July 2014 - Parks & Recreation - 30

L AW R E V I E W

Code § 148.9(a) (giving a false identity
to a peace officer for the purpose of
avoiding proper identification).
Cavallaro also cited Hesterberg for
violation of San Mateo County Ordinance § 6.04.070(a) (the leash rule),
an infraction. The San Mateo County District Attorney declined to pursue any charges against Hesterberg.
Subsequently, Hesterberg filed
claims against the United States
under the Federal Tort Claims Act

arrest and false imprisonment may be
established by demonstrating a violation of a constitutional provision. "
As a result, " in determining whether
a false imprisonment occurred " in a
federal case, the court would apply
the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In this particular instance, the issue
before the federal district court was
whether Cavallaro falsely imprisoned
or arrested Hesterberg. In the opin-

In this particular instance, the issue before the
federal district court was whether Cavallaro falsely
imprisoned or arrested Hesterberg.
(FTCA), in part, alleging false arrest
and imprisonment. In a motion for
summary judgment, the federal government petitioned the federal district court to effectively dismiss Hesterberg's false arrest/imprisonment
claim. In so doing, the United States
contended there was no evidence that
Cavallaro had " unlawfully detained
or arrested " Hesterberg.
False Arrest
As noted by the federal district court,
federal liability under the FTCA must
be based upon the " law of the State "
in which the incident occurred, in
this case, California. Accordingly,
under California law, the court found
" the elements of a claim for false imprisonment are (1) the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, (2) without lawful privilege, and
(3) for an appreciable period of time,
however brief. "
The federal district court noted further, however, that claims of " false

Parks & Recreation

ion of the court, " Cavallaro's initial
seizure of Hesterberg for having his
dog off leash was based on probable
cause and concededly lawful. "
That being said, the federal district court acknowledged " a seizure
that is lawful at its inception can
violate the Fourth Amendment if
its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by
the Constitution. " In particular, the
court noted the " Fourth Amendment requires that the length and
scope of the detention be strictly tied
to and justified by the circumstances
[that] rendered its initiation permissible. " In this specific instance, the
court found " a seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing
a warning " could become " unlawful
if it is prolonged beyond the time
reasonably required to complete that
mission. "
As described by the federal district court, " an officer's actions that
prolong a detention and are unre-

| J U LY 2 0 1 4 | W W W. N R PA . O R G

lated to the stop's purpose violate
the Fourth Amendment, even if the
initial detention is based on probable cause. " Further, the court found
" there must be a Fourth Amendment justification " to continue or
prolong a detention " for reasons
unrelated to the grounds for the
original detention. " On the other hand, the court acknowledged
" mere police questioning does not
constitute a seizure. "
In this particular instance, the
federal government maintained that
Hesterberg's detention was prolonged " for two reasons that were
related to the purpose of the stop, "
i.e., " to verify Hesterberg's identity
to include in the leash-law violator database and to run a warrants
check. " Accordingly, given a Fourth
Amendment justification for the
prolonged detention, the federal government argued that Hesterberg's
false imprisonment claim must fail.
The federal district court agreed.
In the opinion of the court, the
" undisputed facts " established that
" Cavallaro extended the detention
to both verify Hesterberg's identity
to include in a database of leash-law
violators and to run a check of outstanding warrants. " In so doing, the
court noted Cavallaro's testimony
that " ascertaining Hesterberg's identity and running a warrants check
were all part of the same process. "
Specifically, additional testimony indicated that this identification and
warrants check process would involve an NPS dispatcher issuing " a
single query of a person's identifying
information into the NPS system,
which then runs a 'simultaneous'
search for that person in databases
for various law-enforcement agencies
and the California Department of
Motor Vehicles. "

July 2014 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2014 - Parks & Recreation