Okin v. Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, No. 06-5142 (2d Cir. Aug. 18, 2009) (here).
A woman’s live-in boyfriend, Roy Sears, was a hometown hero. He owned a bar where the cops got drunk and watched sports. The police department gave the bar owner a license to beat up his live-in girlfriend.
She’d call the police. When they bothered to show up, they didn’t question her husband. They ignored her bruises. Finally she sued. Her allegations:
Okin filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action ... alleging violations of her federal Due Process and Equal Protection rights .... By failing to arrest or even interview Sears, Okin alleges that defendants endangered her by emboldening Sears. Okin also alleges that defendants “acted in concert with Sears,” that they failed to respond effectively to her repeated complaints about Sears because he “had significant personal relationships with ranking members of [the Village and Town] police departments and made financial contributions to or at the behest of the Town Police Department,” and that defendants’ dismissive and inappropriate behavior which was witnessed by Sears affirmatively increased the danger she faced.
Held: “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Okin, we find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants implicitly but affirmatively encouraged Sears’s domestic violence.” After all, a “reasonable factfinder ... could infer that defendants’ actions, such as discussing football with Sears during their response to Okin’s complaint that he had beaten and tried to choke her, ‘plainly transmitted the message that what he did was permissible and would not cause him problems with authorities.’”
Substantive due process claim stands:
We find the record in this case to support the conclusion that Okin raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ affirmative creation or enhancement of the risk of violence to Okin shocks the conscience. The serious and unique risks and concerns of a domestic violence situation are well known and well documented.
She lost on her equal protection claim for lack of evidence:
Okin alleges that, by their failure to apply the law equally on the basis of gender and their failure to discharge their duties in a non-discriminatory manner, defendants violated her equal protection rights. Her claim is that, although the defendant police departments’ stated policy was that domestic violence incidents were to receive the same police attention as other criminal incidents, their unspoken policy and practice was to treat complaints of domestic violence towards women differently.
She didn't have any evidence to prove her allegation.
Her lawyers should have brought a class-of-one equal protection claim. Allegation: Okin was treated differently – and thus was a class of one – from other domestic violence victims because her husband was drinking buddies with the police force.
Municipal liability/Monnell claim stands:
We have no trouble in finding that policymakers would know that officers will confront domestic violence situations, that training assists officers to employ criminal justice strategies attuned to the complexities of domestic violence, and that in Okin’s case, the record indicates a history of mishandling her complaints.
Interesting opinion overall. Most police departments have a mandatory-arrest policy in domestic violence cases. If a woman calls the police, the man is going to get arrested. This is the case even when a female victim recants once police arrive. When police officers refuse - repeatedly - to arrest someone accused of domestic violence, you don't need a Ph.D. to get the realpolitik.
By the way, these are the scumbag police officers who let their drinking buddy beat up his girlfriend: Rusty O’Dell, Thomas Douglas IV, Michael Lug, Paul Weber, Charles Williams, Edward Maion, and Roy Sears. Cheers to you, losers.
