Criminal Charges against Oakland Officer Dismissed

Carroll, Burdick & McDonough partner Mike Rains recently obtained a dismissal of a felony and misdemeanor criminal charges against an Oakland police officer who was charged with sexual misconduct with a juvenile prostitute.

The officer in question had stopped a young woman on a street in Oakland where there is a high level of prostitution activity. She was waiving at cars as they drove by.

The officer asked her for identification. She said she had none.

The officer asked for her name and date of birth so he could “run” her for warrants. She gave him a fake name and a fake date of birth, indicating that she was 18 years of age.

The officer then arrested her for a violation of the Oakland Municipal Code. While en route to the jail with her, she pleaded with him to let her go, promising him in return the name and location of a drug dealer she had seen with a large amount of cocaine. She also explained that she was “tricking” with another friend with whom she was staying at a local motel.

The officer instructed the woman to get a hold of him after she got out of jail and told her he would try to help her with her arrest if she would lead him to the cocaine dealer.

When the woman was released from jail later the same morning, she contacted the officer. She declined the officer’s invitation to go to the location of the cocaine dealer in a police vehicle but instead insisted that they be in a “civilian car” and that he is not in uniform.

The officer, having completed his shift at that time, changed out of his uniform and gave the woman a ride in his private automobile to look for the cocaine dealer. Failing to locate the cocaine dealer, he took the woman to a motel and helped her check-in when she insisted that she was to meet her girlfriend at this particular motel later the same day. The officer then left and had no further contact with the woman.

Several weeks later the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department notified the Oakland Police Department that the girl had been picked up in connection with a pimping and pandering investigation being conducted by that agency. During the Sacramento County investigation, the girl had claimed to have been raped by an Oakland officer after he had detained and arrested her.

Oakland Police Department initiated a criminal and Internal Affairs investigation, which resulted in the filing of charges of rape, unlawful sexual intercourse (the girl, as it turned out was 16—years old), and lewd conduct with a minor more than 10 years younger.

The police department fired the officer, alleging that he had misused his authority to have sexual intercourse with the underage prostitute whom he had detained and arrested for a Municipal Ordinance violation only a few hours earlier.

When the case went to a preliminary hearing, it was assigned to a very experienced prosecutor in a specialized sexual assault unit in the District Attorney’s office. The prosecutor called the victim as her only witness.

Although Rains had previously been told by the District Attorney’s office and Oakland police investigators that the young victim was very sincere and credible, and would be a “solid witness” against the officer, that was not the case. She was caught in a series of half-truths about the night in question and about how and why she failed to report her alleged intercourse with the Oakland officer until she was questioned about other unrelated events by Sacramento Sheriff’s detectives weeks later.

She reluctantly admitted to having lied to other officers of the Emeryville Police Department the same evening the officers had contacted her, telling them that she was 18—years old. She also admitted lying to the jail staff at the Oakland Police Department about other matters.

Most notably, the 16—year-old “victim” in language and demeanor, appeared much older and much savvier than her age would suggest. Indeed, the judge hearing the preliminary hearing observed that she was “16 going on 35.”

When the dust had cleared following the preliminary hearing, and the parties had briefed some issues requested by the judge, the judge announced his decision – all charges were dismissed. The judge found the victim to lack credibility, given the extensive impeachment she had suffered on vital issues to the case.

In light of the fact that the judge did not believe the assertions made by the victim, all charges, both misdemeanor, and felony were ordered dismissed.