Emmett Cartier vs. the CHP
...by Eric Kirk
On April 16, 1998, David once again slew Goliath.
The false arrest trial of "Emmett Cartier v. California State Highway Patrol, et al.", proceeded on April 13, 1998 and concluded on April 16, 1998 with a 9 to 3 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff (9 jurors being the minimum required for a civil verdict). The suit was a hotly contested challenge from Mr. Cartier, a Bay Area resident and a conservation specialist employed by the Department of Agriculture, against the CHP arising from an incident occurring on November 10, 1996, during which he claimed he was falsely arrested and battered. (The jury declined to find in his favor on the battery charge in what was subsequently explained by one juror as a "compromise.")
On that date, Mr. Cartier was on vacation, visiting the North Coast to camp and fish. He had just driven onto U.S. 101 from the northbound on-ramp north of Redway. There were substantial discrepancies between the testimonies of Mr. Cartier and Officer Nick V. Roetto, the arresting officer and co-defendant in the suit. Officer Roetto claimed that he noticed that Mr. Cartier's seat belt was not in use. He testified that he drove alongside Mr. Cartier and attempted to use hand gestures to get Mr. Cartier to put his seat belt on. Mr. Cartier continued to look forward "ignoring" Officer Roetto, so the latter was "forced" to pull him over.
Mr. Cartier testified that Officer Roetto followed him, moved out into the passing lane, drove up as far as his "blind spot," hovered there for a moment, dropped back, reentered the slow lane and pulled him over. Mr. Cartier testified that he never saw Officer Roetto attempt to get his attention, and believes that he decided to pull him over upon sight of Mr. Cartier's camping gear in the back of his car. Of note, Officer Roetto admitted in testimony that he suspected that Mr. Cartier might be involved in marijuana cultivation and/or trafficking when he saw the camping gear, but claims that he didn't notice the gear until after the pullover.
Mr. Cartier did not specifically remember whether he had his seat belt on, but testified that he normally put it on and automatically unbelted when he came to a stop. The belt was not on when the Officer approached Mr. Cartier. Officer Roetto then informed Mr. Cartier that the reason for the pullover was an apparent seat belt violation, and proceeded to ask Mr. Cartier questions about where he had been and where he was going.
Mr. Cartier informed him that he was up here on a fishing trip. Officer Roetto then told Mr. Cartier that he wasn't aware of any spots open to fishing at that time. Mr. Cartier offered to show him the Fish and Game Regulations indicating otherwise, but Officer Roetto declined. At another point in the conversation (in response to a question), Mr. Cartier informed Officer Roetto that he had been shopping in Redway. When Officer Roetto asked him the name of the store, Mr. Cartier turned to the grocery bag and read "Western Family." Officer Roetto then told him that no such store existed in Redway (although Shop Smart continues to distribute Western Family bags). At that point, Mr. Cartier felt the conversation was getting strange and told Officer Roetto that he preferred not to continue the conversation. Additional words were exchanged before Officer Roetto returned to his squad car. He then learned that Mr. Cartier's driver's license was three days expired and that the vehicle was owned by Mr. Cartier's wife Carla, registered under what was later understood to be her maiden name. About 10 days before the incident, he had mailed his renewal check, but it had apparently not yet been processed by the DMV. The testimonies once again diverge at this point.
Mr. Cartier testified that he heard the announcement over the radio and assumed his vehicle would be towed. Mr. Cartier testified that he picked up his camera and briefcase and left the vehicle while Officer Roetto was still at his vehicle. However, Officer Roetto testified that he returned to Mr. Cartier's window, informed him of the tow, and jumped back when Mr. Cartier suddenly reached under his seat for his camera. In any case, at some point following, Mr. Cartier did leave the vehicle and begin taking photographs.
Mr. Cartier was then arrested for alleged violation of Penal Code Section 148(a), willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing the duties of an officer. It was apparent to Mr. Cartier at the time of the arrest that he was being arrested for photographing Officer Roetto, as the arrest followed immediately after an order to put the camera down. Officer Roetto testified that he arrested Mr. Cartier for failing to put the briefcase down when instructed, asserting that the briefcase might have contained a gun or contraband. One of Mr. Cartier's photographs, however, depicts the briefcase in the background during the arrest. There was conflicting testimony about the timing of the photographs and the timing regarding the briefcase and how it ended up on the squad car hood.
The State conceded that it is not unlawful to photograph the activities of law enforcement officers. It also conceded that Mr. Cartier had the right to remain silent in response to questions and statements he felt were inappropriate. However, the Deputy Attorney General Jeff Phillips commented in closing that you can't expect breaks from officers when you assert such rights. Following the trial, the Attorney General stated that if an officer is within legal rights to tow your vehicle, s/he may simply let you go with a warning if you are cooperative, but if you make things difficult for officers, they may make things difficult for you.
But the jury sent a message to law enforcement officers to the effect that they had better be very sure about the grounds for arrest. The power to arrest and imprison someone is not to be taken for granted, and must be employed with extreme restraint.
The last sentence of the Attorney General's closing argument was a remarkable admission: "If this was about somebody besides Mr. Cartier, we would not be here." If you are not clean shaven and well-mannered you will not be treated as Mr. Cartier might have been treated if he appeared as he did in court (suit and tie, proper English, etc.). Officer Roetto obviously did not know he was dealing with an upper middle class professional who was fully aware of his rights and used to being treated with respect.
But the Attorney General was right about one thing. These cases are very hard to win. Mr. Cartier's trial attorney, Les Scher, stated that the case was the toughest of his career, all for a judgment of $15,000. The laws clearly favor law enforcement in these cases. Very little information about policy, Officer Roetto's background, and even the arrest itself could be obtained by Mr. Cartier in pretrial discovery due to laws that effectively make every record or manual of law enforcement agencies privileged, unless the plaintiff can make a strong showing of the need for the discovery as outweighing policy concerns about the sanctity of confidential police documents. But it is very difficult to argue the relevance of documents you can't review. And although cameras were present at the prison where key events took place, the tapes were apparently destroyed within days of the incident in the normal course of procedure (although these tapes often seem to appear when they favor law enforcement in criminal cases). Mr. Cartier could not obtain any manuals or guides used by the CHP to guide officers in ascertaining when an arrest is appropriate on the grounds that these would reveal "trade secrets" that might endanger officers if they became common knowledge.
Originally the case was filed in Garberville, where it is easier to find a jury more familiar with the encroachment of the rights of citizens against law enforcement. Mr. Cartier resisted the transfer, arguing that a plaintiff has the right to choose venue as long as proper under the law, and cited case law that stated that a factor in determining proper venue may be the locality's right to determine issues of general importance to the given population. Judge Dominic Banducci, now deceased, ruled for Mr. Cartier. However, the ruling became moot after the court's subsequent reorganization eliminating jury trials in Garberville. Generally speaking, the north county jury pool is felt to be less receptive to actions against law enforcement.
Additionally, Mr. Cartier was up against virtually unlimited resources. The Attorney General took a two-day videotaped deposition of Mr. Cartier, selecting portions to show in court in which he scratched his ear -- in an attempt to impeach his claim of a shoulder injury. Every potential witness for Mr. Cartier was contacted by an investigator on behalf of the Attorney General. It was apparent that the CHP had spent vastly more money defending the claim than Mr. Cartier was actually seeking in damages (the CHP is actually billed by the Attorney General's office for services and costs). Prior to trial, Mr. Cartier had offered to settle the case for $6,000, but the CHP declined and made no counter offer at all.
A jury instruction that was critical to the verdict came from the case of People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 C.A. 4th 961, 966, which states that it is not a willful delay, obstruction, or interference with the duties of an officer to fail to follow the orders of an officer "with alacrity." The Random House Dictionary defines "alacrity" as "cheerful readiness, promptness, or willingness." It should be noted that along with the right to silence, a private citizen has the First Amendment right to question and criticize the actions of an officer even at the scene, so long as his actions do not interfere with the officer's duties.
Whether this verdict will influence the future behavior of the CHP remains to be seen. The CHP fought this case tooth and nail to avoid the precedent, and may yet appeal. Any person deciding to pursue a court action should not expect settlement and should be ready for extensive scrutiny into his or her private life. The suit may often boil down to the word of the individual against that of the officer, and that is one tough hill to climb. A previous felony conviction, or personal appearance or mannerisms offensive to the middle class sensibilities of an average Eureka jury may severely undermine the prospects of your case. In very few of these cases does the citizen prevail.
On the other hand, as one juror stated, if you believe you have been wronged, it is your right and duty to pursue the claim.
|
|
