CHP did not properly/sufficiently secure private sexual material seized from former employee's phone by search warrant. $1M. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Plaintiff prevailed on claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Case

Case Name: Jane Doe v. California Highway Patrol
Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 20STCV18935
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, June 06, 2024
Date Action was Filed: Monday, May 18, 2020
Type of Case: Course and scope of employment, Defamation, Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Joseph Lipner
Plaintiffs:
Jane Doe, 49
Defendants:
California Highway Patrol
Defendant Officer 1
Defendant Officer 2
Defendant Officer 3
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

Gross Verdict or Award: $1,000,000
Award as to each Defendant:
As to California Highway Patrol and Melissa Hammond.
Non-Economic Damages:
$1,000,000
Trial or Arbitration Time: 14 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 1 day

The Attorneys

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
CM3 Law by Charles L Murray III, West Hollywood.

Steve Cooley & Associates by Steve Cooley, Rolling Hills Estates.

Justin Feffer & Associates by Justin Feffer, Eagle, ID.

Seals Phillips LLP by Collin Seals, Pasadena.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Office of the Attorney General by Joseph Wheeler, Sacramento.

CA Department of Justice by Jaclyn Younger, Los Angeles.

The Experts

Plaintiff's Medical Expert(s):
Anthony Reading, Ph.D., psychology.
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
None.
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Joseph Cipollini, computer forensics.

Facts and Background

Facts and Background:
Plaintiff was employed by California Highway Patrol. Plaintiff, along with more than 50 other officers, was accused of engaging in overtime fraud. CHP obtained a search warrant to seize cell phone data from the targeted officers. Plaintiff's cell phone records, which included images and videos of plaintiff engaged in sexual conduct, were turned over to CHP.

Plaintiff was terminated and criminally charged. Plaintiff entered into a diversion program and the criminal case was dismissed.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff alleged CHP had determined that the sexual images and videos were not relevant by CHP in regards to the overtime fraud investigation. That the images were received pursuant to a search warrant and when CHP received the images and determined they were not relevant to the investigation the images/videos should have been sealed by CHP. Plaintiff alleged the CHP did not properly secure the sealed sexual images and videos, which led to the material to be viewed and/or discussed with CHP personnel. That the images were placed on a shared drive where all the investigators had access to the images, and could access the images remotely.
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant denied plaintiff's allegations.

Injuries and Other Damages

Emotional distress.

Additional Notes

Jury found in favor of plaintiff against defendant CHP and Defendant Officer 1 for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Jury found in favor of defendants Defendant Officers 2 and 3. Jury found in favor of defendants on the following causes of action: Intrusion of private affairs, distribution of sexual material and defamation.