San Marino Sports Lawsuit: Arrest, 2005 Verdict, and New Trial

In Gillan v. City of San Marino, a Los Angeles County jury awarded high school basketball coach Patrick Gillan $4.45 million in 2005 after finding that San Marino police arrested him for child molestation without probable cause and publicly identified him as a suspect. Two years later, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the false arrest verdict but reversed the defamation and emotional distress portions on immunity grounds and sent the damages back for a new trial.

The Arrest That Started the Case

Gillan coached the girls’ varsity basketball team at San Marino High School. In 2001, a 17-year-old former student who had graduated five months earlier accused him of molesting her on several occasions. Her claims were inconsistent. School staff, including the vice principal, told police they did not believe her. The accuser recorded a phone call in which Gillan “vehemently denied” the allegations, and a deputy district attorney reviewed the case and found “insufficient evidence to charge Gillan with a crime.”¹

Police arrested Gillan anyway on December 17, 2001. Officers booked, fingerprinted, and photographed him, held him for about an hour, then released him under Penal Code section 849(b)(1). The trial court later found that investigators had used the arrest as an “investigative tool” to draw out other possible victims rather than as a step toward filing charges.²

The day after the arrest, Lieutenant Christopher Petersen held a news conference. Police released Gillan’s booking photo, said the arrest was “pending further investigation,” noted his prior coaching job at another school, and told reporters they were seeking “additional victims.” Officers told television and newspaper outlets their suspicions were “well-founded” and that “other victims might surface.” The mug shot ran on local television and in print across the region.³ No other accusers came forward, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney declined to file charges.¹

The 2005 Verdict

Gillan sued the City of San Marino, Police Chief Farris, Lieutenant Petersen, and Sergeant Eugene Street. His complaint alleged violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1), defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. An invasion of privacy claim was dropped before trial. He was represented by Pasadena sole practitioner John Burton.⁴

On January 20, 2005, the jury returned a verdict for Gillan. It awarded $4,453,000 in compensatory damages, assessed jointly and severally against the city and the three officers, as a single lump sum. It added punitive damages of $9,870 against Sergeant Street and $7,560 against Lieutenant Petersen. The trial court later awarded $1,042,456.50 in attorney fees under the Bane Act.⁴

What the Court of Appeal Decided

The defendants appealed. In February 2007, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, issued its opinion at 147 Cal.App.4th 1033. The panel split the case in two.

On the Bane Act false arrest claim, the court affirmed. The information officers had was “not sufficiently consistent, specific, or reliable” to establish probable cause.² The court agreed that police had misused Penal Code section 849(b) by treating arrest-and-release as a publicity strategy. It also held that Government Code section 821.6, which gives public employees immunity for acts taken in the course of prosecutorial or investigative duties, does not shield officers from liability for an arrest made without probable cause.⁴

On the defamation and emotional distress claims, the court reversed. Justice Walter Croskey, writing for the panel, held that the officers’ post-arrest statements to the media, including the news conference and distribution of the mug shot, fell within the scope of their investigative duties and were therefore protected by section 821.6.¹

Why the Damages Went Back for a New Trial

The jury had returned its $4.45 million figure as one lump sum without breaking it down by claim, so the appellate court could not simply subtract the portions attributable to the reversed claims. Justice Croskey noted that Gillan’s closing argument had leaned heavily on the harm from the officers’ public statements, which suggested the lump-sum figure reflected conduct the court now deemed immune.¹

The court ordered a new trial limited to compensatory damages on the false arrest claim. On retrial, Gillan could recover for “all injuries caused by the false arrest and violation of Civil Code section 52.1, including emotional distress and loss of reputation that were caused by the false arrest but suffered after he was released.” He could not recover for injuries caused by the officers’ protected investigative conduct after release, including the news conference itself.¹ The original attorney fee award was vacated pending the retrial.⁴

Why the Case Still Gets Cited

Two rules from Gillan continue to shape California civil rights litigation against police. The first is that Government Code section 821.6 immunity does not cover a false arrest that violates the Bane Act, even when the arrest happens during an investigation. The court characterized the arrest-and-release maneuver as “an operational decision by the police purporting to apply the law,” not a protected policy choice.⁴

The second is the more contested holding: that section 821.6 does extend to press statements officers make during an ongoing investigation. A 2022 amicus brief filed with the California Supreme Court argued that Gillan and similar decisions were “incorrectly decided” and had granted public employees “sweeping and absolute” immunity inconsistent with higher court precedent.⁵

1
Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Coach Wins False Arrest Ruling Against San Marino
2
ALCODA. Gillan v. City of San Marino Case Summary
3
Los Angeles Times. Jury Awards San Marino Coach $4.45 Million in Defamation Case
4
FindLaw. Gillan v. City of San Marino
5
California Supreme Court. Amicus Brief in Zador et al.