Aguilera v. Baca
| Citation | 394 F.Supp.2d 1203 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 03-6328 SVW(CWX).,CV 03-6328 SVW(CWX). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Elizabeth AGUILERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Leroy BACA, et al., Defendants. |
Elizabeth J. Gibbons, John S. Birke, Green & Shinee, Encino, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Adrian J. Barrio, Paul B. Beach, Franscell Strickland Roberts & Lawrence, Glendale, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case arose out of a complaint by a civilian that a deputy sheriff had assaulted him. An internal police investigation ensued in which Plaintiffs, deputies in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, were asked or ordered to remain at work for questioning after their shifts had ended. After brief questioning by a member of the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau, each deputy invoked his or her Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs were subsequently taken off field duty and then reassigned to other shifts. No charges were ever filed against any of the Plaintiffs, and none of the Plaintiffs was ever forced to testify in any kind of proceeding.
As a result of this incident, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Aguilera ("Aguilera"), Phillip Arellano ("Arellano"), Benjamin Bardon ("Bardon"), Gustavo ("Gus") Carrillo ("Gus Carrillo"), and Hector Ramirez ("Ramirez") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed the action for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 on September 5, 2003 against Defendants Leroy Baca ("Baca"), William Stonich ("Stonich"), Larry Waldie ("Waldie"), Dennis Dahlman ("Dahlman"), William Sams ("Sams"), William McSweeney ("McSweeney"), Neil Tyler ("Tyler"), Thomas Angel ("Angel"), Arthur Ng ("Ng"), Alan Smith ("Smith"), Margaret Wagner ("Wagner"), Russell Kagy ("Kagy"), Brian Proctor ("Proctor"), the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LASD" or the "Department"), and the County of Los Angeles (the "County") (collectively "Defendants").
Plaintiffs allege violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be free from coercive police questioning, and their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be free from governmental conduct which shocks the conscience. Plaintiffs also allege conspiracy and municipal liability.
On June 6, 2005, Defendants filed Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On June 22, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.1
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
On September 5, 2002, Plaintiffs were assigned to the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Station (the "Station") as patrol deputies. They were assigned to the early morning shift, with regularly scheduled hours from approximately 10:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002 to 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. on September 5, 2002.
The uniform of a patrol deputy consists of green pants and a tan shirt with no stripes on the sleeve. By contrast, a sergeant's uniform includes three stripes on the sleeve.
At around 1:30 a.m. on September 5, 2002, Plaintiffs and Deputy Joseph ("Joe") Carrillo ("Joe Carrillo") conducted a narcotics investigation at a residence near the intersection of Union Pacific Avenue and Indiana Street in East Los Angeles.3 Sgt. Sean Burke ("Burke") supervised.
At around this same time, Martin Jamie Flores, a civilian (the "civilian"), called the Los Angeles Police Department ("LASD") from a pay phone near Union Pacific and Indiana to report that a single male deputy, possibly Hispanic, had struck him with a flashlight in the back and head. Paramedics were dispatched to the scene and transported the civilian to Doctor's Hospital.
Prior to this time, the civilian had been drinking in a bar next to the parking lot where the Plaintiffs were conducting their investigation. According to Plaintiffs, the civilian was visibly intoxicated when he exited the bar. Plaintiffs claim that the civilian repeatedly tried to talk to the suspects they were detaining and taunted Plaintiffs to free the suspects or arrest them.
At some point after 1:30 a.m., Watch Commander Abel Moreno ("Moreno") received a call from a LAPD sergeant who informed him that she was at Doctor's Hospital and a patient was alleging that he had been assaulted by a deputy sheriff. By this point, Sgt. Burke had returned to the Station. Having been informed of the civilian's allegations at the scene, Sgt. Burke notified Watch Commander Moreno. Together, they responded to Doctor's Hospital, verified the civilian's physical injuries to his head and back, and took a videotaped statement from the civilian.4
The civilian told Sgt. Burke and Watch Commander Moreno that he was assaulted by a deputy sheriff — the civilian indicated that there were no stripes on the assailant's sleeves — while he was walking near Union Pacific Avenue and Indiana Street. The civilian also told them that he did not think there were any witnesses.
As a result of the civilian's complaint, the Department's Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") began an internal investigation into the matter. Watch Commander Moreno subsequently contacted Captain Thomas Angel ("Angel") at home and informed him of the civilian's allegation and injuries.
After IAB investigators contacted the civilian at Doctor's Hospital, it was determined that investigators from the Department's Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau ("ICIB") should become involved in the investigation.5
At some point between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., Plaintiffs were directed to return to the Station and wait until investigators arrived. When Plaintiffs returned to the Station, they were advised or told by Watch Commander Moreno that they should remain at the Station until they could be interviewed by Department investigators.6
The Department has two separate internal investigations units: IAB, which investigates administrative allegations, and ICIB, which investigates criminal allegations. Plaintiffs were aware of the difference on September 5, 2002.
By 6:00 a.m., Defendants had determined that the civilian's allegations would be investigated by ICIB. At around this same time, Sgt. Burke and Watch Commander Moreno told Plaintiff Aguilera that the civilian's allegations would be investigated criminally.
Sometime before 7:00 a.m., Captain Angel telephoned Commander Neal Tyler ("Tyler") to discuss the allegations.7 Captain Angel related the information he obtained from Sgt. Moreno. Captain Angel also told Commander Tyler that the deputies would be at the station until they could be interviewed by ICIB investigators.
Between approximately 7:00 and 7:45 a.m., ICIB Lt. Allan Smith ("Smith") called ICIB Sgt. James Russell Kagy ("Kagy") at home, informed him of the nature of the investigation, and ordered him to report to ICIB to conduct an investigation.
At about 8:00 a.m., Sgt. Kagy and his partner, Deborah Jones, reported to ICIB, where they received a briefing from Lt. Smith. Lt. Smith told Sgt. Kagy that the assault occurred in the vicinity of a narcotics investigation at Union Pacific Avenue and Indiana Street and identified by name the deputies who had been involved in the investigation. Sgt. Kagy and Jones then began a preliminary investigation and proceeded directly to Doctor's Hospital to contact the civilian.
After arriving at Doctor's Hospital, Sgt. Kagy learned that the civilian had been released and was with IAB Sgt. Darryl Meeks ("Sgt.Meeks"). Sgt. Kagy proceeded to the civilian's location, received a briefing from Sgt. Meeks, and interviewed the civilian. The civilian told Sgt. Kagy that he had been hit several times in the back of the head and several other places by a deputy while he was walking on Union Pacific Avenue near Indiana Street and that the assault had occurred after a verbal exchange between the civilian and a deputy.
Sgt. Kagy then accompanied the civilian to the scene of the alleged assault. At the scene of the alleged assault, the civilian provided Sgt. Kagy with a reenactment of how the assault occurred, including a description of where the involved deputy was prior to the assault, the location of the pay phone from which the civilian called 911, and a description of the uniform ("beige and green with no stripes on the sleeve") that the deputy was wearing. As soon as Sgt. Kagy finished his preliminary investigation and interview of the civilian at the scene, he went directly to the Station to interview Plaintiffs. He arrived at the Station shortly before 11:30 a.m.
When Plaintiffs and Deputy Joe Carrillo returned to the Station between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m., they initially gathered in the Station's report writing room. However, at some point between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., some of the Plaintiffs were moved to the basement briefing room. During this time, Plaintiffs were under the supervision of other sheriff's department personnel, although Plaintiffs' deposition testimony indicates that the supervision was less than constant.8
At approximately 6:30 a.m., Plaintiffs were directed to go to Captain Angel's office. According to Plaintiffs, Captain Angel pointed at Plaintiffs and told them in a "harsh, accusatory tone" that (1) he knew one of them had assaulted the civilian, (2) the others were covering it up, (3) one or more of them would be going to prison and would lose their jobs, and (4) the only way to avoid going to jail was to "come forward" by giving a statement to ICIB investigators. Captain Angel concluded by ordering Plaintiffs not to leave the Station and to wait in the COPS Team office until they gave a statement to the ICIB investigators.9
For the next five hours, Plaintiffs waited in the COPS Team office. During...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. City of San Diego
...had committed or was committing an offense." Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995) ; Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1214 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ("Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a pruden......
-
Manni v. City of San Diego
...accused had committed or was committing an offense." Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995); Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1214 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ("Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a......
-
Reyes v. Maschmeier, 05-12720.
...circumstances dissimilar to those of this case, have been reviewed elsewhere. See, e.g., Driebel, 298 F.3d at 627; Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1214 (C.D.Cal.2005) (holding that sheriff's deputies were not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when ordered to remain at work to be qu......
-
Titus v. City of La Mesa
...accused had committed or was committing an offense." Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995); Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1214 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ("Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a......
-
Self-Incrimination
...use immunity mandated by Kastigar. This so-called Garrity immunity automatically attaches to compelled testimony. Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1219-20 (C.D. Ca. 2005). See also In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, 975 F.2d 1488, 1490 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Immunity under Garrity preve......
-
Self-incrimination
...use immunity mandated by Kastigar. This so-called Garrity immunity automatically attaches to compelled testimony. Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1219-20 (C.D. Ca. 2005). See also In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, 975 F.2d 1488, 1490 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Immunity under Garrity preve......
-
Self-Incrimination
...use immunity mandated by Kastigar. This so-called Garrity immunity automatically attaches to compelled testimony. Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1219-20 (C.D. Ca. 2005). See also In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, 975 F.2d 1488, 1490 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Immunity under Garrity preve......