client to follow the lawsuit we file all requests to the case the separate trial there was a summary judgment piled by the defendants in this case there's two primary defendants one was a sh county jump on such and the other was officer or lidge now the summary judgment for officer which was the night and we proceeded to trial nine hundred eighty three action were successful so the jury found that the officer and he basically use response a period or the second one was negligent supervision now there was no definitive case law on the state in the at the time that magistrate judge sherry ruled on this however that changed yesterday afternoon and i was very impressed that when i walked in the sign my name with the clerk that they made sure that i had a copy that opinion i found out last night when i got done with my day's activities by i was very surprised that they were so granted in their ability to control people that they're held to a higher standard and so are the departments that employ them so based upon that that they can be held liable under scope of employment rule and that exception does not and in going forward on page six left hand side last paragraph assault and also only to me perform two is they both were on duty they both had a marked squad car they both were in uniform they were both allowed to be alone with the female their control over they both took them to a different location he just walk in the front door or something because he's the one to walk out the front door unlocked and he's the one the mayor of go to that location very important point now i'll exercise of authority stickler for exercise authority here he told her you cannot leave this location tel two thirty pm he is an officer he's telling her to stay in this the sexual assault in that instance both officers one on cop the woman when he is such as alter who represent rogers what in this case the such will solve occurred because he's able to shirt there's no discussion that i could see and cox and i may have missed it false imprisonment or negligent supervision but is it your view that the rationale that indiana supreme court adopted here you know would take care of those two claims as well absolutely the reason is foreseeability if you look on the opinion on page fifteen for judge sherry he's basically saying that just because a few bad apples you can expect them to supervise all these officers and therefore it's a situation where he could not expect that this would occur while we know now based upon this ruling and based upon what judge posner side and the doe cases it is a good guess and we see this more and more where we have situations where all those who have been exposed for doing things they should be doing they part of it's video cameras part of it's i'm better policing i think is important  context in which the commission of the wrongful acts arose the seven circuit case in west the way wire with way meyer and the other chicago cases speak of policy policy of reasons why there may be a change in law in the future it does not speak of indiana supreme indiana respond yet superior claims the chits a standard has not changed yesterday that clarified that police officers who misuse their official duties or authority for sexual saw it may fall within the scope of employment your honour's in this facts in this case as opposed to the facts in the briar case the consolidated case which plaintiff has not yet discussed either in brief at the district court or here on appeal and his first time referencing the prior case was in reply he actually referenced the cox case to a and new claim of a claim of common carrier exception which the indiana supreme court held yesterday does not extend to police officers the facts in the briar case are distinguishable just as justice mentioned earlier because all it's left the home in the prior case the officer was along with the right throughout the time he was handcuffed more than wants use that authority to keep her in his control during the attire time that control was within the officer when she was so incapacitated she could hardly stand and he transported her from me lockup facility to a hospital to home and during that transport when he assumed the responsibility as a police officer in exercising those official duties he sexually assaulted her and the instant case even if we assume that inspecting an electrical box a water pump or furnace was within the scope of employment of a sheriff's deputy after that occurred zand return to the georgia street home because that's when her son returned from school in order to keep the peace between the husband and wife who were early fighting and it was a domestic violence call that was that should the suggestion that she should stay there for the officer reentered the home that's what occurred here once the reenter the home he exercised no official duties no official doherty on the planet he was there for his personal gratification independent of him being an employee at the lake county sheriff's department  between one step two seconds and ten or fifteen minutes so since the court did reaffirm and double down on strokes if we look and barnett those discussions were when there's a mist in the midst of the unquestionable authorize acts and unquestionable unauthorized acts there's a mood in the midst of those performances there's a sexual assault then it goes to the jury so when we have unquestionable authorize acts and then he performs on authorize acts and the episode begins and ends with authorize acts then it goes to the jury that's is not what we have here there's two distinct episodes one where he was there as a police officer that a true question well because you're dozen years and left her property her safety to stay at the white open residence because she was in a earlier domestic violence incident i thought that the alternative that she was given at the prior home was we either take it i don't e lake county prosecutor's office handles civilians refusal to comply with orders from police officers by saying well we think the officer just suggested that so you're not going to prosecute i can understand it though if the court frames that as a order but even when he left after stating that she resumes control of her own person and environment she chose not to lock the door at that point it could have been any one of the public interest the home for personal gratification court when he leaves the home your honor it makes a difference that there's a separate episode independent of his coast scope of employment putting waiver aside your honor your honors i believe there is no question of material fact and that that there should be a higher standard maybe strict liability he never analyzed whether the acts of oral which under indiana law were under the scope of employment he doesn't cite to the cox case for responding at superior law until his law for negligent hiring retention and training that's just not what occurred yesterday with the cox decision that the focus on whether there's a duty to a victim from an employer is the foreseeability immediately or lynch at the first time zander brings this up facts had a bath in a fraud issue before his employment at the lake county sheriff's department but during his employ me he had no reprimands or complaints of civil battery civil rights violations still emp that she said all the cases i cited in reference to bringing this issue under state law were cases where they dealt with police officers a sexual assault in somebody while on duty none existed in the end they counsel thanks to both counsel case take