HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 8 CLAIM #89-2 02-21-89,m ~,. ~"~ ~ ;.--'~.~ ;~.~ CONSENT CALENDAR
/i~;~!i ~;'.:~ ' ~ :l ~ NO. 8
DATE: 2/10/89 ~ I
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY
CLAIMANT: CARL ROBINSON; D/L: 8/18/88; DATE FILED W/CITY:
2/6/89; CLAIM NO: 89-2; CARL WARREN FILE NO: S57645NPB
After investigation and review it is recommended that the above-
referenced claim be rejected and the City Clerk directed to give
proper notice of the rejection to the claimant and to the
claimant's attorney.
City Attorney
JGR (F4. se)
Enclosure:
Copy of Claim
1
2
'3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~4
25
26
28
ANDERSON & ANDERSON
A Professional Corporation
17541 East Seventeenth St., Suite 200
Tustin, California 92680
(714)832-7700
Attorneys for CARL LEE ROBINSON
IN THE'MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF
CARL LEE ROBINSON
In the Matter of the Claim of
CARL ?.F~E ROBINSON and
Claimant,
vs.
CITY OF TUSTIN, OFFICERS
CARVAJAL, . KREYLING,
AND DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Respondents,
)
)
) CLAIM PURSUANT TO
) GOVERNMENT CODE
) SECTION 910
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CARL LEE ROBINSON hereby presents this claim to the
CITY OF TUSTIN, OFFICERS CARVAJAL, KREYLING, and DOES 1
·
through 100, pursuant to Section 910 of the Government Code.
1. The name and post-office address of CARL LEE
ROBINSON is as follows: CARL LEE ROBINSON c/o ANDERSON &
· ANDERSON, 17541 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA
92680.
2. The post-office address to which CARL LEE ROBINSON
desires notice of this claim to be sent is as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
26
27
28
ANDERSON & ANDERSON, Attorneys at Law, 17541 E. Seventeenth
St., Suite 200, Tustin, California, 92680.
3. Claimant is without knowledge of the .true names
and capacities of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, .and~'
therefore, claims against said Responde'nts by such
fictitious names. Claimant will seek leave of the City to
amend his claim to allege the true names and/or capacities
·
when the same are ascertained. Claimant is informed and
believes and thereupon alleges that each of said
fictitiously named Respondents is responsible in some manner
for the occurrences herein and that the Claimant's damages
hereunder were proximately caused by their acts.
4. At all times mentioned herein, Respondent, CITY OF
TUSTIN, OFFICERS CARVAJAL AND KREYLING AND DOES 1 through
100, inclus'ive, were the agents and employees of each' of
their Co-Respondents~ and in doing the acts mentioned in
this claim were acting within the scope of their authority
and employment as such agents and employees, and with the
permission and consent of their Co-Respondents.
CLAIM FOR DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 1983
5. This Claim 'arises under the United States
Constitution, particularly under the provisions of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States and under federal law, particularly Title 42
of the United States Code Section 1983. Each and all of the
acts alleged herein were done by the Respondents, and each
of them, as individuals, and under the color and pretense of
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
..
28
statute, ordinance, regulations, customs, and usage in the
state of California, the-City of Tustin, and the County of
Orange, under, the authority of 'their office as policem~n
for such City and County.
6. Claimant is informed and believes and based upon
that ground alleges, that the Respondent CITY OF TUSTIN,
through its police department, has been put on notice that
said Officer Respondents were consistently violating the
Civil Rights of individuals granted to them under Title 42
USC Section 1983, while engaged as police officers of the
CITY OF TUSTIN. The CITY OF TUSTIN adopted the actions of
these police officers and thus made it an official policy,
sanctioning the unlawful arrests and continued imprisonment
of individuals and sanctioning the ~grossly inadequate
investigation and the withholding of information from
District Attorneys and Public Defenders, in violation of
Tit°le 42 USC Section 1983.
7. At approximately 21:05 hours on August 18, 1988,
Respondent OFFICERS, and each of them, arrived at the home
of Claimant in the City of 'El Toro, located at 23922 Oswego.
8. The Respondent OFFICERS, and each of· them,
arrested, and imprisoned Claimant without probable cause and
in violation of Claimant's Civil Rights granted to him under
Title 42 USC Section 1983.
9. The Respondent CITY AND OFFICERS provided a
grossly inadequate investigation of the crime and the alibi
of Claimant and withheld important and pertinent information
from the District Attorney and the Public Defender.
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
10. Claimant suffered deprivation of liberty, fear for
his safety and well being, emotional distress and
humiliation.
CLAIM FOR ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE
11. On or about August 18, 1988 in. the City of E1
Toro, Respondent OFFICERS, and each of them, and DOES 1
through 100, arrested Claimant.
12. Claimant was arrested on the basis of a victim
I.D. as a result of an improperly conducted photo show-up.
By reason of the acts of the Respondent OFFICERS, and each
of them, and DOES 1 through 100, Claimant was placed in
great fear for his life and physical well being.
13. By reason of the previously described wrongful and
malicious acts of the Respondent OFFICERS, and each of them,
and DOES 1 through 100, Claimant has suffered extreme and
severe mental anguish and injured in mind in the sum of
$1,000,000.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT AGAINST ALL RESPONDENTS
14. Claimant hereby incorporates by reference
paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set forth herein.
15. Claimant was imprisoned by Respondents wrongfully
for a period of approximately 71 days.
16. 'As' a direct and proximate cause of said false
imprisonment by the Respondents, and each of them, and of
the fright caused by.Respondents, and each of them, Claimant
has suffered extreme and severe mental anguish, has been
injured in mind and suffered deprivation of liberty in the
sum of $1,000,000.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17'. As a direct and proximate caus~ of said false
imprisonment by the Respondents, and eDch of them, Claimant
was prevented from attending his usual occupation.
18. As a direct and proximate cause of said false
imprisonment by the Respondents, and each of them, Claimant
~issed approximately .two months of his senior year of high
school, missed participation in high school sports (he
lettered in basketball the year previous), and suffered
emotional distress and extreme embarrassment. The exact
amount of said damage is unknown at this time and Claimant
will ask leave of Court to amend the Claim to show the true
amount when said amount has been ascertained.
CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE
19. Claimant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
through 13, as though fully set forth herein..
·
20. Respondents and each of them had a dUty of-
reasonable investigation to determine whether or not there
was probable cause for arresting Claimant prior to making
said arrest.
21. Respondents, and each of them, had a duty to train
or be trained to be able to determine whether or not there
was probable, cause to believe that Claimant was in violation
of Section. 664/261,. 211, 459, of the California Penal Code
and 10851 of the Vehicle Code.
22. Respondents, and each of them, breached that duty
because they arrested Claimant without probable cause to
believe that he was, in fact, in violation of 664/261, 211,
459 of the California Penal Code and 10851 of the Vehicle
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code and by because they set up an improper photo show-up.
23. As a proximate cause of the breach of duty by the
Respondents, and each of them, Claimant has been damaged
· .
physically and emotionall'y in the sum of $1,000,000.
24. Respondents and each of them had a duty to
investigate the crime and the case against Claimant promptly
and thoroughly.
25. Respondents and each of them breached that duty by
failing to investigate the validity of Claimant's alibi and
by failing to conduct a proper line-up (visual and voice)
within a reasonable time. Claimant is informed and believes
that Respondents failed to question the victims thoroughly
and to re~ord in their reports all the information given by
the victims. Such information would have exonerated
Claimant. °
.
26. Respondents had a duty to turn over all
information which they possessed to the Distr~ct Attorney
promptly, particularly any exonerating evidence.
27. Respondent and each of them breached his duty by
failing to turn over the transcripts and tapes of the
initial interview with the Claimant and transcripts of the
Claimant's taped conversation in the holding cell with
another arrestee accused at the same time until Claimant had
been in custody for 6 weeks after the arrest.
28. Respondents and each of them had a duty promptly
to inform the parents of the minor Claimant of the nature of
the crimes' and the dates the offenses had taken place so
that they had an opportunity to present information to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
police which would-lead to the release of Claimant.
29. Respondent and each of them failed to ihform the
parents of the dates of the crimes for..over a week.
30 '- As a proximate cause of the breach Of duty by the
Respondents, and each of them, Claimant has been damaged
physicallY and emotionally in the sum of $1,000,000.
31. Claimant is informed and believes that Respondents
and each of them failed to incorporate information given by
the crime victims into their reports. Such information
would have provided further basis for exonerating all
charges against Claimant.
DATED: February 3, 1989
ANDERSON & ANDERSON
Attorneys at Law
. ·
JA~WALLS ANDERSON
robinson, cl 1