Confidential
Settlement – $120,000Judge
Court
USDC Southern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Thomas E. Beck
(The Beck Law Firm)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Darrell O. Clardy
(technical)
Defendant
Richard G. Whalley
(technical)
Bill Snyder
(technical)
Facts
At approximately 12:15 a.m. southbound Carlsbad Boulevard at Hemlock, the plaintiff, a 34-year-old FBI agent, and his then-fiancee, approached a North County DUI Task Force checkpoint manned by officers from several local agencies. The defendant was the only State Parks and Recreation (SPR) present. The defendant and his back up officer contacted the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant ordered the plaintiff from the car when informed him he had left a restaurant and had been drinking. The defendant conducted several field sobriety tests (FSTs) on the plaintiff, which he passed. At the conclusion of the FSTs, the defendant required the plaintiff to submit to a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) breath device. The plaintiff complied and gave two samples. The defendant kept the first to himself; the second, he allegedly falsely informed him registered .074. The defendant conferred with the other officer and told the plaintiff, "You are not under arrest and you are not legally drunk." However, shortly thereafter the defendant ordered the plaintiff to place his hands behind him and applied handcuffs. His vehicle was left at the roadside and the plaintiff's fiance was driven home by Carlsbad officers. The defendant took the plaintiff to the Vista Detention Facility and booked him for driving under the influence. The plaintiff was asked to submit to yet another breath/chemical test which he refused becasue he had given two in the field. The defendant left and the plaintiff then telephoned his aunt, an Orange County Municipal Court Judge, and informed her of what had taken place and was told the PAS breath test taken in the field was insufficient. The plaintiff immediately demanded the second chemical test and was refused. Vista officials promptly released the plaintiff, returned his vehicle keys and the fiance took him to their car. In accordance with FBI regulations, the plaintiff immediately notified his superiors. The defendant prepared several official reports in which he purported to describe the plaintiff as driving under the influence in violation of Calif. Vehicle Code º23152(a) and incapable of passing any field sobriety test administered. These reports were passed to another defendant who approved the same and to a deputy district attorney. No criminal charges were filed, however, the plaintiff's driver's license was suspended on the face of the defendant's reports. The plaintiff hired defense counsel and several months later after an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer, the plaintiff's license was restored. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff was relieved of his FBI vehicle and field investigative duties by reason of this arrest and license suspension. The FBI has a "Zero Tolerance" DUI policy. The FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), opened an internal investigation into the incident. At the conclusion of a several month investigation, the plaintiff was cleared of misconduct and restored to his full duties. On Oct. 27, 1995, the plaintiff filed a written personnel complaint with the defendants at the Parks and Recreation Department offices in San Diego and Sacramento noting the arresting officer falsely and maliciously arrested him, falsified his police reports and committed perjury. The complaint was classified as minor, thereby keeping any investigation under control in San Diego. No one contacted the plaintiff or acknowledged his complaint. Three months later, the plaintiff wrote a second time. This time the Sacramento office of Internal Affairs opened a file and assigned the case to an investigator who interviewed the plaintiff in July 1996. In December 1996, the plaintiff received a letter stating his allegations of "discourteous treatment of the public" and "other failure of good behavior" were unfounded. The investigation failed to address the plaintiff's allegations of false arrest, false reports and dishonesty. ***
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand of $120,000. The defendants made a settlement offer of $50,000.
Damages
The plaintiff was in custody three hours, his licensed was suspended and he was relieved of duty for one month.
Injuries
The palintiff alleged emotional distress??
Result
*** CONTINUATION OF FACTS: Discovery disclosed that at the same time the plaintiff's complaints against the arresting officer were being investigated, the arresting officer had three other open investigations regarding citizen complaints pending. Each of these complaints, plus another false arrest claim by a Covina fireman centered on the defendant's dishonesty and incompetence. None of the complaints was properly classified, investigated or sustained. Of the approximately 20 personnel complaint investigations received annually, the defendant was responsible for a full quarter of them in 1996. The agency has approximately 700 employees statewide. The defendant has never been disciplined, counseled or reprimanded for his misconduct toward the plaintiff or any other citizen. The plaintiff alleged that the director of the State Parks and Recreation Department, and the District Superintendent of the State Parks and Recreation Department were liable in their individual capacities on a supervisory liability theory, akin to a Monell-Canton claim, on the ground that these defendants ratified the arresting officer's misconduct, as well as the "whitewashing" of the internal investigations, which the plaintiff claimed demonstrated deliberate indifference in light of what each knew about the arresting officer and the department's internal investigation practices. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on violation of civil rights and false arrest theories of recovery.
Other Information
The settlement was reached approximately one year and six months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on Sept. 5, 1997 before Judge Leo Papas resulting in the reported settlement. Per plaintif's counsel, Judge Papas worked "above and beyond the call" to settle the case.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390