Opinion ID: 2516126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Adduced

Text: Trial evidence revealed that on December 17, 2002, while Cash was a pretrial detainee in a female housing unit at ECHC, Deputy Hamilton, acting alone, escorted some female detainees to the recreation center but ordered Cash to remain behind. When Hamilton returned, he grabbed Cash, put his hands over her nose and mouth, forced her into the deputies' bathroom, and raped her. Cash reported the assault the next morning, prompting an investigation that led to Hamilton's arrest for first-degree rape in violation of New York Penal Law § 130.35. Hamilton was suspended without pay and eventually pleaded guilty to third-degree rape in violation of New York Penal Law § 130.25, after which he resigned his deputy position. Because defendants did not dispute Hamilton's rape of Cash, the parties' focus at trial was on whether a County policy caused the assault. See generally Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692-94, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). On that point, considerable attention was given to the policies that defendants implemented to protect prisoners from sexual exploitation and defendants' awareness of past sexual misconduct by prison guards notwithstanding such policies. Expert testimony was also received as to accepted deterrent practices at other correctional facilities.
Defendants submitted that, at the time of Cash's rape, policies were in place to prevent such an assault. As Sheriff Gallivan testified at trial, [a] deputy was prohibited from having any type of relationship, intimate relationship with an inmate. A deputy was prohibited from having any physical contact with an inmate unless authorized by law in the case of justifiable use of force or preventing death or serious injury. Trial Tr. at 451. These proscriptions are, in fact, mandated by New York state law, which deems persons in the custody of a state or local correctional facility incapable of consent to sexual conduct with facility employees. N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(3)(e)-(f). Persons who engage in sexual intercourse with persons incapable of consent are criminally culpable for third-degree rape, see id. § 130.25; persons who engage in any sexual contact with persons incapable of consent are criminally culpable for second degree sexual abuse, see id. § 130.60. Further, ECHC policy required that at the start of a new shift, a deputy of one sex announce his or her presence on a unit housing prisoners of another sex. No such announcement was required, however, when a deputy conducted periodic unannounced inspections of housing units, during which prisoners undressing, showering, or using the toilets might be viewed naked. No County policy prohibited a single deputy of one sex from being alone with a prisoner of another sex. Nor were any monitoring devices, such as surveillance cameras, ever employed to supervise such one-on-one interactions.
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.
Thomas Frame, a corrections consultant who had worked as a Pennsylvania prison warden for twenty-four years, testified for Cash as an expert witness. Frame pronounced it bad policy for ECHC to allow male guards to be alone and unmonitored with female prisoners. Id. at 531. He explained that such a practice jeopardized the safety of female prisoners because the male guard has authority over the inmate and ... can direct that inmate to do almost anything he wants. Id. at 532. Frame testified that good and accepted practice is to pair a female officer with a male officer whenever direct interaction with a female prisoner is required. Id. at 533. He further testified that the Allen complaint should have alerted defendants to the need for such a policy. See id. Frame opined that the Gipson Memorandum was an inadequate response to the Allen complaint because it failed to remove the situation posing a risk to female prisoners, i.e., allowing a single unmonitored male deputy to interact with female prisoners. Id. at 534. Defendants offered no contrary expert opinion.