Court Opinion

ID: 9558309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:06:39.395393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:40.867071
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J., Concurring.
In this case, the sole basis for plaintiffs’ claim under Civil Code "section 52.1 is that defendants interfered with one plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the California Constitution by directly violating them. The majority properly rejects the claim on the grounds that defendants *339were not state actors. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 334.) In my view, we need not, and should not, engage in unbridled speculation as to what the statute “may provide” in other contexts. (See, e.g., id. at pp. 334-335, 338.) The vices of such dictum should be obvious. (See id. at pp. 335-337 [describing the havoc wrought by dictum in Massachusetts cases].)
Baxter, J., concurred.