On Oct. 20, 2014, plaintiff’s decedent Kevin Brown, 62, a retired crime lab technician for the San Diego Police Department, hanged himself from a tree at Cuyamaca State Park, near San Diego. Brown’s DNA, in the form of sperm, was previously found on a vaginal swab that had been taken from 14-year-old Claire Hough, who was the victim of a cold case homicide in 1984. Homicide Detective Michael Lambert obtained a search warrant for Brown’s home by informing the judge in a written affidavit that cross-DNA contamination was not possible, even though contamination was possible since Brown had worked as a criminalist in the crime lab in 1984 and sat near the criminalist who had first examined the evidence in the Hough case. After obtaining the search warrant, Lambert and another homicide detective, Maura Mekenas-Parga, seized Brown’s property, which included 14 boxes of materials, none of which implicated Brown. Brown, who struggled with depression, committed suicide 10 months after officers served a search warrant on his home in Chula Vista. The decedent’s wife, Rebecca Brown, acting individually and on behalf of her husband’s estate, sued Lambert; Mekenas-Parga; San Diego District Attorney Investigator Sandra Oplinger; and the individual defendants’ employer, the city of San Diego. Ms. Brown alleged that the defendants violated her husband’s constitutional rights. The city agreed to defend and indemnify its employees, the three individual defendants, but Oplinger was dismissed from the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that even though Mr. Brown’s DNA, in the form of sperm, was found on a vaginal swab that had been taken from a victim of a cold case homicide in 1984, records showed that the original autopsy did not show sperm on the swab. Counsel also argued that even though Lambert informed the judge in a written affidavit that cross-DNA contamination was not possible, crime lab personnel had warned Lambert and other homicide detectives that contamination possibly accounted for the presence of Mr. Brown’s sperm since Mr. Brown had worked in crime lab in 1984 and sat near the criminalist who had first examined evidence in the Hough case. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, at that time, male crime lab personnel used their own semen as a positive control to conduct forensic testing in cases of suspected sexual assault, a practice that continued until recently. Counsel argued that Mr. Brown’s DNA was discovered in 2012 because he had voluntarily provided a sample to a DNA database of crime lab personnel, which existed to rule out incidences of staff contamination. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after obtaining the search warrant, Lambert seized the Browns’ property beyond the scope of the warrant, including 14 boxes of materials, none of which implicated Mr. Brown. Counsel also contended that even though Lambert reviewed the Browns’ property and found no evidence of a crime, Lambert refused to return the Browns’ property to them, which caused Mr. Brown’s depression and anxiety to worsen. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that as a result, Ms. Brown alerted Lambert that Mr. Brown was not well and might kill himself, but that despite the warning, Lambert continued to pressure Mr. Brown to confess. In addition, counsel argued that Lambert went to Mr. Brown’s in-laws, again falsely stated that contamination in the case was not possible, and encouraged Mr. Brown’s family to confront him. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Lambert’s actions was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Brown to kill himself. Defense counsel argued that Lambert did not lie in the affidavit he wrote to the judge, as Lambert was never told that DNA contamination was possible and was allegedly told that contamination was ruled out. Counsel also argued that, when questioned by detectives, Mr. Brown never brought up the previous crime lab practices of male employees using their semen as a positive control in tests. In addition, defense counsel argued that Lambert’s questioning and other actions during the course of his investigation were based on Lambert’s belief that DNA contamination was ruled out and that Mr. Brown’s suicide was unrelated to the investigation., Mr. Brown died from asphyxiation as a result of hanging himself. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Mr. Brown had been bullied in his life and that Mr. Brown suffered from anxiety and depression his entire life. Counsel contended that as a result of the detective’s questioning, Mr. Brown began to feel like his life was falling apart. Counsel also contended that when Mr. Brown’s possessions were not returned to him, his depression and anxiety worsened. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that several of Lambert actions constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress, including Lambert’s act of obtaining a search warrant through material falsehood; seizing personal items beyond the scope of the warrant; refusing to return the seized property to the Browns (even after Lambert knew that it had nothing to do with his investigation); and deliberately pitting Ms. Brown’s family against Mr. Brown, including telling a sister-in-law that the judge who approved the warrant had found probable cause that Mr. Brown was guilty. Counsel argued that Lambert’s actions intentionally and/or recklessly caused Mr. Brown’s severe emotional distress and was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Brown to kill himself. Ms. Brown sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of the care, society and companionship of her husband. She also sought recovery of punitive damages against Lambert. Defense counsel noted that Mr. Brown’s death occurred 10 months after officers served the search warrant and that Mr. Brown decided to commit suicide despite never being arrested. Thus, counsel denied that Mr. Brown chose to commit suicide because of the seizure of the boxes or any of the detectives’ actions.