Los Angeles Police Department Legal Bulletin July 9, 1993 PDF

,£TIN http://infoweb/Legal%20Affairs/Legal%20Bulletins/9-4-97/LB7.html LEGAL BULLETIN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT LEGAL AFFAIRS DIVISION Volume 17, Issue 1 July 9, 1993 OFFICER S DUTY TO WARN WITNESSES OF POTENTIAL DANGERS Two recent California Court of Appeals cases have established a duty,...

,£TIN http://infoweb/Legal%20Affairs/Legal%20Bulletins/9-4-97/LB7.html LEGAL BULLETIN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT LEGAL AFFAIRS DIVISION Volume 17, Issue 1 July 9, 1993 OFFICER S DUTY TO WARN WITNESSES OF POTENTIAL DANGERS Two recent California Court of Appeals cases have established a duty, in particular circumstances, to warn witnesses of dangers posed by suspects and a duty of care to protect witnesses where the police have requested and obtained their assistance in criminal prosecutions. Both cases involved primary witnesses in murder investigations. In each case the witnesses expressed concern for their personal safety, but were assured by the police that they were in no real danger. As a general rule, officers do not have a duty to warn witnesses. In Denton V. City of Fullerton 233 Cal. Add. 3d 1636. the Court of Appeal reinforced the principle that police have no general duty to warn citizens of potentially dangerous persons even when they are informed by another person or entity that such an individual presents a danger to others. In this case the court held that the investigation of aprior sexual assault did not create a special relationship between the police and plaintiff such that they were obligated to warn her, nor did the mere fact that plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of sexual assault establish such a relationship. However, such a duty may arise if a "special relationship" develops between the officer and the victim. Special relationships exist when the police create the peril to the victim or where the plaintiff relies on the police for protection. In Carpenter v. City of Los Anaeles (1991) 230 Cal. Add. 3d 923. Mr. Carpenter was a victim of an armed robbery. The suspect was identified as Danny Jenkins, the individual who was subsequently convicted of the murder of LAPD Detective Tom Williams. After Jenkins’ preliminary hearing on the robbery charge he confronted Mr. Carpenter. Carpenter, fearing for his safety, asked the detective about the suspect's criminal history, and if he should be concerned for his (Carpenter's) safety. The witness was told that he need not worry. The witness was not told that Jenkins had tried to hire an individual to kill him. Carpenter was shot before he could testify at trial. After surviving the shooting Carpenter was placed in a witness protection program. In Carpenter, the court found that the police had breached a duty to warn a prosecution witness that his life had been threatened. They further held that Mr. Carpenter had been lulled into a false sense of security by the detective’s assurances. The City was liable for Carpenter's damages because a "special relationship" had been created between him and the police when the officer requested his assistance as a witness in a criminal case. This relationship was breached when the detective received information from a reliable source concerning a credible threat to Carpenter's life and failed to advise Carpenter concerning that threat. In Wallace v. Citu of Los Anaeles (1993) 12 Cal. Add. 1315, Demetria Wallace agreed to become a Wf/m pm •GAL BULLETIN http://infoweb/Legal%20Affairs/Legal%20Bulletins/9-4-97/LB7.. prosecution witness in a murder. Prior to obtaining her cooperation and statement the District Attorney’s Office had declined to prosecute the case. The suspect in this case was also a suspect in two other murders and had threatened witnesses in other investigations. On the suspect’s arraignment sheet the investigating officer indicated that the suspect was a danger to the community and especially dangerous to any witness who would testify. Two weeks after the suspect was arrested, the victim informed the detective of an anonymous phone call threatening her life. Despite having knowledge of the suspect’s proclivity for threatening witnesses the detective's only action was to advise Wallace that if the threats continued steps could be taken to relocate her. Wallace v/as subsequently shot and killed a few days before she was to testify. The court held that in the specific facts of this case, the enlistment of the assistance of Wallace as a witness created both a peril to her and a "special relationship" with law enforcement. INVESTIGATIVE IMPACT Both Carpenter and Wallace sustain the proposition that law enforcement officers and other government agents have no duty to the public as a whole to warn that a particular person is a threat to the public's well being. However, when the government's actions create a reasonably foreseeable peril to a specific witness or victim (a special relationship), a duty to warn arises when the danger is not readily discoverable by the endangered person. Thus where officers request the assistance of a private citizen to assist in the performance of a public function which involves a reasonable, foreseeable risk of injury, officers should: • Ensure that the witness/victim is informed that a potential threat to his/her safety exists, and • When deemed necessary by the circumstances, involve the witness/victim in the witness protection program. Additional information on this topic may be obtained by contracting the Legal Training Unit, Legal Affairs Division at 5-2621. 2 3/26/02 3:35 PM