar(er)
