Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

A deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is suing his employer for violation of Gov. Code. 995(a) after he was denied access to an agency-funded attorney to represent him in a civil lawsuit brought during the course of his employment.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers are representing the deputy.

The basics of what happened are this:

An incident occurred back in 2011, during the scope of the deputy's employment with the agency that came under scrutiny. Subsequently, in an unrelated action, the deputy filed a formal complaint of racial discrimination against his former supervisor, as well as the agency itself.

Such complaint would be protected under the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. However, the defendant(s) responded by immediately initiating a barrage of retaliatory acts.

Later, that earlier incident resulted in a civil lawsuit, Teeman v. County of Los Angeles, filed against the plaintiff in Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit alleged unlawful assault by the deputy. Despite the fact that it occurred within the scope of his employment and while he was acting as an employee, the agency refused to hire an attorney to represent and defend him in this action. As a result, he has had to pay for his own defense attorney, at enormous personal cost. He has even had to request that his defense attorney cut certain corners, as he doesn't have the money on his own.

The law requires that upon request of an employee or former employee, a public entity SHALL provide for the defense of any proceeding - including civil actions - brought against the employee, in either his individual or professional capacity, so long as the claim was in the scope of his or her employment with that agency. This includes any kind of counterclaim, cross-complaint or cross-action.

The only instances for which an employer may deny this request would be:

• If the action or omission wasn't in the scope of the individual's employment;


• Because he or she failed to act or acted because of fraud, malice or corruption;


• Because the defense would create a notable conflict of interest between the employee and the public entity.

Yet, neither the supervisor nor the agency nor the county outlined that any of these were of issue or concern in this case.

As such, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $25,000 for compensatory, general and non-economic damages, as well as any other relief that the court deems proper.

The notice of filing of the discrimination complaint has already been submitted to the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, which has responded by declining further investigation and granting the deputy's right to sue.

Continue reading "Carter v. County of Los Angeles - A Violation of Civil Rights" »

A current lieutenant with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department has filed a civil lawsuit against the agency, alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and retaliation.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers are representing the lieutenant, who was subjected to severe and prolonged harassment by her former supervisor. After four years of trying to ignore, deflect and tell him in no uncertain terms his advances weren't welcome, she filed a formal complaint.

The conduct of Commander Joey Fennell was in clear and direct violation of California's Fair Employment Housing Act, which holds that employers have a responsibility not only to prevent sexual harassment, but to ensure complainants aren't subjected to retaliation as a result of their complaint, which is a protected act.

The lieutenant is suing not only the sheriff's department, but the county of Los Angeles, as well as the individual supervisor, Commander Fennell, who subjected her to this crass and illegal treatment. She had worked for the agency for four years. During that time, she was harassed, stalked, threatened and retaliated against by her boss, who was reportedly relentless.

Interestingly, the Sheriff's Department has a long history of such behavior, as evidenced by two previous lawsuits - Bowman v. County of Los Angeles and White v. County of Los Angeles. Yet it seems the sheriff's department turned a blind eye to this behavior, as he continues to remain on the job.

In vulgar terms, the supervisor would demand sexual favors from the victim, saying that her cooperation would make her work life "better for her." When she did not concede to his demands, he allegedly did in fact make life worse for her. Her refusals resulted in something he termed, "freeway therapy," which meant she was forced to work as far away from her home as possible. Even then, he tried on numerous occasions to coerce her into spending time with him.

This was an individual who had the authority and discretion with regard to the plaintiff's hiring, transfer, promotion, assignment, reward, discipline or discharge. He also was responsible for oversight of grievances and the details of her daily work.

The defendant reportedly threatened the lieutenant with loss of future promotions if she ever revealed the extent of his sexually explicit communication with her, saying that his wife would, "wring his neck" if she ever learned of it.

Not only did the plaintiff suffer economic losses in terms of her job, but she has suffered - and continues to suffer - from severe anxiety, depression, humiliation, mental anguish and even physical injury, some of which has cost her in terms of medical expenses. She is seeking compensatory, as well as punitive, damages for this infliction of harm.

DFEH holds that employees in the state of California have a right to work in an environment free of:

• Unwanted sexual advances;


• Offers of employment benefits in exchange for sexual behavior;


• Threats of reprisal for negative responses to sexual advances;


• Leering, sexual gestures, display of sexual objects, cartoons, posters or pictures;


• Derogatory epithets, slurs or jokes;


• Graphic verbal commentaries about a person's body or the use of sexually degrading, obscene or suggestive words to describe an individual in any communications;


• Physical touching and/or aggression, including blocking or impeding movements.

The lieutenant, as a professional and as a human being, was entitled to better treatment. Our experienced sexual harassment lawyers are committed to ensuring she will obtain the compensation she deserves.

Continue reading "Walton v. Joey Fennell, Et. Al - Sexual Harassment Among the Ranks" »

The reliability of police K-9 units is questionable, at best.

While our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers don't deny that a great deal of time and energy goes into training these animals, the question of how many times they get it wrong - allowing police to conduct a search under false pretenses - looms large.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department uses K-9s for a variety of different law enforcement functions, as CBS Los Angeles recently reported.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Florida v. Harris held that a police dog's affirmation of a suspicious substance, used in conjunction with other evidence, is sufficient enough to warrant a search.

This decision is particularly troubling to us from the standpoint of defending clients accused of drug-related crimes. As former San Francisco Police Commissioner Peter Kean wrote in s2011 editorial, police officers lying on the stand with regard to illegal drug searches is ridiculously common. He called it a "not-so-secret secret" that undercover narcotics units blatantly and intentionally lie under oath and no one seems interested in stopping them.

This backing of the K-9 units' supposed infallibility is extremely troubling. Defendants typically aren't going to know enough about K-9 training to say whether an indicator given by a dog is positive. But even if the dog gives a positive indication that later turns out to be wrong, it won't matter in terms of what was uncovered in the search, so long as the officer can show that he used the "totality of evidence" in determining whether there was probable cause.

At issue here was whether police agencies had a responsibility to track a K-9 unit's in-the-field hits or misses. The court has found they don't.

Here, a defendant was pulled over on a routine stop. He refused to let the officer search his car. The officer brought out a K-9 unit, which alerted in the affirmative. The officer searched. He didn't find anything the dog was trained to locate, but he did find items typically used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The defendant was arrested. Booked. Released.

A few days later, he was stopped by the same officer, same K-9 unit. The dog again alerted positive to drugs and again the car was searched. However this time, the officer found nothing.

The defendant sought to show that the dog's false positive record was poor. However, he couldn't do that because the agency didn't keep records of the dog's performance. And now, it's been confirmed that such records are not required.

But that doesn't mean your case is a lost cause, especially in cases where there was no other reason for the officer to suspect you of wrongdoing.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court: Police K-9 Sniffs Up to Snuff" »

Investigators with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office are accused of framing a man on false charges of date-rape against a babysitter.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers understand that the man is claiming in his civil lawsuit that investigators with the agency knew the allegations were false, and yet pushed forward with them anyway - proceeding to arrest and book him and then forcing him to post $100,000 bail in exchange for his freedom.

According to the 53-year-old defendant, he was accused of drugging and raping the 23-year-old babysitter after he returned early from work one day. But he alleges investigators reportedly had evidence early on that he was innocent. Rather than dropping the charges, he says they forged a memo on state department of justice stationary indicating that they had found the defendant's DNA on the alleged victim's body. That letter, according to the claim, was then reportedly used by investigators to try to get the defendant to confess to a crime he didn't commit.

Further, the claimant says that investigators had evidence early on that the level of the drug found in the accuser's system ruled out the possibility that he could have administered the drug to her on the night in question. There was also no evidence of any other date rape drug and nothing else linking him to a crime.

Although the woman initially said she hadn't had sexual conduct in two years, she later retracted that statement to say she indeed had engaged in sexual intercourse, days before the alleged incident.

In the end, the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed all criminal charges. Now, the former defendant is seeking $5 million in damages.

But this case brings up another question: Why do police officers lie in the first place? What's in it for them?

Numerous sources seem to indicate the answer is: A lot.

A recent opinion article in The New York Times questioned what incentive police officers had to lie under oath. The answer often lies in the incentive programs that police or police units receive when they make a stop or an arrest. There are federal grant programs that are often based on how many arrests are made versus how many crimes are reported. Agencies that have higher arrests rates can say, "We are doing something about the crime in our city."

However, they are rarely held accountable when those arrests turn out to be false arrests.

It's perhaps more of a common phenomenon in drug cases. In fact, former San Francisco Police Commissioner Peter Keane wrote an editorial two years ago, decrying the widespread practice of officer perjury in justifying illegal drug searches.

Defendants rarely challenge it. Judges hardly ever call them out on it. And prosecutors certainly aren't going to dig a whole lot deeper than they need to when it comes to the officer's word against a defendant's.

But you absolutely do have rights, and one of those is to be protected from unreasonable searches, seizures or arrests based on anything but probable cause. You have the right to remain silent - but not when it comes to police misconduct, fraud or perjury.

Continue reading "LA Sheriff's Office Accused of Framing Man, A Look at Why Officers Lie" »