Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 AMICUS BRIEF 03-07-94DATE: )13Gt. C,~ 3.~ 3.~g4 NO. 21 3-7-94 Inter-Com pleasure of the Council. FISCAL IMPACT None · BACKGROUND A%tache4 i= a letter from the city of paclflca reque~tin~ that Tustin join as a -friend of the Court" {amicus curiae) in support of Pacifica'G position tha~ a police officer does not have a duty =o insure City park after curfew (and passengers in the v~icle were later inj~ed in a crash of the vehicle). The Lea~e of California cities, t~ough its Legal Advocacy co~ittee, recomm~d~ that cities join the brief. If it iS the city Council's pleasure to join, it may so authorize by Minute JAME~ G. ROURKE city Attorney Susan h% Schectman City Attorney (~1~ 738-7307 FAX (415) 359-6O38 Office of the City Attorney MAR - 11994 City of Pacifica ~l,m~.~. ~,fm~u~. ~ .s,~~_.~ 170 Santa Maria Avenue Pacifies. ~lifornia ~4 ~.~, February 22. 1994 To: All California City Attorneys Dutton v. Ouinn- Request for Amicus Parti¢ipntion -- - Dear-Colleagues:-- On behalf of the City of Pacifies, I am writing to request your City's stpport for an amicu~ brief on behalf of interested California cities in this significant law enforcement case. The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee voted totncourage cities to file amicus briefs and we would-greatly apprechte your participation. This case involves the circumstances under which police officers are responsible for the safety of the occupants of a vehicle they encounter in an investigatory stop. In the course of their daily duties, police officers continually encounter and stop vehlcl~ for n variety of law enforcement purposes. A police department does not have the resources nor the legal duty to insur~ the safety of. the vehicle in which occu~ ~u~ riding. In Dutton v. Oulnn, a Pacifies pollee officer encountered sever~ teenagers in a pickup truck in a City park after curfew. The police officer ordered the passengers out of the park. Some of the passengers were seated in the cab of the pickup truck: some were standing next m the truck. The passengers left the park. in a camper shell on the back of the pickup truck. Approximately one-half hour later and about seven miles away, the driver lost control of the truck, crashing the tmek and injuring the plaintiff. This lawsuit is an effort to make the police department responsible for the injuries suffered by ',he passengers. The plaintiff has argued that in this ~ the City had a duty to prevent harm to'the passengers since an officer had ordered the passengers to get in the wuc. k and leave the park. As a general rule, a police officer has no duty to passengers W control the negligent conduct of a third party.driv_er. Here, plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon the City on the theory that the pohce oft't/mr ruua oreatea a l:mril ~ plaintiff and therefore Plaintiff .a special relation.ship had been created imposing such · duty on the officer. argues that the officer owed a duty of care to plaintiff and that the duty was'breached, since the police officer should not have ordered the vehicle to leave, but instead should have remained at the scene until alternate and safer lrarksportation arrangermnts were made. These include allowing the minor female plaintiff to walk home at 11:00 p.m., lransponing the plaintiff in the officer's police car, calling parents or making some other arrangements. City Auor~y~ ~ v~ O~b~ ~ Support Fetuxmry 22, 19~, P~ge 2 The City's argument is that no peril was created since riding in a camper is a legal activity permitt~ under the Vehicle Code. Even if there Were a dui),, ~ere was no breach of it by merely ordering the occupants of the vehicle to leave ,he park. The City is also arguing lack of proximate cause due lo the intervening stops and also arguing that various Government Code immtmities apply. Obviously. imposition of a duty in this case has widespread implications. If a police officer owes an affirmative duty in this situation, investigating officers would be faced With a very difficult choice: eitl~r-'to i~nore--n violation of law and refuse to become involved in law enforcement activities in the first place, or stop m investigate and lhereby become hound to gusrantee the safety of thc persons and to remain at the scene. despite competing calls for assistance in more serious situations, until safe and adequate alternate transportation has be. eh arranged. Whenever officers encoUnter a vehicle with some arguable hazard (a drunk driver, faulty brakes, bald fires) there could be a duty Io remain at the scene in order to prevent the driver from leaving and to lake charge of a situation that ',he police officer did not create. The City was successful on summary Judgment in Superior Court and thc plaintiffs have now appealed. It is very important that the appellate court be made aware of the potential impact of an adverse ruling on thc law enforcement resources of cities. In this era of shrinking municipal budgets and increasing demand for police services. ~he ability of a city to allocate its polic~ resources ~s it ~s fit i~ critlad. If the appellate c~urt were to rule in favor of the plaintiff, police officers could have a legal dui)' to insure the safety of drivers and the occupants of their vehicles they encounler on pain of civil liability. Obviously, no city has %he resources to carry this heavy burden. We would appreciate yourfr/en~ of the court support in this significant case. We have enclosed an authorization form for your convenience. PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THE FORM TO ME BY APRIL 1, 1994. Very u-uly yours, SUSAN M. SCI-iFJ2TMAN CiS' Attorney SMS:fd Enclosure AU'ITIORIZATION OF REPRF~ENTATION I/We hereby authorize Susan M. Sche~~, City Attorney of the City of Pacifica, California, to include the City of as an amicus curiae in Dutton..v. Oulnn. I/We understand lha{'there is. 'no f'mancial contribution requirement for our participation. Tide City/$~te/zip please return this form by mail or facsimile by April_l. 1994, to: S~ M. Schectman City Attorney CiD' of Paclfica 170 Santa Mada Avenue Pacific, a, CA 94011 Telephone: (a15) 738-73011 Faesim~e: (415) 359-6038 ........