Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - March 21, 1994 - CC r. BARBOSA GARCIA 8 BARNES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HENRY S. BARBOSA,P. C.* ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF CO SEL BONI FACTO BONNY GARCIA SUITE 390 HN C. F DOUGLAS D. BARNES ORMAN LIEBERMAN 500 CITADEL DRIVE PETER E. LANGSFELD JOHN F. LAGLE WILLIAM A.VALLEJOS LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90040-1575111 JONATHAN B.STONE TELEPHONE KENNETH T. FONG FRANCISCO LEAL (213) 889-6600 AUGUSTIN R. JIMENEZ RAJEEV M.TALWANI �► �+ )1 vFpC SD1LE ALEX M. MOTSA (213)889-6605 *A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MAR 0 71994 March 2, 1994 Cil'i JF f;ui�H j ADMINISTRATION Mr. Henry Garcia City Administrator City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, California 91702 Re: Request for Amicus Brief Participation Dutton v. Quinn Dear Henry: Enclosed please find a letter dated February 22, 1993 from Susan M. Schectman, City Attorney for the City of Pacifica, regarding the above-mentioned amicus brief matter. I am requesting that the City Council consider the attached request for Amicus Brief Support. This action will add the City as a named interested party and is without any financial cost to participate. If you are in agreement with the request, please direct that this item be placed on the next city council agenda. If you have any question regarding the enclosed material, please feel free to call upon me. Very truly yours, k-) Henry S. Barbosa HSB:mo 3086.L i Enclosure 1 v; Susan M.Schectman Office of the City Attorney City Attorney City of Pacifica (415)738-7307 170 Santa Maria Avenue FAX(415)359-6038 Pacifica,California 94044 c;ir i .91/(0i i February 22, 1994 To: All California City Attorneys Re: Dutton v. Quinn - Request for Amicus Participation Dear Colleagues: On behalf of the City of Pacifica, I am writing to request your City's support for an amicus brief on behalf of interested California cities in this significant law enforcement case. The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee voted to encourage cities to file amicus briefs and we would greatly appreciate 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 vehicles for a variety of law enforcement purposes. A police department does not have the resources nor the legal duty to insure the safety of the vehicle in which occupants are riding. In Dutton v. Quinn, a Pacifica police officer encountered several 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 to 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 truck and injuring the plaintiff. This lawsuit is an effort to make the police department responsible for the injuries suffered by the passengers. The plaintiff has argued that in this circumstance the City had a duty to prevent harm to the passengers since an officer had ordered the passengers to get in the truck and leave the park. As a general rule, a police officer has no duty to passengers to control the negligent conduct of a third party driver. Here, plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon the City on the theory that the police officer had created a peril to plaintiff and therefore a special relationship had been created imposing such a duty on the officer. Plaintiff 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 transportation arrangements were made. These include allowing the minor female plaintiff to walk home at 11:00 p.m., transporting the plaintiff in the officer's police car, calling parents or making some other arrangements. City Attorneys Potton v.Ouinn Amicus Support February 22. 1994,Page 2 The City's argument is that no peril was created since riding in a camper is a legal activity permitted under the Vehicle Code. Even if there were a duty, there was no breach of it by merely ordering the occupants of the vehicle to leave the park. The City is also arguing lack of proximate cause due to the intervening stops and also arguing that various Government Code immunities 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: either to ignore a violation of law and refuse to become involved in law enforcement activities in the first place, or stop to investigate and thereby become bound to guarantee the safety of the persons and to remain at the scene, despite competing calls for assistance in more serious situations, until safe and adequate alternate transportation has been arranged. Whenever officers encounter a vehicle with some arguable hazard (a drunk driver, faulty brakes, bald tires) there could be a duty to remain at the scene in order to prevent the driver from leaving and to take charge of a situation that the police officer did not create. The City was successful on summary judgment in Superior Court and the plaintiffs have now appealed. It is very important that the appellate court be made aware of the potential impact of an adverse ruling on the law enforcement resources of cities. In this era of shrinking municipal budgets and increasing demand for police services, the ability of a city to allocate its police resources as it sees fit is critical. If the appellate court were to rule in favor of the plaintiff, police officers could have a legal duty to insure the safety of drivers and the occupants of their vehicles they encounter on pain of civil liability. Obviously, no city has the resources to carry this heavy burden. We would appreciate your friend 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 truly yours, ggt&ZUYI ahea-41VA't SUSAN M. SCHECTMAN City Attorney SMS:fd Enclosure AUTHORIZATION OF REPRESENTATION I/We hereby authorize Susan M. Schectman, City Attorney of the City of Pacifica, California, to include the City of as an amicus curiae in Dutton v. Quinn. I/We understand that there is no financial contribution requirement for our participation. Name Title Address City/State/Zip Please return this form by mail or facsimile by April 1. 1994, to: Susan M. Schectman City Attorney City of Pacifica 170 Santa Maria Avenue Pacifica, CA 94044 Telephone: (415) 738-7308 Facsimile: (415) 359-6038