Villanueva v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5
Plaintiff and appellant Quentin Villanueva appeals from a judgment denying his petition for peremptory writ of mandate following an administrative appeal where Villanueva challenged misconduct findings against him by respondents City of Los Angeles and Charles Beck. On appeal, Villanueva contends he committed no misconduct when he detained Leonard Pittman, because (1) he had a reasonable suspicion that Pittman was absconding from parole; (2) Pittman was on probation with search conditions; and (3) Pittman presented a sufficient threat of danger and fleeing the scene. We conclude substantial evidence supports the determination that Villanueva did not have an objectively reasonable belief that Pittman was on parole or probation when he detained Pittman. The bare fact that Pittman was on probation with search conditions, without evidence of the conditions, did not mean he was subject to a suspicionless detention. Although waived, there was no evidence that Pittman posed a threat of da
Comments on Villanueva v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5