Court Says L.A. Liable in Rape by Officer : Law: State justices hope that the ruling encourages prevention of offenses. But one warns of ‘unprecedented expansion’ of damages paid by governments.

The state Supreme Court, in a major expansion of governmental liability for crimes by peace officers, held Thursday that the city of Los Angeles can be forced to pay damages to a woman raped by a police officer who had detained her.

The justices, reinstating a $150,000 jury verdict against the city, rejected the city’s contention that under state law, municipalities are protected from financial responsibility for a criminal act it said was entirely unrelated to official duty.

The court, by a vote of 5 to 2, concluded that the vast powers given officers called for broad legal remedies for their crimes against citizens, however rare. Making the government liable for damages would encourage steps by public officials to prevent offenses by officers and provide greater compensation for victims, the justices said.

“When law enforcement officers abuse their authority by committing crimes against members of the community, they violate public trust,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court. “. . . The public employer must be held accountable for their actions.”

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, agreed that the city should be held liable for damages, but only on narrow grounds. In a separate opinion, they disagreed sharply with Kennard and the majority on the broader issue, warning that the court’s “unprecedented expansion” of governmental liability would leave taxpayers responsible for “almost any abuse of position” by an officer.

Baxter said the ramifications of the ruling are “sweeping.” Government could be held responsible any time a wide variety of legally designated peace officers--ranging from sheriffs to voluntary fire wardens--use their authority in any way to commit a murder, robbery or rape, he said.

The ruling, he said, could “convert blameless public agencies into liability insurers for much, if not all, of the intentional misconduct committed by peace officers in their employ.”

A spokesman for City Atty. James K. Hahn said there would be no official comment from the city pending study of the court’s opinion.

But one Los Angeles city lawyer familiar with the case, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said he was seriously concerned about the impact of the decision. “This could have unbelievable ramifications for government all over,” the lawyer said. “This means there’s no limit on what the public is going to have to pay.”

An attorney for the firm representing the victim in the case declined comment. A public relations company representing the firm said a news conference would be held today in Los Angeles to discuss the case and its ramifications.

The case arose after the victim was detained in 1981 by Sgt. Leigh B. Schroyer on suspicion of drunk driving. According to testimony, after the woman pleaded not to be taken to jail, the officer drove her home in his patrol car. At the woman’s Northridge residence, Schroyer seized her, told her to be quiet and raped her.

The officer was charged, convicted and sent to prison for 18 months. The victim brought a civil suit against the city and the officer, saying the rape had caused her to develop drinking and other personal problems. A Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded her $150,000 in damages from the city and a like amount from the officer.

The city challenged the judgment and in 1988 a state Court of Appeal reversed the award against the city, saying Los Angeles was protected from liability because the crime was personally motivated and was so unusual it could not have been reasonably foreseen by the city.

In Thursday’s ruling, the high court concluded that contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision, the officer’s misconduct was properly found by the jury to be within his “scope of employment”--the legal standard that must be met to hold the city financially responsible as the employer under state governmental immunity statutes.

In her 39-page opinion for the majority, Kennard said that Schroyer was using his official authority when he detained the woman, ordered her to perform a field sobriety test and told her to get into his police car. By later threatening to take her to jail if she resisted his sexual advances, he continued to assert his official power, the justice said.

Kennard noted that peace officers are granted “extraordinary power and authority” that inherently contains the potential for abuse.

“The cost resulting from misuse of that power should be borne by the community, because of the substantial benefits that the community derives from the lawful exercise of police power,” the justice wrote.

Sexual assaults by officers “are fortunately uncommon,” Kennard said, but the risk of misconduct is “broadly incidental to the enterprise of law enforcement,” thus opening the city to liability.

Kennard’s opinion was joined by Justices Stanley Mosk and Edward A. Panelli and retired Justice Allen E. Broussard, participating in the ruling by special assignment.

Justice Armand Arabian concurred in a separate opinion, citing statutes and court opinions in recent years that have provided a variety of other legal protections to victims of rape.

Baxter, joined by Lucas, agreed that the verdict against the city should be reinstated, but only on narrow grounds based on the city’s erroneous request for jury instructions that “virtually guaranteed” it would be held liable.

The two justices disagreed sharply with the majority’s expansion of governmental liability. A city should never be held financially responsible when an officer commits a crime “entirely unrelated to his law enforcement responsibilities,” Baxter said.

Baxter noted there was no claim that the city negligently failed to screen or to adequately train the officer who committed the rape.

Santa Ana Police Chief Paul M. Walters said the ruling “doesn’t surprise me, and I don’t think it’s right.”

Walters said the city and the community should not be held responsible for the actions of one of its employees unless there was negligence in hiring or training.

“It’s almost ludicrous to see how you could have any control over what an employee does,” the chief said. “The court is only looking at one case, and the cumulative effect is that it will become very detrimental in the long run to law enforcement.”

The potential impact of the ruling on a pending damage suit against the city of Los Angeles by police beating victim Rodney G. King was not immediately clear, and King’s attorney in the case could not be reached Thursday for comment.

However, in argument before the high court in the rape case last June, Deputy City Atty. Katherine J. Hamilton acknowledged that under then-existing law, municipalities could be held liable in excessive-force cases.

In another action Thursday involving the Los Angeles Police Department, the justices, in a brief order, refused to get involved in a dispute over the Police Commission’s authority to suspend Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

In the aftermath of the King beating, the Police Commission tried to suspend Gates. One day later, Gates threatened to bring suit and the City Council voted to reinstate the chief to avoid being taken to court.

The commission, which enjoys some independent powers under the City Charter, was joined by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and others in challenging the legality of the council action. But the council’s power to revoke the suspension was upheld in Superior Court.

The Police Commission and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference appealed to the Supreme Court to review the case. The Los Angeles city attorney’s office, joined by lawyers for Gates, urged the justices to deny review, saying the issue had become moot. In June, the voters approved a City Charter amendment giving the council new powers to override commission actions, and Gates has agreed to step down as chief next spring.