On Jan. 15, 2007, plaintiff Talitha Ball was driving her vehicle several blocks away from her home when she was stopped by city and county of San Francisco police officers, who indicated that they were going to search Ball’s home without a warrant. The officers were looking for two murder suspects from the evening before and were given information that they could be located at Ball’s residence. Ball’s teenage son was allegedly one of the suspects. Subsequently, after being detained, Ball arrived home and a second search was executed. Ball’s teenage son was at the house, along with Ball’s minor daughters, plaintiffs Dessia Patterson and Talitha Patterson. The father of Dessia and Talitha was also at the house. Ball, acting individually and as guardian ad litem to Dessia and Talitha, sued the officers employer, the city and county of San Francisco, and the officers who performed the search, Ernest Ferrando, Edward Yu, Michael Browne, Jamerson Pon, John Greenwood, Douglass Farmer, Wendell Jones, Sean Griffin, Reese Burrows, Michael Nelson, John Syme, David Do, Kevin Murray, Matthew Mason, Kevin Chin and Heather Fong. Ball alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted unreasonable seizure and excessive force in violation of her and daughters’ Constitutional rights. She also alleged that the city and county were negligent in the training and/or supervision of the officers. Ball’s daughters were ultimately removed from the case, and the city and county of San Francisco and several of the individual defendants were dismissed. Thus, the matter continued to trial with Ball’s individual claim against Ferrando only. Ball’s counsel contended that the officers unreasonably and unlawfully entered Ball’s home by using excessive force and by giving inadequate notice prior to entering. Thus, Ball claimed that her consent was not voluntary and that the searches were illegal. Ball claimed that during the initial stop, the officers refused to release her and the others in her vehicle for over one hour. She alleged that the officers had an unreasonable belief that the suspect was at her home and subsequently searched her cell phone, as well as those of the others in her vehicle. She also alleged that the officers refused to release her so that she could use the restroom, causing her to relieve herself in public. Ball further claimed that during this detention, the officers told her she would be released if she consented to having her home searched. She alleged that because she feared for her family during the detention, she ultimately consented to the search and that an officer then advised the other officers that a warrant was no longer necessary because they had her consent. Thus, Ball claimed that she only gave permission under duress. Ball claimed that after being released, after being initially detained for over an hour, she arrived home to find that the police had already forcibly entered with their guns drawn and with police dogs. Thus, she claimed that the officers at her house had executed the search prior to the officer at her vehicle asking her permission to perform the search. Ball further claimed that the damage to her house showed that the officers had forcibly entered and that her daughters, Dessia and Talitha, both under the age of 6, were frightened because they had been detained with their father at gunpoint while the officers began their second search of the home. In addition, Ball claimed that once she arrived, the officers told her that they controlled the property and refused to leave. Ball’s counsel contended that the officers should have known that the family, including Dessia and Talitha, would be home during the early morning hours, and that the family was subjected to excessive force and unreasonable entry during the search. In addition, counsel contended that Ferrando, as a lieutenant, was liable for the acts of his subordinates during the initial detainment and the subsequent search of Ball’s home. Defense counsel contended that once Ball arrived at her home, she signed a consent form to have her house search. Counsel also contended that the search was entitled based on the circumstances and other legal reasons, and that the procedures were necessary and not unreasonable. Defense counsel further contended that Ferrando was not legally responsible for much of the alleged conduct., Ball claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the alleged unlawful and unreasonable searches and detention. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress.