Appeals court blasts police, DA for charging teen

17-year-old accused of battery after ‘lightly’ brushing officer’s hand

REDWOOD CITY >> Appeals court justices sharply criticized San Mateo County prosecutors and a Redwood City school resource officer last week for charging a 17-year-old with battery and resisting arrest after he “lightly brushed” the officer’s hand in a hallway.

In a unanimous opinion overturning a juvenile court’s convictions, the appellate court wrote that the officer needlessly escalated the April 2017 interaction with the teenager, who was being taken to a vice principal’s office after skipping class.

And the court found that prosecutors wrongly pursued charges against the boy when there was not substantial evidence that he had committed any crime.

“We feel compelled to observe that the officer’s arrest of (the teenager) and the People’s pursuit of these meritless charges against him were unjustified,” Justice Therese Stewart wrote in the 1st District Court of Appeal’s 3-0 decision.

“Not only did the officer’s conduct fail to enhance school safety, it elevated what should have been a minor school disciplinary matter into one with potential criminal implications. The same is true of the district attorney’s decision to pursue wardship proceedings on this record.”

San Mateo County District Attorney Steven Wagstaffe called the court’s comments “unduly harsh and uncalled for” and said the justices “wanted to make a point” with their decision. Wagstaffe noted that Elizabeth K. Lee, the trial judge in the juvenile court proceedings against the teenager, had convicted him of the offenses.

“We felt we had a case that deserved to be prosecuted,” Wagstaffe said. “We are always cautious about protecting schools.”

Like police officers assigned to schools across the country, School Resource Officer David Stahler was at a Redwood City high school, not identified by the justices in their ruling, to assist with serious discipline cases and keep nonstudents from coming onto school grounds.

Critics have charged that using police officers to keep schools safe carries the risk of overreach if the officers treat matters of school discipline as criminal offenses.

The incident in the court of appeal decision started when the 17-year-old and three of his friends left a class led by a substitute teacher. He was later found by an aide at the school’s library. The aide told the teenager he needed to go to the office of an administrative vice principal, but he wanted to go to the principal’s office instead, and called his father on his cellphone.

Stahler told the juvenile court that he “encouraged” the teenager to go to the vice principal’s office and stop using his phone — verbally at first, then by lightly placing his hand on the teen’s back.

When he did so, Stahler said, the teen “kind of brushed me, turned his shoulder (and) brushed my hand off of him.” Stahler described the teen “just lightly coming in contact with me” but said he felt the action was “basically a form of battery on me.”

Stahler said he then went to grab the teen’s wrist because he believed the teen was disturbing other students by talking on his cellphone outside their classrooms. The teen pulled away, Stahler said, so the officer forced him to the ground and handcuffed him.

In the juvenile court hearing, a prosecutor argued that the teenager “has a problem with authority figures.”

Lee, the trial judge, concluded the teenager had committed battery and resisting arrest, and ordered him to complete community service and pay a $10 fine. Lee rejected a charge of disturbing the peace.

The court of appeal found there was not sufficient evidence for the battery conviction because nothing in the record showed the teenager was trying to harm Stahler.

The justices reached the same conclusion about the resisting charge, because the officer had not been issuing any orders when he reached for the teen’s arm.

As of early afternoon Saturday, Redwood City police had not responded to a request for comment on the decision.