Arrested retiree says Monterey detective knew he ‘got wrong guy’

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A retired Canadian schoolteacher fought to keep his lawsuit against a California detective and prosecutor alive Thursday after he was wrongfully jailed for 13 days because a sexual predator randomly used his wife’s phone number to set up an email account.

Richard Zilinskas, 75, was arrested and imprisoned in October 2024 after he and his wife Mildred crossed into the U.S. for a day trip to Niagara Falls.

According to the Zilinskas’ amended complaint, filed in March in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Monterey police department was investigating a purportedly 48-year-old man from Ohio, who went by the name of David and had been communicating online with a 13-year-old girl in Monterey, California. The girl had sent the man nude photos of herself and the two had discussed meeting up at a hotel.

Although the Monterey police detective investigating the case received a photo of Richard Zilinskas that showed he was much older than 48, detective Michael Garcia, went to a county prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Billie Gibson, to get an arrest warrant for Zilinskas.

A few months after his arrest, all charges against Zilinskas were dropped and a state court issued a factual finding that he was innocent of all charges.

Zilinskas’ claim of malicious prosecution against Monterey officials survived a previous motion to dismiss. Through his amended complaint, Zilinskas brings an unreasonable seizure claim and violations of the California Bane Act. Mildred Zilinskas also brings a loss of consortium claim seeking compensation for the relational and emotional harm caused by the incident.

At a motion-to-dismiss hearing Thursday, Monterey County attorney Tucker Wisdom-Stack argued the detective and prosecutor are protected by a California law providing immunity for injuries within the scope of a public employee’s work, even if they act maliciously or without probable cause.

Monterey city attorney Diana Godwin, who also represented Garcia, said Zilinskas must show Garcia had specific intent to violate his rights in order to bring a Bane Act claim. She said Garcia was acting on a “facially valid arrest warrant,” and his conduct was the first step of many leading to the arrest.

“He was doing his job and investigating and sought an arrest warrant,” Godwin said.

However, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts was skeptical of Godwin’s argument, saying Garcia’s goal was to have Zilinskas arrested, and he did everything to achieve the goal, whether ultimately it was the correct person or not.

“It’s hard of me to see how this doesn’t seem like specific intent,” said Pitts, a Joe Biden appointee.

Pitts also questioned both parties about Mildred Zilinskas’ loss of consortium claim, which under a 14th Amendment “familial association” claim allows family members to sue government actors for unconstitutionally interfering with their relationships. The loss of consortium claim specifically seeks compensation for the loss of companionship.

Pitts said the Ninth Circuit ruled it was a “hard decision” if qualified immunity could apply under the familial association claim, and it was unclear if he needed to apply it to the Zilinskas case. He asked Godwin and plaintiffs’ attorney Walter Walker for a supplemental brief on the idea.

Walker told the court that he received a document on Thursday from his client detailing that Garcia admitted to an Ontario official that he “got the wrong guy,” yet the record of the case doesn’t reflect it because Garcia did not provide an affidavit or declaration. Walker asserted the need to take the case into discovery.

Pitts didn’t indicate his thoughts on the city of Monterey’s motion to dismiss and took all the motions under submission.

“I will have a decision forthwith,” he said.