Victorville Beating Case Civil Rights Suit Dismissed : The law: Judge says San Bernardino County sheriff did not encourage a pattern of brutality. Jury’s $956,000 damage award to three men is not affected.

A federal judge in Los Angeles on Friday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit against San Bernardino County and Sheriff Floyd Tidwell stemming from the controversial 1988 arrest of five Mexican men in Victorville.

U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima said he was dismissing the case because there was “no evidence of a custom or policy” of excessive force that would make it possible for a jury to return a verdict against the defendants.

Tashima said he did not think Tidwell could be held personally responsible because “I don’t believe the evidence shows any personal participation on his part in the constitutional violations” charged in the lawsuit.

Friday’s decision has no impact on a jury’s Jan. 23 decision to award three of the five plaintiffs $956,000 in damages. The jury agreed with their contention that they had been illegally beaten by three San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies in the June 30, 1988, incident.

The jury was shown a four-minute videotape made by a neighbor showing part of the confrontation between the deputies and the plaintiffs. The tape shows several uniformed officers using fists and batons on men who seemed to offer little resistance.

Defense lawyers said the tapes showed only part of the altercation and did not show one of the plaintiffs resisting arrest when the officers attempted to break up a loud party. That man, Jose Serrano, pleaded guilty in January to the misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest and is now on probation.

The case was one of the first in which a videotape has been used as evidence in a police brutality case in federal court.

Judge Tashima split the case into two parts. The purpose of the second phase of the case, dismissed Friday, was to resolve the plaintiffs’ contention that the sheriff and the county had ratified the acts of the deputies by failing to discipline them.

Tidwell took the witness stand on Thursday and said he initially was “shocked” when he saw the force used by his deputies in the arrests. However, an investigation by the department absolved the deputies of wrongdoing.

Stephen Yagman, a Santa Monica attorney who was co-counsel for the plaintiffs, told the jury that Tidwell’s remarks to the City Council, shown on videotape, supported allegations that the sheriff condoned brutal conduct by his deputies.

But Tidwell’s lawyer, David Lawrence, said that Tidwell simply engaged in “the natural human response” to come to the aid of his subordinates. He also said Tidwell made a minor mistake by allowing “his department to get pushed into an investigation that took place too quickly.”

Tidwell said he was “very, very pleased” at the judge’s decision Friday. But his attorney said he could not discuss any aspect of the case since it might be appealed. In fact, Carlos Juarez, the other lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision will be appealed.

Tashima said Friday’s ruling was “a difficult decision.” But he said the plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence that Tidwell’s decision not to discipline the deputies represented standard department practice--which had to be shown for the plaintiffs to win.