Page 1
Court of Appeal:
No Liability for Detention of Trespassing Photographer
Gate-Crashing at Golden Globe Awards Ceremony, Though Not a Criminal Trespass, Was a Civil One,
Giving Rise to Right to Defend Property, Justice Segal Says, Citing Civil Code Section
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A photographer who persistently engages in gate-cashing at events attended by celebrities and sells photos of them has no cause of action against Dick Clark Productions, which staged the 2014 Golden Globe Awards show at which he trespassed, or against security personnel, for being detained for 45 minutes in a command post while guards waited for the Beverly Hills police to show up, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Justice John L. Segal of Div. Seven authored the opinion, which was not certified for publication. It affirms a defense judgment rendered at a bench trial by then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia D. Nieto, though differing with her reasoning.
Nieto thought that personnel employed by Noble LA Events, Inc., a private security company hired by Dick Clark Productions, had effected a valid citizen’s arrest of Stephen Winick, proprietor of a Carvel Ice Cream franchise in Westwood and paparazzo. Winick was on Noble’s “no-fly” list, comprised of frequent “crashers” who were not to be admitted to events at which it provided security.
No criminal trespass had been committed, Segal said—but a civil trespass had occurred, the justice said, and that, he declared, justified the action that was taken.
Reasonable Force Justified
“[B]ecause Winick was engaged in a civil trespass,” he wrote, “the security guards (acting under the authority of Dick Clark Productions) had the right to use reasonably necessary force to remove Winick from the Golden Globes Awards show. And there was substantial evidence the security guards’ use of force, including the temporary confinement of Winick in the command post, was reasonably necessary to remove Winick.”
Under Penal Code §602(o), a misdemeanor trespass would have been committed, under the circumstances, only if Winick had been asked to leave and refused, which did not happen, Segal said.
“Although Winick may not have committed a criminal trespass, there was substantial evidence he committed a civil trespass,” he wrote. “The law governing civil trespass is broader than the provisions of the Penal Code governing a criminal trespass.”
A civil trespass merely entails an unauthorized entry onto land, Segal recited.
The jurist pointed to Civil Code §50, enacted in 1872. It now reads: “Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself….”
1937 Decision
Segal made note of the California Supreme Court’s Dec. 16, 1937 application of the rule embodied in that section—though §50 is not cited—in MacLeod v. Fox West Coast Theatres Corp. That case involved an action by a Hollywood publicity man, Thomas MacLeod, who arrived on Feb. 7, 1936, accompanied by an actress, at what was then known as Grauman’s Chinese Theater.
Although he had received an oral invitation to a private screening of a film produced by Charles Chaplin Film Corporation, MacLeod and his date were barred in the lobby, and the police, at the request of the management, ejected him. He sued Fox West Coast Theaters, which operated the movie house, for $30,000; a jury awarded him $5,000.
The high court reversed, saying:
“[I]t affirmatively appears that in ejecting plaintiff from the theater neither excessive force, nor more force than reasonably was necessary was exerted, it follows that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants herein or either of them.”
Authority Cited
The per curiam opinion in MacLeod quotes a Court of Appeal opinion as saying that “[t]he timeworn rule of torts is that a person has a right to use all such force as is reasonably necessary to protect his person or property.”
The Supreme Court draws attention its own 1893 opinion proclaiming that under authorities, “ancient and modern,” there is adherence to “the common-law rule that an owner has the right to forcibly eject trespassers and if the force used is not excessive, the trespasser has no personal action against the owner,” observing:
“The correctness of the ruling has never been questioned and now stands as the accepted law of this jurisdiction.”
Reasonable Force
Segal said that “[b]ecause Winick was interfering with Dick Clark Productions’ possessory interest in the event space, Dick Clark Productions could use reasonable force to eject Winick,” and the “only issue is whether the security guards’ use of force was reasonable.” Reciting the events of that day, as well as Winick’s past trespasses, he found that substantial evidence supported the actions as reasonable.
The case is Winick v. Noble LA Events, B305697.
Attorneys on appeal were downtown Los Angeles practitioner Samuel O. Ogbogu for Winick and Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Bryan Aghakhani, and Christopher Blanchard of the West Los Angeles firm of Bordin Semmer for Dick Clark Productions, Inc.
Previous Litigation
Winick had been arrested for a criminal trespass at the 2012 Golden Globes Awards show but was acquitted based on his not having been asked to leave. He then sued Hilton Management, LLC based on his ejectment from the Beverly Hilton.
A jury’s verdict was against the plaintiff—and in favor of Hilton on its cross-complaint, in the amount of $1.
Winick appealed and Div. Two of the Court of Appeal for this district on Oct. 29, 2018, affirmed.
The photographer also sued over being tossed out of designer Christian Audigier’s 50th anniversary party at the Petersen Automotive Museum in 2008 after he took a photo of Michael Jackson and refused to delete the shot.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company