Proof Up to Plaintiffs in Police Brutality Lawsuits

In a decision that may give greater protection to law enforcement officers in police brutality cases, an appellate court ruled that the burden of proof must be on the plaintiffs.

The ruling Wednesday by the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana establishes a precedent in California, Justice William Bedsworth wrote in the decision.

“Indeed, any other rule would invite a flood of litigation,” Bedsworth wrote.

The decision came in a case brought by attorney Frank Barbaro of Santa Ana on behalf of Robert Edson, 28, who was shot to death by an Anaheim police officer following a high-speed car chase in 1989. The appellate court let stand a civil court jury’s ruling that Officer Lee Smith acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Unlike private citizens, Bedsworth wrote, police officers are “entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self defense.

“Police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

Plaintiffs are almost always required to prove a case, including murder trials. But in police brutality cases, the burden sometimes has fallen on different sides of the law, depending on the judge or the case, attorneys said.

“The problem is that state courts don’t have a track record in these types of cases,” said Bruce Praet, who defended Anaheim police in the Edson case. “The law has been rather uncertain. What [the appellate panel] did was recognize the absurd, conflicting standards that police are being held to, depending on what court they are sued in.”

In some instances, the plaintiffs must prove they were abused by police. In other cases, judges determine that it is up to the law enforcement officers to justify a battery. Nationwide, states are “fairly evenly split” regarding their handling of such cases, Bedsworth wrote, but more often than not, the plaintiffs have the burden of proof.

Attorneys who specialize in such cases on both sides said Thursday that while the ruling is important, many courtrooms already assume that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, because that rule exists in federal laws involving police brutality.

Still, Anaheim Police Chief Randall Gaston said he was “pleased that the court took a very careful look at the facts of the case and then very carefully applied some sound logic to it. This is a very reasonable and sound decision.”

But Barbaro, who specializes in police brutality lawsuits, said the ruling “is really somewhat of a shock. This whole thing is a travesty of justice.”

James Muller, a Los Angeles attorney, said he believes the decision will erode plaintiffs’ rights.

“I think they missed a chance to make proceedings against police officers a little fairer,” said Muller, who was involved in the case of Hong Il Kim, who was shot and killed by police in Orange in 1996 on live television.

“There’s good reason to put the burden on police, because in reality, the police have such a tremendous practical advantage in these kinds of cases.”

Edson, who ran a struggling ticket service for concerts and sporting events, was living with his wife and stepson at the Galaxy Motor Inn near Disneyland. Shortly after midnight on Feb. 2, he went to a nearby store to buy shampoo for his wife when police noticed that he was driving without taillights and tried to stop him.

Edson led police on a 14-minute chase that ended in the motel parking lot, where Smith fired at least eight shots, one of which fatally struck Edson.