Opinion ID: 2516126
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Awareness of Past Sexual Misconduct

Text: Sheriff Gallivan testified that in the years 1998 through 2002, approximately 85,000 prisoners passed through ECHC. See Trial Tr. at 674. In that time, prior to Cash's rape, he only kn[e]w of one complaint of sexual misconduct involving a male deputy and female detainee at ECHC. Id. at 347. [3] That earlier complaint apparently pertained to events that occurred in mid-January 1999 with respect to another female pretrial detainee at ECHC, Elizabeth Allen. Although Gallivan testified that he could not recall the details of the Allen complaint, he acknowledged that relevant findings would have been reported to him. This was in fact confirmed by documentary evidence addressed or copied to Gallivan. This documentary evidence revealed an internal affairs investigation of Allen's claim that on or about January 15, 1999, a male guard, Deputy Gary Morgan, had engaged her in sexual intercourse, and that she had a condom to prove it. When interviewed, Allen revised her account, stating that while alone with Deputy Morgan, the two had engaged in various sexual acts just short of intercourse for which she expected to receive extra commissary items. Allen alleged that she had previously engaged in sexual activity with Morgan, as well as other guards, but lacked any corroborating physical evidence of such encounters. She further reported that, on a number of occasions, she exposed her breasts and fondled herself in front of male guards in exchange for cigarettes or other commissary items. When questioned, Morgan initially falsely stated that he had allowed Allen out of her cell on January 15, 1999, in violation of her keep-lock status, simply to allow her to retrieve cleaning equipment, and that no sexual activity occurred at that time. He later revised this account, stating that when released from her cell, Allen had exposed herself to him, which he knew she had a history of doing in front of male guards. He stated that, in the course of trying to return Allen to her cell, he may have touched her breasts but insisted that any such contact was unintentional and not sexual. The Allen investigation report, addressed to Gallivan, was skeptical of Morgan's denial and found likely ... sexual contact between the guard and Allen. Mem. from Thomas Staebell to Patrick Gallivan, Case Report # 99-09: On-Duty Conduct of Deputy Gary Morgan 1 (Apr. 1, 1999). Nevertheless, the report determined that such a charge could not be sustained in light of Allen's questionable veracity. The report concluded that Morgan could be found clearly to have violated ECHC policy only with respect to allowing a keep-lock prisoner out of her cell, failing to report Allen's exhibitionist behavior, and lying to investigators at his initial interview. It recommended thirty days' suspension. Instead, the Sheriff's Department suspended Morgan for only three days, which punishment he was permitted to satisfy by surrendering three days of compensatory time. The department cautioned Morgan that repetition of the conduct at issue could result in harsher discipline, including dismissal. Gallivan testified that on March 11, 1999, in response to the Allen complaint and highly publicized incidents at other New York correctional facilities, Trial Tr. at 383, ECHC Superintendent H. McCarthy Gipson issued a one-page memorandum entitled Sexual Conduct, reminding facility personnel of ECHC's no-contact policy. The memorandum stated as follows: Sexual conduct between Staff and Inmates is STRICTLY PROHIBITED, by the New York State Penal Law Article 130. [4] Per the NYS Penal Law, inmates are not capable of consenting to any type of sexual conduct between an employee exercising authority over them. The only permissible conduct is that which is within the scope of your regular duties and would not be considered sexual in nature. The Erie County Holding Center encourages peer and supervisory reporting. Any Holding Center employee with information concerning inappropriate conduct, (other than criminal), on the part of another employee is encouraged to bring this to the attention of an appropriate supervisor. Wrongful conduct could be an embarrassment to the entire department. Furthermore, early discovery and intervention on the part of supervision could prevent further misconduct and decrease administrative sanctions. . . . Any reports of misconduct will be thoroughly investigated. Mem. from H. McCarthy Gipson to ECHC Personnel (Mar. 11, 1999) (Gipson Memorandum). Gallivan explained that the Gipson Memorandum was issued to prevent what happened in other facilities from happening at the holding center, Trial Tr. at 470, and to make clear to people [that] even though you've been trained in the policy and procedure, even though you know these things exist, be assured that it cannot take place, we will do something about it, id. at 384.