(Super. Ct. No. 34200800014103CUCRGDS)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
Carter v. California Exposition and Fair
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publicationor ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Plaintiff Harold Carter III was arrested by defendants California Exposition and State Fair and its police department (collectively Cal Expo) after he tried to enter the fairgrounds with a loaded firearm in his waistband under his T-shirt. Carter sued Cal Expo for false arrest, interference with his civil rights, and negligence,*fn1 alleging that his status as a juvenile intake officer for the Alameda County Probation Department and a "licensed private patrol officer" entitled him to carry the firearm. The trial court granted Cal Expo's motion for summary judgment, finding that the officers who arrested Carter for carrying a concealed firearm and for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place had probable cause for doing so. Agreeing with the trial court, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On review of a summary judgment in the defendants' favor, we independently examine the record to determine whether triable issues of material fact exist. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 767.) In performing this de novo review, we must "view the evidence in a light favorable to plaintiff as the losing party [citation], liberally construing h[is] evidentiary submission while strictly scrutinizing defendants' own showing, and resolving any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff's favor." (Id. at p. 768.) Employing these standards, the following facts appear from the record:
Carter was working as a security guard for a musician when Carter tried to enter the fairgrounds on April 22, 2007, "carrying a loaded, concealed firearm on his waistband under his white t-shirt." "Officers detained [Carter] while they investigated whether or not he was lawfully able to carry a concealed firearm."
At the time Carter was detained, he possessed the following: (1) "a gold flat badge stating 'Alameda County Probation' and 'Harold Carter III' with no indication of [his] peace officer status"; (2) a Bureau of Security and Investigative Services/Department of Consumer Affairs "private patrol operator" license; (3) a Bureau of Security and Investigative Services/Department of Consumer Affairs "[p]ermit [f]or [e]xposed [f]irearm"; and (4) "[a] laminated copy of Attorney General Opinion No. 89-505 (deputy probation officer is a duly appointed peace officer and may carry a concealed firearm without first obtaining a license or receiving permission from employer)."
Carter told Cal Expo investigating officer Thomas Tom to verify his status as a peace officer by calling his supervisors, Wayne Wilson and George Perkins, of the Alameda County Probation Department. Wilson said Carter is a "[j]uvenile [i]ntake [o]fficer . . . a peace officer on duty only, with no authority to carry a firearm on or off duty. Personnel in Carter's classification are not issued 'peace officer' identification cards. Carter is not a peace officer while off duty." Perkins added that Carter is "considered a 'peace officer' while on duty only through Penal Code section 832 training. Carter is not a full-fledged, twenty-four (24) hour peace officer and is not a sworn peace officer. Carter's job classification does not justify or authorize him to carry a firearm. Alameda County Probation does not issue firearms to Juvenile Intake Officers."
Officer Tom relayed this information to Sam Sanchez, another Cal Expo officer. Officer Sanchez then arrested Carter for carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. Despite the arrest, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute Carter, citing his "peace officer status."
Carter sued Cal Expo for false arrest, interference with his civil rights, and negligence, all based on the alleged improper arrest. The trial court granted Cal Expo's motion for summary judgment, finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Carter. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in favor of Cal Expo. Although Carter appeals from the order granting summary judgment, we deem the notice of appeal to have been filed after entry of judgment. ...