Court debates L.A's liability in police rape, 1991-06-13 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 19 of 24 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
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
Object Description
Title | Commission meetings, 1991-05-23 - 1991-06-15 |
Description | Commission meetings, 1991 May23 - June 15. PART OF A SERIES: Materials in the series fall into one of several categories related to the Independent Commission's work product: (1) Commission meeting materials, which include meeting agendas, work plans, memoranda, and articles about police misconduct that were circulated and reviewed during the Commission's internal meetings; (2) public correspondence, which includes citizen complaints against the LAPD in the form of written testimony, articles, and an audio cassette tape, as well as letters drafted by citizens in support of the LAPD; (3) summaries of interviews held with LAPD officers regarding Departmental procedures and relations; (4) public meeting materials, which include transcripts, supplementary documents, and witness statements that were reviewed at the Commission's public meetings; (5) press releases related to the formation and work product of the Commission; and (6) miscellaneous materials reviewed by the Commission during its study, including LAPD personnel and training manuals, a memorandum of understanding, and messages from the LAPD's Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT) system. |
Coverage date | 1930/1991; 1991-05-22; 1991-05-23; 1991-05-25; 1991-06-05; 1991-06-07; 1991-06-11/1991-06-14 |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date created | 1991-05; 1991-05-23; 1991-05-29; 1991-06-05; 1991-06-07; 1991-06-11/1991-06-13 |
Date issued | 1991; 1991-05; 1991-05-29; 1991-06; 1991-06-09; 1991-06-13; 1991-06-15 |
Type |
texts images |
Format | 167 p. |
Format (aat) |
agendas (administrative records) articles clippings (information artifacts) correspondence interviews memorandums plans (reports) |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
Series | Independent Commission file list |
File | Commission meetings |
Box and folder | box 22, folder 14 |
Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
Filename | indep-box22-14 |
Description
Title | Court debates L.A's liability in police rape, 1991-06-13 |
Description | Linda Deutsch "Court debates L.A's liability in police rape" Los Angeles Daily News (1991 June 13). |
Creator | Deutsch, Linda |
Publisher (of the original version) | Los Angeles Daily News |
Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California, USA |
Date issued | 1991-06-13 |
Type | texts |
Format | 1 p. |
Format (aat) | clippings (information artifacts) |
Format (imt) | image/tiff |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Series | Independent Commission file list |
File | Commission meetings |
Box and folder | box 22, folder 14, item 19 |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text | 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 |
Filename | indep-box22-14-19.tif |
Archival file | Volume70/indep-box22-14-19.tif |