JONATHAN v. THE SU. CRT. OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY Part I
JONATHAN v. THE SU. CRT. OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY Part I
JONATHAN v. THE SU. CRT. OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY Part I 06:20:2006
JONATHAN v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Filed 6/14/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JONATHAN O'TOOLE et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
D047158
(San Diego County
Super. Ct. No. GIC 827285)
SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al.,
Petitioners,
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
JONATHAN O'TOOLE et al.,
Real Parties in Interest
D047230
(San Diego County
Super. Ct. No. GIC 827285)
Petitions for writ of mandate challenging denials of summary judgment by Superior Court of San Diego County, S. Charles Wickersham, Judge. Petition by San Diego Community College District et al. granted, and petition by Jonathan O'Toole et al. denied.
Law Offices of Peter D. Lepiscopo, Peter D. Lepiscopo and James M. Griffiths for Petitioners in No. D047158 and Real Parties in Interest in No. D047230.
No appearance for Respondent.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, Ray J. Artiano and Ljubi
Description
Where nonstudent plaintiffs attempted to post posters and distribute leaflets on a college campus without first obtaining permit required by the college. The campus police officers told plaintiffs they needed permit and directed them to Student Affairs office where students were told they would not get a permit that day. The officers told plaintiffs they would have to leave campus and one refused and continued passing out leaflets despite numerous warnings by officers who eventually arrested him. The court held that college's permit requirement was unconstitutional, officers had immunity under Government Code Sec. 820.6--which provides immunity where public employee acts in good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable--and from plaintiffs' action under Bane Act, which provides a civil remedy for persons whose exercise of constitutional rights have been interfered with by "threats, intimidation or coercion." Defendants had reasonable cause to believe that arrested plaintiff violated Penal Code Sec. 148(a)(1) by willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer.
