Fontana v. D.E. Haskin (August 22, 2001)
* court: Ninth Circuitt
* public agency: State of California (California Highway Patrol)
* plaintiffs' job classes: CHP Officer
* trial court's decision: in favor of officer
* Ninth Circuit's decision: against officer
* issue area: sexual harassment during transportation to station
after arrest, Section 1983, Fourth Amendment, substantive due process
Fontana Facts
*
After midnight on August 22, 1997, Mia Fontana was involved in a car
accident on the freeway.
*
CHP officers Haskin and Deschepper responded.
*
The officers, after administering field sobriety tests to Fontana,
arrested her, handcuffed her, put her in their vehicle, and drove to
the Orange County jail.
*
According to Fontana’s complaint, Officer Haskin sat next to her
in the back seat, told her she had nice legs, told her he could be
her “older man”, put his arm around her, massaged her shoulders,
persisted in these activities even after Fontana told him to stop,
and while at the jail offered to “help her” in the restroom.
*
A month later, Fontana wrote to the CHP and challenged her arrest
but did not mention anything about Haskin.
*
A month after she wrote that letter, she filed a citizen’s
complaint for sexual harassment with the CHP against Haskin.
*
Fontana sued in federal district court, alleging constitutional
violations.
*
The district court granted summary judgment against Fontana.
*
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court.
Fontana Analysis
*
The Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition
against unreasonable seizures applied to events occurring after an
arrest and on the way to a police station.
*
The Ninth Circuit further held that the facts alleged by Fontana come
with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “an unlawful
intrusion on her bodily integrity”.
*
In the normal case involving an allegation of excessive force, a court
would be required to balance the force used by the officer against an
individual’s right to be free of excessive force.
But here, there was not any balancing required, since there is
not any governmental interest justifying sexual misconduct.
*
“Assuming the facts of Fontana’s complaint to be true, Haskin
engaged in unreasonable, non-consensual, inappropriate touching and
propositioning. Fontana
alleges that she was helpless, handcuffed, and frightened and, thus,
in a vulnerable position when Officer Haskin began to prey upon her.
She had just been in a disorienting, high speed car accident at
two o’clock in the morning. The
highway patrol officers responding to the scene conducted field
sobriety tests, arrested and handcuffed her, and took her from her car
presumable to drive her to jail.
She plausibly claims to have been so frightened by Haskin’s
acts that she feared she was being taken to an unknown destination,
rather than the police station. Haskin’s
alleged acts - - both the physical touching as well as the comments he
is alleged to have made - - if they occurred as described, were an
abuse of power and, under the circumstances, unreasonable intrusions
into Fontana’s bodily integrity in
violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
*
The Ninth Circuit also held that, if Fontana had not been under
arrest, then she would have plead a substantive due process claim
against Haskin. In
essence, a substantive due process claim is one involving action by
government officials that “shocks the conscience”.
Thus, rape by a police officer and stalking a woman who the
officer had not ticketed have been held to be substantive due process
violations. But, the
Ninth Circuit added, if a specific constitutional provision applies
(such as the Fourth Amendment), then a court is not to use substantive
due process analysis.
