Court debate
L A's liability
in police rape
tsr■ *ev6iMH"i'liniT <'mt»
By Linda Deutsch
Associated Press
Ten years after a woman was
raped by a Los Angeles police officer following a traffic stop, the state
Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether the city must pay her
$ 150,000 awarded by a jury.
The arguments by lawyers were
interrupted by strong comments
from the justices, most of them critical of the city's position. The high
court was expected to issue a ruling
in about 90 days.
Vann Slater, the lawyer for the
victim, identified only as Mary Anna M., argued that the rape by police Sgt. Leigh Schroyer was an assault as violent as if the woman had
been beaten with a baton.
"The court of appeal focused only on rape as a sex crime," Slater
said. "If an officer beat this citizen
with a night stick the court would
have had no problem finding the
city liable. But his weapon of
choice was different."
Assistant City Attorney Kath-
erihe Hamilton argued that the only way the city could be found liable
was "if the rape flowed from the exercise of the police officer's duty."
Justice Joyce Kennard suggested
the facts of the case support just
such a conclusion.
In October 1981 Mary Anna M.
was stopped by Schroyer for allegedly driving erratically in the San
Fernando Valley. She was given a
sobriety test and pleaded with
Schroyer not to arrest her. The officer instead drove her to her home
in his patrol car. Once inside the
door, he grabbed her, told her he
would take her to jail if she
screamed and raped her.
A jury later convicted Schroyer
and sentenced him to prison. The
woman sued the city and was
awarded $150,000 in damages for
injuries and emotional distress. Another $150,000 in punitive damages was assessed against the officer.
.The 2nd District Court of Appeal, os a 2-1 vote, reversed the
damages against the city saying the
rape was "personally motivated
and wholly unrelated to
(Schroyer**) law enforcement duties." A dissenting justice said the
city should be held responsible for
the officer's abuse of the authority
given him by the city.
Hamilton argued that "the rape
was not accomplished because he
was a police officer. He accomplished the rape by force and violence. She did not submit to the
rape because of his authority."'
Justice Armand Arabian said the
woman would not have stopped if
the officer didn't have a police car,
uniform and badge.
"You're familiar with black-and-
white fever, aren't you?" he asked
Hamilton. "A black and white (car)
comes up behind you and you get
hot flashes. Doesn't that make
them (police officers) a special kind
of cat in the public perception?"
As Hamilton argued that the officer had gone off on "a foray of his
own that was beyond his job authority," Justice Stanley Mosk interrupted.
"Was this (woman) free to
leave?" he asked.
"No, your honor," said Hamilton.
"Then that's the answer," said
Mosk.
^Justice Allen Broussard compared the case to the current con- j
troversy over the March 3 police
beating of motorist Rodney King.
"The city didn't authorize officers to use Unlawful force on Rodney King," said Broussard. "And if
an officer uses weapons to inflict
unnecessary harm to a person, he's
not authorized to 4o that but the
city is liable."
p Hamilton responded that officers
are trained to use batons in their
work but are not trained to rape.
Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas
asked hypothetically if the city
would be liable* for a police officer
robbing a bank when sent there on
official duty.
Arabian took the analogy a step
further.   VI
iJlt^^ from a Person's dk-
nrty, he said, "is it unfair to allow
recompense for that?"
"If you find responsibility, yes,"
said Hamilton. "But that's the central issue — Whether there is re-
go««bflity on the part of the city
foru^jndependent acts of an em-
6//3/f/ p.^i
,h