On Oct. 23, 2010, at approximately 2 a.m., plaintiff Veth Mam, 34, a machinist, witnessed an altercation between his friend and Fullerton Police Officer Jonathan Miller following a traffic stop on Amerige Avenue, just west of Harbor Boulevard, in the downtown Fullerton bar district. Mam subsequently pulled out his iPhone and began filming the incident as a crowd of people came out of the bars in the area. Realizing he was outnumbered, the police officer, Miller, called for assistance. Officer Frank Nguyen responded to the scene and saw someone interfering with, choking, and jumping on Miller while Miller was trying to arrest the resisting person involved in the traffic stop. As a result, Nguyen pulled the attacker away from Miller. Officer Kenton Hampton then arrived at the scene to assist Miller and began ordering the growing crowd of onlookers to back up. Hampton then approached Mam and pushed him back, which caused Mam’s iPhone to fall to the ground. He then moved Mam away from the crowd, took him to ground, put his face down on the ground, handcuffed him and held him down with one knee. While Mam was being taken into custody, a friend of his picked up the iPhone and filmed the balance of the incident, including Mam being arrested. Mam was charged with assaulting a police officer; battering a police officer; and resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer in the lawful discharge of his duties, as Miller and Nguyen believed that Mam was one of the individuals who jumped on Miller’s back. However, it turns out from the videotape that it was unlikely that Mam assaulted the officers, and Mam was subsequently acquitted of all criminal charges. Mam sued the officers’ employer, the city of Fullerton; the officers’ supervisor, Chief of Police Michael Sellers; and officers Miller, Nguyen, Hampton, Daniel Solorio and Ricardo Reynoso. Mam alleged that Hampton retaliated against him for videotaping the incident, in violation of his First Amendment rights, and used excessive force while attempting to take him into custody. He also alleged that Miller and Nguyen maliciously prosecuted him. Sellers, Solorio and Reynoso were ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the city, Hampton, Nguyen and Miller only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Mam’s arrest was a typical “contempt of cop” arrest in retaliation for Mam’s attempt to exercise his First Amendment right to videotape what he perceived was police misconduct involving his friend. Mam testified that after he was pushed back, causing the iPhone to fall to the ground, and moved away from the crowd, Hampton tossed him like a “rag doll” and “flipped him over like a pancake,” before Hampton pushed his face down on the ground, held him down with one knee and handcuffed him. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that Miller and Nguyen maliciously prosecuted Mam by knowingly filing false criminal charges against Mam for allegedly jumping on the back of Miller, even though they knew differently. The officers contended that their conduct was reasonable, and that they acted quickly to disperse the crowd and prevent a riot given the number of intoxicated individuals present at the time. Nguyen claimed that after responding to the scene, he believed that Mam was the individual who assaulted (jumped on the back of) Miller. Defense counsel argued that although Mam denied that he could have been filming and assaulting the officer at the same time, the identity of the person who assaulted Miller is still uncertain and that it was believed that perhaps Mam assaulted Miller before he started filming. Thus, defense counsel argued that the officers acted appropriately in an attempt prevent the growing crowd from getting out of hand, and that Miller and Nguyen did not maliciously prosecute Mam because they initially believed that Mam was the one who assaulted Miller., The trial was bifurcated, so damages were not before the court. Mam claimed he suffered back pain and soft-tissue bruising to his shoulder as a result of the incident. However, he did not seek any treatment for his alleged physical . Mam also claimed 257 days of anxiety and emotional distress while he waited for the criminal trial. In addition, he claimed he has a lingering fear of police officers and had treatment sessions for his emotional distress. The plaintiff’s mental health care professional concluded that Mam experienced post-traumatic stress disorder from his involvement in the incident.