Public Officials Face Liability in Police Cases

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday that public officials in nine western states--including California--can be sued individually when they vote to pay punitive damage awards for a police officer found liable for brutality.

In a Los Angeles case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3 to 0 that Los Angeles City Council members do not have “absolute immunity” from lawsuits when they decide to have taxpayers assume the officers’ financial burden for punitive damages, as the city attorney’s office had argued. The decision upheld a 1992 ruling by Los Angeles federal trial Judge J. Spencer Letts.

Lawyers who specialize in police misconduct cases and attorneys for the city said the ruling could have broad ramifications on police brutality suits.

“This is the most important police brutality decision I’ve ever gotten because it has the most important consequence--to make responsible for police misconduct the members of the government who have been hiding and disclaiming responsibility, like Councilmen Joel Wachs and Zev Yaroslavsky,” said Stephen Yagman, who represented the plaintiff.

Assistant City Atty. Annette Keller, who specializes in defending the Police Department, said she was stunned by the decision and may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Keller said the ruling “really cuts the heart out of the California government code section that gives the council discretion” to pay a punitive damage award on behalf of the officers.

The groundbreaking decision stemmed from a case filed by Johanna Trevino, whose father was shot and killed by members of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Investigations Section after the February, 1990, robbery of a McDonald’s in Sunland.

The officers watched outside as Javier Trevino and three other men robbed the business, the court decision noted.

“When the men left the restaurant and got into their getaway car, the police used their police vehicles to block the car’s movement. Then the police opened fire. . . . One of the officers shot (Trevino) in the top of the head from a distance of two feet,” the ruling said.

Three robbers were killed and one survived. The incident spawned a lawsuit on behalf of four family members who contended that the police used excessive force and fired on the robbers without provocation. Police Chief Daryl F. Gates was named as a defendant because the suit said he was ultimately responsible for the officers’ actions and condoned the use of excessive force.

After a three-month trial in 1992, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded punitive damages of $44,042 against Gates and nine members of the special unit. Jurors said the damage award was purposely low because they believed that the chief and his officers should pay it out of their own pockets. Gates was to pay $20,505.

The City Council voted to pay the award on behalf of the officers, even though some council members expressed reservations.

Trevino’s suit was filed by her guardian after the first verdict and the council’s action. Yagman contended that council members showed “an established pattern and practice of routinely approving the payment of punitive damage awards against Los Angeles police officers.” He said the practice encouraged police to use excessive force, and this led to the death of Trevino’s father.

Assistant City Atty. Keller contended that council members had absolute legislative immunity for their actions under a section of the California government code that permits governmental entities to pay punitive damages if three conditions are met: The public employee in question was acting in the scope of his or her employment; the employee acted in good faith, without actual malice, and payment of the judgment “would be in the best interests of the public entity.”

But the 9th Circuit judges ruled that the payment of punitive damages is an administrative decision, not a legislative act, and not entitled to absolute immunity from suit.

Keller said the ruling would put pressure on the City Council to settle cases. “It really makes it difficult for a City Council member to act objectively and attempt to do what’s right in each case if they decide to indemnify officers.”

Yaroslavsky agreed and said there would be other negative consequences. “It’s open season on city councils, a bottomless pit, a Pandora’s box.”

But Hugh Manes, a police misconduct lawyer, said the decision would prompt government agencies to settle cases rapidly and curtail “sadistic” practices by police officers.