## Facts

- Rafael Salazar served as the Republic of Guatemala’s Consul General in Los Angeles.
- After a freeway traffic accident on April 4, 1997, a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer responded and concluded Salazar appeared intoxicated.
- Salazar told the officer he was the consul general and asserted consular immunity.
- After Salazar allegedly became unruly, the officer handcuffed him and transported him to a police station.
- At the station, the handcuffs were removed; the officer completed the investigation by issuing a citation.
- Salazar took a breath test showing a blood alcohol level of 0.20%.
- Salazar later filed a federal civil action asserting treaty-based and statutory civil rights claims, along with California tort claims, arising from the restraint and transport.

## Issues

1. Whether the brief handcuffing and transport of a consular officer during a DUI investigation violated Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).
2. Whether Article 41 provides an individually enforceable right or private cause of action for damages against local officers, either directly or through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Alien Tort Statute.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 112 supports a private civil damages claim.
4. Whether the officers were liable under California law for false arrest/false imprisonment or intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the restraint and transport.
5. Whether injunctive or declaratory relief could issue absent an underlying legal violation.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for CHP Officers Burresch and Myhre on all claims.
- The court held the temporary handcuffing and transport were reasonable investigative measures and did not constitute “detention pending trial” within the meaning of VCCR Article 41.
- The court held the VCCR did not create a private damages remedy against individual officers, and thus could not support a standalone damages claim or be recast as a § 1983 claim.
- The court rejected the Alien Tort Statute claim because there was no actionable treaty violation on these facts and the conduct did not amount to a cognizable international-law tort.
- The court held 18 U.S.C. § 112 is a criminal statute and provides no private right of action.
- The court rejected the California false arrest claim because the restraint was supported by lawful authority (including probable cause for DUI) and was reasonable in scope.
- The court rejected the California intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the officers’ conduct was not extreme or outrageous as a matter of law.
- With no viable substantive claim, the requests for declaratory and injunctive relief against the officers failed.

## Legal Principles

- VCCR Article 41’s bar on “arrest or detention pending trial” is limited and does not prevent reasonable, brief investigative restraint during on-scene law enforcement activity.
- Executive-branch interpretations of treaty obligations (including State Department guidance) are entitled to substantial deference in construing treaty terms.
- A treaty provision that does not confer individually enforceable rights, or that lacks an intended private damages remedy, cannot be enforced through a private civil action for damages against local officers.
- A plaintiff cannot use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce a treaty provision that does not create an individually enforceable federal right.
- The Alien Tort Statute requires a viable predicate treaty or international-law violation; ordinary domestic law-enforcement conduct during a DUI investigation, absent a treaty breach, does not satisfy that standard.
- Federal criminal statutes generally do not create private civil causes of action absent clear congressional intent.
- Under California law, false arrest/false imprisonment fails where officers have legal authority (including probable cause) for a temporary restraint; IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct beyond ordinary law-enforcement measures.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the CHP officers, holding that the brief restraint and transport of a consular official during a DUI investigation did not violate VCCR Article 41 and that neither the treaty nor the invoked federal statutes supplied a private damages remedy; the related California tort and equitable claims also failed as a matter of law.


Salazar v. Burresch, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 1999)