Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 10111994 - 1.15
CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11, 1994 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors. Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below). given pursuant to Government Code Amount: Unknown Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all •Warnings". CLAIMANT: RANDOLPH, Joan SEP 16 1A ATTORNEY: COUNTY COUNSEL MARTINEZ CALIF. Date received ADDRESS: 1227 Maiposa St. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON September 15, 1994 Rodeo, CA 94572 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Interoffice I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. iqIL ATCHELOR, Clerk pp� DATED: e=I' 199 : puty m�l I1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. r ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying I claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: \ Dated: q—vt —R t4 BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). JV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( �) This Claim is rejected in full. Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's order entered in its minutes for this date. 0GA-A-00 Dated: OCT-ti. 1994. PHIL BATCHELOR. Clerk, By Deputy Clerk YARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or Aeposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this Better. If you want to consult an attorney. you should do so immediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF !WILING declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the LMited States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martine=. California, postage fully prepaid a certified Copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Vated: OCT. 1 199; �, l ��l 0t=Deputy Clerk BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by CC: County Counsel County Administrator U� 6, 79 A a0 4 �Z Q 9 p 2 C-) 0 Cj 1- 3r N �S lis t i V. -Claim 'to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury -:a person. or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before- December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue an or. after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not .later than one year after the.accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be. filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in ; Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. . C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the'County, the name of the District should be filled in. D: If the claim is against more than one public entity, ' separate claims ,must be -filed against each nuhlic entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at' the end of this orm. f * * * * * * * * * * f f * f f * f f * f f * * f f * * * f. * f * f • * RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp ) Against the County of Contra Costa ) 5 or ) District) CLE ROVAMUP Fill in name ) COMMA The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 2. inhere did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) e ,L _ o —��-- ______---_ 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) rO►� y-hC C r ac �h� S i detc)A l k� 1� bal � hcz oj(\� 5 ( , 4 ,q- 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? (over) 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or--injury? (^ 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed.: Attach two estimates for auto damage. 7. How was the amount claimed above .eomputed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) ro13 $. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. �'dk ' 1 :S M tar t o ns a b moo, -_( - -�-L _-----------��� - --- 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accidentror injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT Go Code Sec. 910.2 provides: claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: ( tt e ) lor , some person on his behalf." Name and Address of .. A"V a, Claimant's Signature Address Telephone No. ,Telephone No. f f f f f f 3 0. f NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state"'board or officer, or to any' county, city' or district board or- officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any, false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punis}iable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($109000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11, 1994 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsew,nts, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this document Mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: Unknown Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all •Warnings". CLAIMANT:RANDLE, John SEP 16 1994 ATTORNEY:Robert F. Wallace COUN-ryMART EZ�CA S L' ate received ADDRESS: 2159 Central Ave. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON September 15, 1994 Alameda, CA 94501 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Interoffice 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. NNIL ATCHELOR, Clerk l DATED: �1: puty JI. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (chis claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. , ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying I claimant. The Board cannot act for 1S days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: i Dated: BY: L Deputy County Counsel Ill. FROM: Clerk of the Board 70: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( /This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its wimwtes for this date. C /� Dated: OCT'0 .r 1994 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk YARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or Deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You any seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this utter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so ixemedistely. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the united States, over age 28; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinet, California, postage fully prepaid a certified Copy Of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to tine Claimant As shown above. %ted: OCT I:. 1994 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by n/► a, _ fid., � 1 �. �,a�� Deputy Clerk cC: county Counsel County Administrator 1 `r ,4 `1 o"COO LLe� c ) Fl �1a C r �v. O Ev, CONFIDENTIAL COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Date: September 9, 1994 To: Jeanne Maglio, Clerk of the Board of upervisors FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel , By: Gregory C. Harvey, Deputy County Counsel4 RE: John Randle v. Contra Costa County Please treat the attached letter as a claim. cc: Risk Management (with attachement) Andrea Cassidy (with attachment) Perfecto Villareal (with attachment) cLERK gpARD co J SEP-Q7-1994. 16:05 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.02 ne Law Office of Robert Francis Wallace 2159 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 865-6664 fax (510) 865-4586 September 7, 1994 Mr. Perfecto Villareal Director of Social Services Department County of Contra Costa 40 Douglass Drive Martinez, CA, 94553-4068 Re: John Ranee Dear Mr. Villareai: Please be advised that this office has been retained by Mr. John Randle to represent him iii all matters pertaining to his employment by the County of Contra Costa("County"). Mr. Dandle has presented me with very troubling evidence which warrants your immediate attention. BACKGROUND Mr. Randle was hired in 1984 as a vocational counselor within the Social Services Department. In 1987, Mr. Randle was laterally moved'into the position of Social Worker with the same pay and job grade. In 1989, Mr. Randle was promoted to the position of Social Worker Supervisor 1, in the Work Program G.A. Bureau. In this Supervisor position, Mr. Randle excelled in implementing the WORKFAIR program for employable G.A. clients and oversaw the social workers executing the program. Mr. Randle also supervised the IGAR program whereby unemployables were given assistance in completing the necessary applications for SSI and provided with follow-up services. In 1991, Mr. Randle was transferred to Central Operations in Concord (later moved to Martinez). In 1991 Mr. Randle returned to Richmond as a Social Worker Supervisor I and supervised the G.A. Work Program. In this capacity, Mr. Randle implenwnted new WORKPAIR projects and expanded the IGAR program, among other job dudes. In 1993, Mr. Randle became responsible for the bigbly-successful GAIN program in Richmond. Mr. Randle's staff provided information to President Clinton's staff who were impressed by GAIN's welfare reform program. 1 SEP-07-1994 15:58 510 313 1600 P.002 SEP-07-1994. 16:05 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.03 Mr. Randle is an EnVloyment Development Micer licensed by the State of California Apprenticeship Board. He is a journeylevel Vocational,and EmployiMent Officer. W. Randle holds a B.A. in Psychology,B.A. in Theology and Masters In Huraau Resouce Management with an emphasis in Counseling. Mr. Randle Completed the Career Development and Assessment Certificate Progrwn at Samamento State University, and is a life member of the California Association for Counseling and Development. In short, Mr. Randle is a highly quailified, outstanding County employee who takes great pdde in his work. He has never received anything but satisfactory or above-satisfactory perfbnnaace reviews throughout his 10 years at the County, and hopes to make the next career stop into the position of Division Manager. ?ISM .INE OF—MR. RANPLE The facts surrounding Mr. handle's recent involuntary placement on Leave of Absence With Pay suggest violations of California and Federal law as cited below. The timing of the actions against Mr. Randle speaks for itself: 0 On August 4, 1994, Mr. Randle was reprimanded by Ms. Terry Salter for "nodding off" duriuS a division ,meeting on August 3, 1994. In a memo to W Randle, Ms. Salter informed him dot he was to meat with Dr. Thomas Leonard for a medical examination on August 18, 1994, at 2:00 p.m On August 18, 1994, Mr. Randle met with Dr. Leonard at 2:00 p.m. and received a one-hour physical exam. (Dr. Leonard acknowledges at page 3 of his report that none of Mr. Randle's prior medical rewards had been received or reviewed.) Mr. Randle did not return to work that day. On August 18, 1994 the Division Manager position was officially posted. Mr. Randle was never provided anopportunity to apply for this job, despite the fact that he coveted the position and was a fully qualified candidate. (Mr. Randle's interest in becoming a Division Manager was known througbout the County's Social Services Department.) * The very next morning, August 19, 1994, Mr. Randle, was telephoned by Ms. Salter at approximately 10:00 azi Ms. Salter confirmed that she had spoken with Dr. Leonard and that he, Mr. Randle, was to "immedial ul lt= LhWWWZj" that be was aLlWt vary ph=4 on "medical leave with pay for 60 days." Shocked and confused,Mr. Randle promptly left the office as instructed. He has not yet x-etiwned to work. Dr. Leonard's written medical evaluation of Mr. Randle was not issued until August 25, 1994. 2 SEP-07-1994 15:58 510 313 1600 P.003 SER-07-1994 16:06 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.04 • The Division Manager position officially closed on August 26, 1994. Mr. Randle was never permitted to return to work and never had an opportunity to apply for this position, 0 On August 2t>', 1994, the County sent Mr. Randle a letter indicating that effective September 8, 1994,he would be placed on Leave of Absence WithW EU- WJJY IS M% RANDLE BEING SINGLED OUT FOR THIS TREATMENT? Mr. Randle finished his physical evaluation with Dr. Leonard at approximately 3:00 pm. on Thursday, August 18, 1994. He was telephoned by Ms. Salter the next morning at 10:00 am. Accordingly, In the span of four business hours, Ms. Salter spoke by telephone with Dr. Leonard, received an "oral report„ from this physician who has spent a total of one hour with Mr. Randle and who did not look at a single medical record from Mr. Randle!s personal or military physicians, telephoned Mr. Randle at 10.00 am and informed Mr. Randle that he was unfit for duty and a health risk to himself and others, and told him to "Immediately leave the building." Quite a busy four hours, wouldn't you say?? If you want to defend the County's conduct in front of a jury, be my guest I am convinced that any reasonable juror will see through the truth of what is happening h=-. Mr. Randle was denied the, opportunity to apply for a promotion because others in the departrwDt simply didn't want him to have it. Even the sWed reason for the action, i.e. Mr. Randle!s medical condition, runs afoul of the express provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Art and the Americans with Disiablides Act, as set forth below. There are seven Supervisor I positions in the County's Social Services Department. Mr. Randle is the only black male out of the seven. Therefor, it would appear that the MM reason for the County's actions (i.e. race and/or sex discrimination)also clearly violate FEHA and companion federal legislation. Fortunately, the law provides Mr. Randle with a remedy. 3 SEP-07-1994 1559 510 313 1600 P.004 SEP-07-1994 16:06 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.05 LEGAL ANALYSIS 1) LJAbMy_under_.Ca 11fiwnia Low. The pfimary California statute prohibiting exnployment discrimination is the Pak Employment and Housing Act("FEHA"), which is set forth in Gj1yorn=nt C&A—e§ 12900 et seq. Section 12940 of FEHA states as Wows: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice, . (a) for an employer, because of the race, . 9 . physical disability) . . - medical condition . . . or sex of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person from a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person In compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment." In addition, Section 12940(1)states: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice . . (1) For an employer . . . to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring." By the report of Dr. lAonards report dated August 25, 1994, the County acknowledged Mr. Randle's physical disability as including (1)Diaboes, (2) Hypertension, and (3) Sleep Apnea Syn&o=. G2xcmmt CQdc § 12926(k) broadly defines "physical disability" as Including the following:, "(1) Having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfugurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following: (A) Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, . . . caridovascular, , . .digestive, . . . and endocrine. (B) Limits an Individual's ability to participate in major life activities. (2) Any other health impairment not described in paragraph► (1) that requires special education or related services. 4 SEP-07-1994 15:59 510 313 1600 P.005 SEP-07-1994 16:07 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.06 (3) Being regarded as having or braving had a disease, disorder, condition . . . or health impairment described in paragraph (1) or (2). (4) Being regarded as having,, or braving had, a disease, disorder, condition . . . or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may become a physical disability as described in paragraph (1) or (2)." There is no doubt that Mr. Randle's current medical condition constitutes a "physical disability" under this very broad FEHA definition. W. Randle's Sleep Apnea Syndrome affects his respiratory system. He currently is under medication for this disability and engages in nightly treatment using a C-PAP machine to assist Ws bmatbbg during sleep. Mr. Randle's hypertension affects his neurological and cardiovascular systems. Mr. Randle is currently takiog prescription medication NORVASC and LISINOPRIL for his hypertension. Diabetes affects the neurological, digestive, cardiovascular and endocrinological systems. Mr. Randle had been receiving 3 cc regular humolin insulin and 6 cc of NPH long-lasting insulin each morning. Two or three tames a day, W. Randle tests his blood sugar level on a Touch 11 Glucose Meter. If the blood sugar level registers above 200, Mr. Randle self-adnunisters a dosage of the combined insulin. Mr. Randle also injests glucose tablets as needed if his blood sugar level drops below 70. By the County's own admission, Mr. handles disabilities limit his ability to work, one of the "major life activities" set forth in the above-referenced statute. Accordingly, Under Gavernmen_1 Cade, § 12940(k), the County is required to "make reasonable accoxnodation" for Mr. Randle's disabilities. Under Goyemmgnt § 12926(m), FEHA defines "reasonable accomodatioe' as either of the following. "X. Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities; 2. Job restructuring, parttime or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examination, training material or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accomodations for individuals with disabilities." The County bas not attempted a single accomodation for Mr. Randle, let alone any ";reasonable aecomodation." The County bas simply decided that be has a medical problem and therefor he either cures his medical problem or he loses his job. Dr. ,Leonard's report clearly places the onus on Mr, handle to lose thirty pounds in order S SEP-07-1994 16:00 510 313 1600 P.006 SEP-07-1994 17:28 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.01 to keep his job. However, under FEHA and the ADA,it is,the g4unly that must accomodate qualified disabled employees, not vice-versa. Mr. Randle is a ten-year veteran employee of the County. He has helped implement and execute award.-winning job placement and child cane programs throughout the County of Contra Costa He deserves to be treated better than this. 2) Liability under Federal-Law. The Americans with Disability Act ("ADA,")prohibits employment discrimination against a"qualified individual with a disability." 5M 42 U.S.0 § 12112(a); 29 CY, § 1630A(a), As mentioned above,by the County's own admission, Mr. Randle is a qualifed disabled person and the County must, therefor. make "reasonable aceomodations" for his condition. The EEOC regulations define "reasonable accornodation" as including the following; "Modification or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstance under which the position is customarily perfotxxred, that enable a qualified disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the position." 29 C A $ 1630.2(0)(1). As with the FEHA regulations, "reasonable accomodation" may also include "job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examination, training material or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accomodations for individuals with disabilities." 42 )Ih$� § 12111(9); 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(0)(2). Based upon the facts presented,it appears that the County's actions against Au Randle have violated both the FEHA and the ADA. DAMAGES On August 27, 1994, Mr. Randle received the County's August 26, 1994 letter which threatened to place him on Leave of Absence Without Pay effective September 8, 1994. ('Phis letter completely Contradicts the oral State=nt made by Ms. Terry Salter on August 19, 1994,that Mr. Randle would be placed on sixty days leave with M.) upon reading this letter, Mr. Randle became deeply upset and disturbed. He felt that he had been lied to and manipulatcd. He felt betrayed and.anxious. His blood pressure went up. His sugar level escalated. He felt enormous pressure, cramps and pain. The following morning, Sunday, August 28, 1994, Mr. Randle's stool came out dark black and liquid. He felt dizzy and frightened. Post-It'*brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages Ip , From Co. Co. nept. yr h Phone# �.. Fax# ` VFax# TOTAL P.01 SEP-07-1994 17:21 510 313 1600 P.001 SEP-07-1994 16:07 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.07 His nephew rushed him to Oak Knoll Laval Hospital for examination. The emergency mom physician immediately determined that Mr. Randle was bleeding internally. Internal Medicine Specialist Dr. David Litsky was rushed in. Dr. Litsky and his gastroenterological team stuck an endoscope and camera down Mr. Randle's throat. The surgeons pumped his stomach with alcohol to clean the stomach and iritestines, Dr. Litsky spotted the source of the internal bleeding: a "bleeding gastric ulcer" in the upper abdomen. Dr. Litsky cauterized the ulcer and stopped the bleeding. At that point Mr_ Randle had Iost two pints of blood and desperately needed a blood transfusion. Needless were stuck in his arms, upper thigh,wrists and stomach. He was pumped full of fresh blood. If the transfusion hadn't been administered right away,Mr. Randle would have died. Mr. Randle was hooked up to an I.V. machine for four days. He was attached to a stomach puny machine for two days. This machine ran through his nasal cavity, extended down his throat and into his stomach, and pumped out dark, old blood. He described the Wing as having a "broomstick in my mouth." He spent four days in the Intensive Care Unit2nd seven days total in the hospital. His status was "critical" for two days.The medical experts will confirm that Mr. Randle suffered a "bleeding gastric ulcer' brought on by acute stress, On Saturday, September 3, 1994,Mr. Randle was released from the hospital. Mr, Randle has suffered severe emotional distress and anguish. In a civil lawsuit brought under FEHA, the court may award compensatory damages for emotional distress and any other tion-wage injury. Ea to Community Ca&= Dia 'ct v. FERC, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 40, 48, 276 Cal.Rptr. 114; Rihun v_ AT&T Infrormation Systems. Fac.. (1993) 13 CA4th 976, 995-997, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 787. I am confident that any juror will empathize with Mr. Randle. He has been lied to and manipulated. Medical experts will confirm that the hemoraging of his ulcer was stress-related. It is impossible to guess what a jury will award in compensatory damages, but the sum of $20,000 for a near fatal stress injury is certainly possible. In addition, Mr. Randle has incurred legal fees In the amount of approximately $1,500. This sum will most assuredly rise dramatically if litigation results from the County's failure to meet Mr. Randle's settlement demands. tinder Government Code Section 12965(b), the County may be ordered to pay all of Mr. Randle'a attorneys fees regardless of the actual amount of damages Mr. Randle achieves at trial. NQ FUR ER ACTION A AIMS MR RANILE_ Currently, Mr. Randle is on Leave of Absence With Pay. I must formally request that no further action be taken.against Mr. Randle,as threatened in the 7 SEP-07-1994 16:01 510 313 1600 P.007 SEP-08-1994 09:38 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.01 County's August 26, 1994 lemcr. Mr. handle wishes to be immediately reinstated with full pay and benefits. He is healthy and ready to return to work. If any further action il taken against Mr. Randle,be is entitled to receive last back pay, front pay and benefits (Ackerman. Amp 643 F.Supp. at 855): l4juactive relief(Government Code Section 12970(a)), and compensatory damages for further emotional distress . In addition, Mr. Randle would be entitled to recover punitive damages (.Comrnodore Meme Systems Tnc_ prior ` Lt'r ( 982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 221); prejudgment interest under QYiLQde Section 3287(a); and attorneys fees (G=snrrtent. CWc Section 12965(b)). Please keep in mind that as of this date,Mr. Randle is protected by California Government Code, Section 12940(f), which provides: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice . . .: (f) For an employer . . , or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practice forbidden under this part.. Accordingly, any attempts to retaliate against Mr. Randle for his decision to come forward and assert his rights wader FEHA and the ADA will be rigorously opposed by this office and will only add to his darnages. SETTT Mr. Randle wants to be reinstated at full pay with the full benefits he was receiving as of August 18, 1994. In addition, he want reimbursed for his attorney's fees incurred ($1,500) plus he wants to apply for the Division Manager position which he was wrongfully precluded from seeking. Finally, Mr. Randle seeks the sum of$20,000 as compensation for the emotional distress he has been subjected to. Please telephone me immediately if you wish to discuss this very serious matter, rrr rrr Post-It-brand fax transmittal memo 7671 x et paga5 r 1 I is From t.o. Co. r I Dept. Phone N Fax a Fax# S TOTAL P.01 SEP-08-1994 09:31 510 313 1600 P.001 SEP-07-1994 16:08 S S PERSONNEL 510 313 1600 P.O9 Sincerely, Robert F. Wallace John Randle cc: Ms. Terry Salter Ms. j3arbara Osborne, DFEH Ms. Dents Davis-Howard, Local 55 Dr. Thomas Leonard 9 TOTnL P.10 TOTAL P.08 SEP-07-1994 16:01 510 313 1600 P.008 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11, 1994 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. 1 the action taken on your Claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $10,000.00 + Section 913 and 915.4. Please note III 4=44 U� CLAIMANT: GOLDBERG, Karen UP 19 1994 ATTORNEY: O'Brien, Sullivan & Jensen 4 �NT Q U N F L. Rory D. Jensen Date received ADDRESS: 1299 Newell Bill Place BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON Seutember 16. 1994 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. 1L ATCHELOR, Clerk a DATED: � .g •,,s.l�o /9 /�9� �d: Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the $bard of Supervisors ( U400'This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. , ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: 1 — A0 _ 7q BY:3� Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). JV. BOARD!ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present { �) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. OCT ` . 19% Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By�ll�.a�aA� Deputy Clerk YARNING Nov. code section 913) subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection With this metier. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so im+nediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I detlare under penalty of perjury that I an now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to she Claimant as shown above. Dated:_ 0 C T 1994 SY: Pull BATCHELOR by :� . Q "puty Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator r. CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY [Gov. Code §§ 905, 905 . 2 910, 910 . 21 RrECEIVED u_ TO: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 651 PINE STREET, ROOM 106 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINEZ, CA 94553 CONTRA CPSTA CO. KAREN GOLDBERG hereby makes claim against CONTRA COSTA COUNTY for a sum in excess of $10, 000 and makes the following statements in support of the claim: 1 . Claimant' s address is : 1776 Bothelo Drive, #202 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 2 . Notices concerning the claim should be sent to: O'BRIEN, SULLIVAN & JENSEN 1299 Newell Hill Place, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 . 3 . The date and place of the accident giving rise, to this claim are : On or about March 17, 1994, at approximately 7 : 00 p.m. Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, California, near Interstate 680 . (Copies of photos of location are attached. ) 4 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows : At the above time and place, claimant was walking on the newly constructed bridge on Olympic Blvd. , which was in a dangerous condition due to a piece of rebar metal which was protruding out of the concrete. Claimant tripped and fell on the rebar, causing bodily injury, including but not limited to injury of right knee and right foot . 5 . Claimant' s injuries include right knee and right foot, which has been diagnosed as being broken. As a result, claimant has been very limited in her activities and is in constant pain and discomfort . 6 . The names of the public employees causing the claimant' s injuries are unknown. 7 . Amount of claim: over $10, 000 . The claim is based on the injuries in an amount to be proved at trial of this matter. Dated: September 16, 1994 Y D NSET�— Att_ozlaey for Clai nt t 06 �10 04 k�+ �p W7 i y; ,:::t} ��� � ;jiwwwy. J.�t,'1 t M y�'.�^ ���i�'•et'. . Cllc�=r`, CPA r� CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11, 1994 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board. of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. Ail Section references are to The copy of this document M sled to you is your notice of California Government Codes. 1 the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Goverment Code Amount: $350.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please notII egg CLAIMANT: JIM, Fred SEP 19 1994 AT70RNEY: 90-U NTY 00i1NSeL Date received MARTft-z CALIF. ADDRESS: 4728 Woodbridge Way BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON September 19, 1994 Antioch, CA 94509 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: September 16, 1994 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted claim. a I IL eATCNELOR, Clerk : DATED �,��� d : Deputy 11. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 1S days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: '1 BY: Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARDS ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ✓) This Claim is rejected in full. ( Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. ( 1994 r Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice iws personally served or goosited in the wail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. Yau tray seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF NAILING 7 declare under penalty of perjury that I as now, and at All times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the UM ted States Postal Service in Martinez, California, Postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to =he Claimant AS shown above. jDated: OCT ' ,199� BY: PHu BATCHELOR by l �FtQ��_d� Deputy Clerk tC: County Counsel County Administrator Qom: `r y.r _ t 0 A fr' Co 'D o `: Clai- -o: BOARD OF SJPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for.A njury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Bii rd of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be fAled in. D. If the claim is against more than one publie ,entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. d5de'�SEc. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp RECEIVED ) Against the County of Contra Costa ) or ) SEP 9 I District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVW4M Fill in name ) CONM COSTACO. The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against he County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of, $ w,r_j Q . 0 and in support of this claim represents as follows. . 1. When did the`damage or injury occur?. (Give exact date and hour) �56 /o 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? ( clude city and county) ( l 3. How did the damage or injury~ cur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) 4. What particular act or omission on the part 0;/ unty district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or d e? D. wnat are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the _,JsLmage or in jury? 5. What damage or injuries�do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. ---------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) ------------ --- ---------- ------ �3- Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. a 7� f ------_____________��____ 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT _ CliJ 1 R 93Z Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides: 1� "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO.11-4 6 Attorney t).aa„'O NOD-JI orb some 2erson on his behalf." Name and Address pof=AttQiane '°•�"�`- _ aimant's igna � J Address Telephone No. Telephone No. �2oU * 7-1 N 0 T I C E' Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: - "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow-or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. J _ 4C } G9, 20-. y 1-- 6/ocl '1 <' CUSTOMER'S ORDER NO. DEPT. DATE NAME ...,_:f I ADDRESS % . ' SOI-D BY CASH' C'.O.D, CHARGE OR ACCT. MDSEAEVO. PAID OUT 1 DESCRIPTION Ai z 3 J /, [A s 6 8 , 10 . t 12 # 13 E 14 t 15 16 I _ 17. 18 i ti RECD BY fr It�FORVI' KEEP THIS SLIP 5L320/01320 , FOR R'EFE'RENCE '.' :'ow CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11,1994 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements. ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: UnImown 1 Section 913 and 91S.4. Please note all *warnings". CLAIMANT: (;ROC=-' Marilyn 'SEP 9 6 1994 ATTORNEY: COUNTY COUNSEL MARTINEZ CALIF. Date received ADDRESS: 1722-6th Street BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON SpntCMbCr 15_ 1994 Richmond, CA 94801 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: 7'Sentember 14. 1994 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PpHHIL ATCNELOR Clerk ® �j DATED: Cyr[P.��A� /(n . l 9g 81: �putyL • l �L,e.p � J1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Pl- This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. , ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: � '7 BY: Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). 1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present uv), This Claim is rejected in full. ( Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: O C T 11: . 1994 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �� . Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or Aeposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. rau may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney. you should do so immediately. "For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I so now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez. California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Bard Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the Claimant as shown above. 1Deted: OCT 1 1994 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR bygd, 0A,",U_._,L__) Dqputy clerk tC: County Counsel County Administrator >� r f cs w ; . c�. m. a .�. 4VO r I WN k _Y tom: i { h r Claim 'to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUC!'IONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury -:o person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury .to.person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after�January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 1069 County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the .claim is against winre than one puhtie ?rlti..t v sA'no—.►a*e clalmc M-met be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this worm. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp ars Y Lmrd ,� ) �a :f Against the County of Contra Costa ) �` or ) District) CLERK BOARD OF S (;ONTPA COSTA CO. Fill in name ) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 1217 00 6am 2.- Where di� thedamaga or. infury occur? (Include city and county) L Ve_y-dC1___Ldn= T 3. How did th�e-}damage or �F injury occ�}�'? (Give d tail use ext �rper if required) 04r Gv S QYI��GI on sixoplq ICUs ` $, �" a Gt( e r V In �S �ar Irl , �PaCojIfnOe(�A � ea r" D 0par_ � os 1 l0 I tc)QS a.-r 4. What particular act or omission on the part of countL or d4t het officers, fl , servants or employees caused the injury or damage? , 1yi CY1 Lia r Tr or 1�C V)0- k T M rK► (.L7�CS G�G�YY►4, �� �v ere, m ar r,�c)111 np-� iYXn n ab 1)n no 6` a ab so r 4-Ae- e� e oC 4a cad 4-6 b (over)JOn to 11-h em= 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? &dersoa t- volwtecrCpm 9'-W se-lop 04-� . 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resited? ( e full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage 'Patk I'oin to '1- misson .&*6 ere tiro r)If gAk t2 -Y 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) 8y S. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. your q �aW1 5 e-e� 7Pi aZi�/ V1- G J5 /,0 S U l 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT s Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: ' QThe claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES T0: _ (A, tone _) a or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address;;`6P A1t1, r7neyJ 01"', Claimant's S gnature La-Z Addr ss + 'telephone No. ,ele,,..,,,.e , „ # # # # # # # #, f, # # # # #' * '1 1 i # # # a NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code providesi, "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district beard or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill; account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than .one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not4exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. '.: A l, <. i - { f I j _ Il �l I Ii 1' i ! USTOMER SERVICE MGR CUSTOMER NAMEit'�1a R (LAST) (FIRST) DATA/ A DRESS . . CITY f STATE/PROV. ZIP/POSTAL CODE HOME PHONE _ BUSINESS PHONE • YEAR MAKE MODEL ✓ a� .COLOR VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(VIN) LIC TE NO./STATE MIM GETRANS���TYPE WARRANTY JORIGINALR.O. TYPE SERVICEORIGINAL CENTER /r OR'16.SERVICE DATE ENGINE SIZE PROD.DATE t INFORMATION - n. Runt T®e r International Customer Service € r ®© Z 70 ' "M mv 1 PRESIDENTIAL BLVD.,BALA CYNWYD,PA 19004 _ 'i Call on-nee: (800)523-0401 TRANSMISSIDNS VM4" -erit 511. "11-If An independently owned and operated ARMCO Center SAFEGUARD RESEAL $ SERVICE ® SERVICE (See Description below) (See Description below) COMPUTER DIAGNOSTIC $ BANNER RECONDITIONED $ r SERVICE ® TRANSMISSION SERVICE -" 1 See Descri tion (See Description below) ( p below) I I hereby authorize this AAMCO Center to perform their Multi-Check which includes a Fluid Check, OTHER r $ TORQUE CONVERTER $ Road Test&Minor Adjustments,Diagnosis AT NO CHARGE. SERVICE .r ,�^ (ADDITIONAL COST,}ti, b; s•.,` r ., (See Description below), ✓ = r ,y F REQUIRED) { AAMCO may operate this`vehicle for purposes of X - - -•—-- testing,inspection and d delivery ahmy risk. c, Customer Authorization HARD PARTS.................................................... L] INCLUDED ADDITIONAL Authorizations-Tet.Auth.No.1 1 From '€ By Date and Time Service Torque Convener Hard Parts Miscellaneous Subtotal fax TOTAL X Customer Signature SS#or D/L# Date O Authorizations-Tel.Auth.No.1 1 From By Date and Time 'YEA � �\n Service Torque Converter Hard Pa is Miscellaneous Subtotal Tax TOTAL Customer Signature SS#or D/L# Date 0 9 0 • � �GtiaC�������0�1� � World's Largest Transmission Specialists .,. .. ,. A r.. VIOD1111M&3 Mo M. RM5�� 6 ,t y, • � L (NK�t L � /ti,o.� T C.c Ga. SSIOeAJ AAMCO may operate this vehicle for the purpose of testing and delivery at my risk. _ ❑Remove and Dismantle Transmission ❑Internal Inspection of Transmission Parts c f ❑Torque Converter Inspection ❑Reassemble and Install Important Notice: $ The price of installing an exchange rebuilt transmission and torque converter in your vehicle TOTAL LABOR excluding other hard parts,is $ The price of this same service if we rebuilt your transmission is $ TOTAL PARTS Frequently hard parts do not need to be replaced.The purpose of the teardown and inspection is to determine SUBTOTAL 3 9 J,— what hard parts are needed,if any. You have the right to:(A)the return of your replaced parts unless you are informed otherwise,(B)know the TAX maximum time in which the repair shop must reassemble and reinstall your transmission it you do not authorize the service the Center recommends;(C)have your transmission reassembled and installed for the price of the TOTAL teardown,and(D)know the prices,terms and conditions of all warranties,if any. Check the appropriate boxes: ❑Yes,save my parts for inspection or return upon receipt of the vehicle or,for days thereafter. ❑No,I do not want to inspect my parts. *Yes,I understand that my transmission will be reassembled and installed in my car within I days of the date shown below if I choose not to authorize the service the shop recommends.This will be done for I="$ a9 r"the price of the teardown. O,Yes, I have read.and understand the prices,terms and conditions of all warranties. Customer's Authorization X Tel.Ruth.No.( 1 From Date SS# By Time DL# YOU ARE IER7TITLEO TO RECEIVE A COPY OF OUR QUOTATIOLV SHEET WHICH STETS(FORTH THE COSTS 00:THE'SERVIICE OR SERVICES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO YOU -®Copyright 1974,1976,1983,1985,1986 All Rights Reserved,Form No.79A-0030 PRINTED IN U.S.A.REV.(12/93) SERVICE QUOTATION 1OT A TION C CLAIM I" 5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11, 1994 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references.are to ) The Copy of this document mailed to you is Your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to -Goverment Code .Amount: $25,000,;00 MONTSection 913 and 915.4. Please note all 'Warnings-. CLAIMANT:ANAYA, Ramona SEP 15 1994 COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEY:Ilse M. Butter fieldMARTiNPzCALIF. 1901 Harrison St., Ste. 901 Date received ADDRESS: Oakland, CA 94612 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON September 15, 1994 BY MAIL POSTMARKED• Hand Delivered via: Risk Mgmt. 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. pp 11 eATCMELOR, Clerk TY ) DATED:��-o " P1J n) il, 199�� d�: DeputJV ]I. FAOM: ounty Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. , ( ) This claim FAILS t0 comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are s0 notifying , claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: q-1 BY: Z:n:-----oeputy County Counsel 311. FROM: Clerk of the Board 10: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). JV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: OCT i1 }` 19% PEAL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By i , Deputy Clerk 60NING (6ov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or Deposited in the mail to file a court action an this claim. see Government Code Section 945.6. You lay seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this otter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For additional Warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 3 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the united States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to She claimant as shorn above. n Oated:CT 9' 1994 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR byU 1.,� �� Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator SEP 15 '94 15:19 SLC 510-451-3973 921 P02 ,�� AUOi-11 1994 14:53 PROM CCC RISK MANAGEMENT TO 94513973 'P.01i02 i .:td- &! C. C*Ia!r. to: BOAR&-dr SUPERVISORS OF COYM COSTA CC160Y INSTRUCTIONS TO Ci.AD7A U Fax N .. F.! A• Ciaics relat;,ng to Causes of action for death or for inJury to ptn•a V t•-• sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented rnot later than the 200th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for.death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which &OCrue on or after January 1, 1968, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the Cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the Callas of &&tion. (Govt. Code '§911.2.) B. Claim must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C, If Claim is agai.wt a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of t1v District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against mare than cne public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity, E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. Code Sec. 72 at the end of this eeeeeeeeee • re +� e �► efe �reeeeeee * eeee �rsei� e * e • e �te M: Claim By ) Raw-led for Clerk's Ming stamp r RAMONA ANAYA RECEIVEDy ' Against the ounty or Contra Costa Or I VP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY District.) thrll , ilk naw- ) CLERK BOARD OF S _ CONI'ftA COSTA :'he undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the~County of Contra Costa or the above-roamed District in the sum of $ 2 5,0 0 0.0 0 and in support of this claim represents as follows: l. ' When did the damage or injury occur? '(Give exact date and hour) narch 18, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. --------------- 2. Where did the dama a or injury occur? (Include city and city) At the intersection of "D" and 10th Street, Antioch, Contra Costa County. 3. � How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required)Claimant.'was. stopped at the stop sign on "D" Street in the City of Antioch, behind a Riverview Fire Protection truck driven by Paul Rangel, when suddently, without warning he reversed his truck causing it to collide VjXJ1_c 1:imant' s vehicle. __ 4, What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Negligent operation of motor vehicle. SEP-15-1994 15:28 5104513973 96% P.02 SEP 15 194 15:20 SLC 510-451-3973 921 P03 RZJ-11-1994 14:53 FROM CCC RISK MANAGEMENT TO 94513973 P.02/02 y 7� wnat are the names of�t Gnzy or district officers, serva* or employees causing the damage or injury? Paul Rangel Riverview Fire Protection 5. ' What damage or injuries do you cleim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. Personal injuries consisting of• low backpain and muscle spasms 7• , How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of arty prospective injury or damage.) estimate $. !dames and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Los Medanos Community Hospital Pittsburgh Health Center 2311 Loveridge Road 550 School Street Pittsburg, California 94565 Pittsburg, California 94565 9. List the^expenditures you made on account of Viis accident or Wury: DATE ITEDi T . The total is unknown at this time discovery is continuing. see ea► o� �rt► .e +t � iseefee.� �t.• e • e • � �r +te � e * e �t �te � +� eee +a Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides "The claim must be signed by the claimant 900 NOTICES TO: (Attor e cX,by some person ori his behalf. ame and Address of Attorney Ilse M. Butterfield LAW OFFICES OF BRYANT H. BYRNEE (pialtffht'ff S40ature) 1901 Harrison Street, Ste. 901 LAW 'OFFICES OF BRYPATT H. BYRNES Oakland, CA- 94612 1901 Harrison St. Ste: 901 (Iddress) Oakland, .CA 94612 Teleoae No. ph Telephone No. (510) 7 6 3-3 4 i! f NOTICE Se6tion 72 of the Penal Code provides: - - "Every per3on lobo, With intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for pa t to any state beard or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and tine, or by imprisonment in th state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars (510,000, or by both such 1wriso:lraent and fine. TOTAL P.02 SEP-15-1994 15:29 5104513973 96% P.03 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 11, 1994 Claim v;gain3t}the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to The copy of this document wiled to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors TR aragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: Unknown I ction 913 and 915.4. Please note all •warnings". CLAIMANT:RAPP, Larry Byron SEP 15 19914 COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEY: Jay R. Dove MARTINEZCALIF. Attorney at Law Date received ADDRESS: 131 Stony Circle, Suite 500 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON September 14, 1994 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: September 13, 1994 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. 6q � pp QQ IL BATCHELOR, Clerk DATED:_ l b,o P /s, / 9 9, : Deputy'_, 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying I claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( Vl Other:Ti41tg GLAuvt Cowt Pins Sy657Ar4 roAu..V An/iD 15 Sf,Av1,- C,&V:S vtrt r0 uwcV Fo X V+VS is Mm mF os Aw O /N30K1 tS o CCyg4zio Hr MA/u N/3 ,/9 g5/ Iwo TNfi�ii4F7'F i2. w2 7'pW 0A,44Ai15 A-*O s-v3&4v13 1rcv1L/a1rs- -ro4AUQL, TNsc tAiw! iS c.oZi StSc.G•C Dated: `7 •r� g BY: /6Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). JV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( V1(This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: OCT. 1/--19% PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ,� Deputy Clerk YARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice as personally served or Deposited in the wit to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this setter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so inmediately. *For additional warning see reverse side of this notice. AFFIDAVIT OF WtILING 3 declare under penalty of perjury that I ym now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, overage 13; and that today I deposited 1n the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certifia:l copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to She Clamant as shown above. 945*1 lb-ted: '0. ' - f � Deputy Clerk By: PHIL BATCHELOR by ` ,tip , Q tc: County Counsel County Administrator CONFIDENTIAL COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Date: September 19, 1994 TO: Shirley Casillas Deputy Clerk FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Brandon Baum, Deputy County Counsel RE: Claim of Larry Rapp The claim is partially late and partially timely. I indicate on the claim and on the notice of late claim that the claimant must apply for leave to present a late claim on those injuries occurring prior to six months of the filing of the claim. Let me know if you have any questions at 6-2041. CENED 1 JAY R. DOVE ssx#081848 E Attorney at Law 2 131 Stony Circle, Suite 500 SEP 4 Santa �Rosa, CA 95401 3 (707 ) 573-9954 01 CLERK�ON AO OS A Co.IS®R 4 Attorney for Claimant- LARRY BYRON RAPP 5 6 Claim of LARRY BYRON RAPP CLAIM FOR PERSONAL 7 INJURIES AND VS. VIOLATION OF 8 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; 9 OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY. 10 [Government Code § 910] 11 / 12 To the Governing Board of the County of Contra Costa: 13 You are hereby notified that Larry Byron Rapp, whose address 14 is 1836 Vine Lane, Antioch, County of Contra Costa, California, claims damages from the County of Contra Costa and the District 15 Attorney' s Office of the County of Contra Costa in an amount within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of 16 California. 17 This claim is for a violation of claimant Rapp' s rights to be free from retaliation for having brought a civil rights action 18 against the City of Antioch and an Antioch Police Officer, Robin Ferrari, which arose from their obtaining and executing of a drug 19 task force search warrant for claimant' s premises on September 16, 1990. This claim is also for causing claimant Larry Byron 20 Rapp to be indicted by the Contra Costa Grand Jury without legal or reasonable cause and for being falsely arrested. This claim 21 also encompasses the use of illegally seized evidence before the Grand Jury in obtaining the Grand Jury Indictment. This claim is 22 also for violation of claimant' s right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, and his right to due process of law with 23 respect to his being intentionally interviewed after claimant clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel upon being 24 arrested upon the Grand Jury Indictment. This claim is also against prosecuting authorities for their conspiracy and 25 participating in the aforementioned acts, as well as intentionally withholding, concealing, and/or destruction of 26 exculpatory information and information relating to the credibility of Officer Leonard Orman. 27 28 1 L. T t ; 1 Statement of Facts 2 1. On September 16, 1990, Officer Robin Ferrari and Officer Leonard Orman, peace officers of the City of Antioch Police 3 Department, while assigned as narcotics officers to the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, prepared and obtained a 4 search warrant, Delta Municipal Court search warrant 90-118, for the residence of Larry Byron Rapp at 1836 Vine Lane, Antioch, 5 which is located in the unincorporated area of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 6 2. Officer Ferrari ' s search warrant affidavit stated: "On 09-16-90 at approximately 1500 hours, I spoke to Deputy Daniel L. 7 Reynolds of the Contra Costa County Sheriff' s Department who told me that at approximately 1202 hours on this date he came in 8 contact with Darryl Eugene Ledford DOB 5-3-62 in the area of Vierra Ave and Vine Lane in Antioch (refer to Report 90-27420) . 9 Ledford was subsequently arrested for being in possession of methamphetamine, a loaded "AMT" 380/9mm auto loading pistol, and 10 5 valium tablets. "Deputy Reynolds told Ledford that he could have some one pick up his vehicle or it would be towed. Ledford 11 told Deputy Reynolds that he could leave the keys with Robin Snyder at 1836 Vine Lane Antioch. Deputy Reynolds walked to the 12 residence on Vine Lane to drop off the keys to Ledford' s vehicle. When Deputy Reynolds approached the residence Robin Snyder and 13 Larry Rapp exited the house rapidly, meeting Deputy Reynolds in front of the residence. Deputy Reynolds noticed the front door to 14 the residence was open. He could smell a strong odor he associates only with the odor of a methamphetamine laboratory. " 15 [emphasis added] . Officer Ferrari ' s affidavit states that she believed that there was a methamphetamine laboratory at Larry 16 Rapp' s residence. 3. There is no odor which is only associated with a 17 manufacture of methamphetamine. 4. There was no odor emanating from the Rapp residence on 18 September 16, 1990. 5. There was no probable cause for obtaining the search 19 warrant for Larry Rapp' s residence on September 16, 1990, and Officers Robin Ferrari and Leonard Orman were told that by 20 Sheriff' s Deputy Daniel Reynolds prior to Robin Ferrari and Leonard Orman preparing and obtaining the search warrant for 21 Larry Rapp' s residence. 6. At approximately 10:45 p.m. , on September 16, 1994, the 22 drug task force stormed the house without knock/notice compliance. With guns drawn and pointed at the cooperative 23 occupants, the officers rushed in and put Larry Rapp to the ground with a shotgun to his head, threatening to blow his 24 "motherfucking head off. " Rapp was told that he was going "downtown. " After 10 minutes, it became clear to the officers 25 that no drug lab and no suspicious odor was present at Larry Rapp's house. Despite that fact, the officers continued to 26 handcuff Larry Rapp while the officers proceeded to search every nook and cranny of the entire house, and then interviewed both 27 Larry Rapp and his girlfriend Robin Marin. Larry Rapp and Robin 28 2 t f 1 Marin were cooperative at all times with the officers. 7. Officer Leonard Orman personally participated in both 2 the preparation of the search warrant application and in the execution of the search warrant for Larry Rapp' s residence. 3 8. No methamphetamine and no evidence of manufacturing of methamphetamine was found during the execution of the search at 4 claimant' s residence on September 16, 1990. 9 . On March 15, 1991, Larry Byron Rapp filed a governmental 5 tort claim with the City of Antioch pertaining to the violations of his constitutional rights in the manner in which the search 6 warrant for his residence on September 16, 1990, was obtained and executed. Said claim indicated that Larry Rapp was represented in 7 the matter by attorney Jay R. Dove. 10. On April 17, 1991, Antioch Police Officer Art Acosta 8 interviewed claimant without the knowledge or consent of his attorney Jay R. Dove, despite an inquiry by Larry Rapp as to 9 whether his attorney should be present during the interview. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 10 Officer Art Acosta interviewed Larry Rapp at the direction of the City Attorney' s Office for the City of Antioch. Claimant is 11 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer Art Acosta knew that claimant was represented by counsel before 12 attempting to interview claimant Larry Rapp. 11. The City of Antioch rejected Larry Rapp' s governmental 13 tort claim on July 9, 1991. 12. On September 11, 1991, Larry Rapp filed a civil rights 14 suit in the County of Contra Costa Superior Court pertaining to the violations of his constitutional rights in the manner in 15 which the search warrant for his residence on September 16, 1990, was obtained and executed. [Larry Byron Rapp and Robin Melinda 16 Marin v. Robin Ferrari; City of Antioch; Daniel L. Reynolds; County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. C91- 17 04354, hereinafter referred to as Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari. ] 13. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 18 that while claimant Larry Rapp' s underlying civil rights case concerning the September 16, 1990, search warrant was going 19 through the court system, Officer LEONARD ORMAN and the county drug task force, known variously as the Contra Costa County 20 Narcotics Enforcement Team, East Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, Eastern Contra Costa County Narcotics 21 Enforcement Team, East NET, continued to investigate claimant RAPP trying to arrest and prosecute claimant for any crime 22 involving methamphetamine distribution and its manufacture. 14. Claimant Larry Rapp has not been involved or 23 participated in the sale, manufacture, or distribution of methamphetamine. 24 15. On August 19, 1992, claimant' s counsel took the deposition of defendant Orman in the Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari 25 action and defendant Orman was aware of that civil action. 16. On or about July 22, 1993, Antioch Police Officer 26 Leonard Orman obtained a Contra Costa County search warrant for Pacific Bell records in Alameda County for claimant' s residence, 27 Delta Municipal Court search warrant number 93-159c; a copy of 28 3 t 1 the search warrant is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. The search warrant ordered the following to 2 be produced for the period of time from December of 1992 through May of 1993: 3 A. Record of subscriber' s name(s) , home address, and billing address; 4 B. Record of dates of subscription; C. All telephone tolls for the telephone number(s) 5 assigned; D. All personal data regarding the subscriber; and 6 E. Record of any local telephone calls made. [emphasis added] . 7 17. In obtaining search warrant number 93-159c for Larry Rapp' s phone records and private personal data, Leonard Orman 8 requested and received an order from the issuing magistrate that: 4. The existence of this order shall not be 9 disclosed to any of the subscribers to telephone numbers at the aforementioned addresses, or any 10 party associated with these telephone numbers or addresses, by the Pacific Bell Co. , or any party 11 there of, without a proper order of the court, issued by a judge with competent jurisdiction. 12 [emphasis added] . 18. A specific purpose of the non-disclosure order was so 13 that Larry Rapp would not be informed, and therefore, not know that the police had obtained and reviewed his phone records and 14 private personal information about Larry Rapp. 19. Search warrant 93-159c was served on the telephone 15 company. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer Leonard Orman was the person serving the search 16 warrant 93-159c, and that Leonard Orman received from the phone company Larry Rapp' s telephone records and private personal 17 information regarding Larry Rapp. 20. The telephone company did not advise Larry Rapp of the 18 search of his phone records and release of private personal data concerning him. 19 21 . On October 18, 1993, and October 20, 1993, in the Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari action, the validity of the September 16, 20 1990, search warrant for claimant' s residence was tried by the court before the Hon. James R. Trembath, who then took the case 21 under submission. 22. On February 17, 1994, the Hon. James R. Trembath issued 22 his tentative decision, which was mailed to the parties on February 18, 1994. 23 23. The tentative decision ruled that the September 16, 1990, search warrant was improperly obtained and therefore 24 invalid. 24. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 25 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a 26 reasonable and objective belief that there was sufficient probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal 27 conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible evidence for the 28 4 r ,1 filing a charge against claimant Larry Byron was that certain persons alleged to be involved in illegal methamphetamine 2 activities had made phone calls to claimant' s residence, a state of facts that no reasonably well-trained officer could reasonably 3 believe that there was sufficient probable or reasonable cause to proceed further against claimant. 4 25. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, 5 and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct the prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant through the 6 Grand Jury process. . 26. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon 7 alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant 8 Rapp for the improper purpose of retaliating against claimant for his earlier civil rights action arising from the September 16, 9 . 1990, search warrant. 27. On March 1 and March 2, 1994, Officer LEONARD ORMAN 10 testified before the Grand Jury for the County of Contra Costa. 28. On March 2, 1994, the Contra Costa Grand Jury, based 11 upon the testimony of Officer LEONARD ORMAN and other witnesses, issued an Indictment for claimant for violating Section 11379 . 6 12 of the Health and Safety Code, manufacturing of methamphetamine, a felony. 13 29. The information from the phone records obtained by Officer Leonard Orman from search warrant 93-159c was presented 14 to the Contra Costa Grand Jury on March 1 and March 2, 1994. The information obtained from the telephone records was the sole 15 evidence against Larry Rapp which was presented to the Grand Jury with respect to any possible involvement on claimant' s part in 16 the alleged manufacturing of methamphetamine conspiracy theory presented to the grand jury. 17 30. A warrant in the amount of $500, 000 was issued for the arrest of claimant in connection with the Grand Jury Indictment. 18 31 . Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Antioch Police Officer Leonard Orman prepared and completed 19 a briefing bulletin regarding the warrant for the arrest of Larry Byron Rapp and that Officer Leonard Orman requested and directed 20 that Officer Bruce Moore interview claimant about the case. 32. On March 13, 1994, claimant was arrested inside his 21 residence pursuant to the warrant by Officer Hernandez (Badge No. 2239 ). of the Antioch Police Department. According to police 22 reports provided to claimant, the arrest of Larry Rapp by Officer Hernandez was assigned by Sgt. Barmore. Larry Rapp was then 23 transported to the City of Antioch Police Department. While claimant was still in custody and with the indictment still 24 pending, Antioch Police Officer Bruce Moore (Badge No. 2111) advised claimant of his rights to counsel, including the 25 advisement under the Miranda decision. Claimant invoked his right to counsel and stated that he wanted a lawyer. Claimant invoked 26 his right to remain silent. Despite clear legal authority requiring that the interview must cease at that point in that 27 claimant made a clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to 28 5 r , 1 counsel and his right to remain silent, Officer Moore intentionally continued to interview claimant in the absence of 2 counsel regarding the charges and circumstances of the grand jury indictment in an effort to gather incriminating evidence, to 3 gather impeachment evidence against Larry Rapp, and to prevent claimant from testifying on his behalf at trial, in violation of 4 claimant' s right to counsel, right to remain silent, and right to due process. 5 33. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer Bruce Moore knew prior to arresting claimant that 6 claimant had a civil rights lawsuit pending against the City of Antioch and was represented by counsel in that lawsuit. 7 34. Until the arrest of March 13, 1994, claimant had never suffered an arrest. 8 35. Claimant did not learn of the existence search warrant number 93-159c, or its execution, until sometime after his arrest 9 on March 13, 1994. 36. On April 11, 1994, the City of Antioch agreed to having 10 a judgment entered against it in favor of Larry Rapp in the Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari civil rights action. 11 37. On July 15, 1994, the Contra Costa Superior Court dismissed the Grand Jury Indictment as to claimant because the 12 indictment was not supported by legal or reasonable cause. 38. The City of Antioch is jointly and severally 13 responsible under Government Code § 895.2 for the acts and omissions of police officers who committed or participated in the 14 acts herein while members of the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team and the East Contra Costa County Narcotics 15 Enforcement Team. The City of Antioch' s liability is based further on is the memorandum outlining the agreement made by 16 affected agencies in the formation of a Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, dated August 1988, and signed by 17 various law enforcement agency personnel. 39. Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy 18 protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States with respect to his telephone calling records and 19 private, confidential personal information maintained by Pacific Bell. 20 40. Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Public Utilities Code Sections 2891 and 2894, 21 Article 1, Section 1, and Article 1, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of California in his telephone calling 22 records and private, confidential personal information maintained by Pacific Bell. 23 41. Claimant did not consent or authorize the release of his telephone calling records and private, confidential personal 24 information to law enforcement, and did not authorize Pacific Bell to do so. 25 42. There was no good cause or legal cause presented to the magistrate in the search warrant application for dispensing with 26 the constitutional requirement of notice and the issuance of the order prohibiting Pacific Bell from contacting Larry Rapp that 27 his phone and personal records were being searched. 28 6 1 43. There was no good cause or legal cause presented which justified the magistrate dispensing with the constitutional 2 requirement of notice and the issuance of the order prohibiting Pacific Bell from contacting Larry Rapp that his phone and 3 personal records were being searched. 44. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges 4 that defendant Leonard Orman requested and obtained the search warrant for claimant' s telephone calling records and private, 5 confidential information dispensing with notice, intentionally, knowingly, and with deliberate disregard of the constitutional 6 requirement of notice, and for the specific purpose of avoiding the constitutional requirement of notice so that the person or 7 persons whose private records are being sought does not become aware of the police inquiry into his or her private affairs. 8 45. Penal Code Section 1534 provides that a search warrant shall be open to the public as a judicial record when the search 9 warrant is executed. Despite that fact, claimant is unable to contact the telephone company to inquire into the circumstances 10 of the search of his records because of the possibility that such inquiry could be construed as contempt of the court for 11 nondisclosure, willful disobedience of a court order, or obstruction of justice. 12 46. Claimant Rapp is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the County of Contra Costa and County of Contra 13 Costa' s District Attorney Office have a policy, custom, and practice of its police officers and prosecutors obtaining search 14 warrants for phone records and pager records which intentionally request and obtain a court order that the person or persons whose 15 private records are being sought not be notified by the telephone or pager company, and that the intentional and specific purpose 16 of requesting and obtaining such an order of nondisclosure is that the person or persons whose records are sought is not 17 informed and does not become aware of the intrusion into his or her personal and private affairs and with intentional, knowing, 18 and deliberate disregard of the constitutional requirement of notice as evidenced by the following search warrants issued by 19 the Delta Municipal Court: 93-97 April 28, 1993 Pagenet Paging 20 93-98 April 28, 1993 Metromedia Paging 93-113 May 14, 1993 Pagenet Paging 21 93-116 May 17, 1993 Mobile Comm 93-125 May 24, 1993 Advanced Paging 22 93-129 June 3, 1993 Advanced Paging 93-184 August 30, 1993 Pagenet 23 93-192 September 7, 1993 Pacific Bell 94-2 Jan. . 6, 1994 Pagenet 24 94-7 January 24, 1994 Pagenet 94-38 March 17, 1994 Pac Bell 25 94-39 March 17, 1994 Pagenet Paging 94-43 March 21, 1994 Pac Bell Security 26 94-45 March 23, 1994 Pagenet Paging 94-56 April 8, 1994 Pagenet 27 94-57 April 13, 1994 Rolling Phones- Delta Cellular 28 7 1 94-61 April 25, 1994 PacBell 94-90 July 11, 1994 Pacific Bell 2 Search warrants 93-97 and 93-113 are pled on the basis of information and belief. 3 47. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the County of Contra Costa and the County of Contra' s. 4 District Attorney' s Office have a policy, custom, and practice of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens 5 in failing to train its officers and prosecutors to prepare and obtain search warrants which comply with the law, specifically 6 the constitutional requirement of notice. 48. The intrusion into claimant' s private affairs and 7 concerns was substantial, and of a kind that would be highly offensive to an ordinarily reasonable person. 8 49. Claimant Rapp was given no notice of the obtaining and the execution of the search warrant within reasonable time after 9 the service of the search warrant. 50. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 10 that no order has ever been issued authorizing Pacific Bell to notify claimant of the existence of the search warrant or the 11 fact that the claimant' s records were searched pursuant thereto. 51. Claimant Rapp was prejudiced by the lack of knowledge 12 of the existence of the search warrant for his phone records in that he was unable to present exculpatory evidence to the 13 prosecution and grand jury, and had no opportunity to advise the prosecution and grand jury regarding his pending civil rights 14 suit against the drug task force, and had no opportunity to request the prosecution and grand jury to look into the 15 misconduct of Officer Leonard Orman relative 'to his investigation of claimant Rapp and other citizens. 16 52. As a proximate result of the violation of claimant' s right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable police search 17 and seizure, claimant' s ability to live a normal day to day life has been seriously impaired in that he is afraid in his own home, 18 at his place of employment, in his personal affairs, and travelling in and around town. 19 53. As a proximate result of the violation of his privacy rights and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 20 as set forth herein, a Grand Jury Indictment for claimant was obtained on or about March 2, 1994, based solely and entirely on 21 the phone records obtained from Pacific Bell by Officer Orman. 54. As a further proximate result of the violation of his 22 privacy rights and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as set forth herein, claimant was arrested by members of 23 the City of Antioch Police Department on March 13, 1994, and held in jail on a $500, 000 bail on a violation of Health and Safety 24 Code section 11379 . 6, manufacture of methamphetamine, as found in the Grand Jury Indictment. Claimant was unable to make the 25 $500,000 bail and remained in custody for until March 25, 1994, when he was able to post a reduced bail of $50, 000. 26 55. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s actions as set forth herein, claimant was prevented from 27 presenting exculpatory evidence to the grand jury or prosecuting 28 8 z 1 officer in that he had no notification that he was under investigation and again being harassed by Officer Leonard' Orman. 2 56. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s actions as set forth herein, claimant has been harmed in that 3 claimant was required to retain a criminal defense attorney to represent him on the charges brought in the Grand Jury 4 Indictment. Claimant has incurred legal costs in excess of $7, 500. ' 5 57. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s actions as set forth herein, claimant was compelled to secure his 6 release by bail bond, for which claimant was required to expend $5,000.00 [Five Thousand Dollars] . 7 58. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s actions as set forth herein, claimant has been harmed in that 8 claimant lost wages in that he was unable to attend to his regular occupation as a mechanic when he was in jail in 9 association with the Grand Jury Indictment. Further, claimant lost wages when he was required to be personally present at 10 hearings and proceedings on his criminal matter. 59. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s 11 actions as set forth herein, claimant has suffered great physical and mental pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, 12 humiliation and indignity, embarrassment, and worry and fear that defendants will continue to make unlawful entries into his home 13 and private affairs and assaults on his person. 60. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 14 that convicted felon Melvin Frank Heinemann was arrested on April 19, 1993, by defendant Leonard Orman for being in possession of 15 methamphetamine. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 19, 1993, Melvin Heinemann agreed 16 after his arrest to cooperate with law enforcement to gain favorable consideration of felony charges and a parole violation 17 which may be brought against him stemming from the circumstances of his arrest on April 19, 1993. 18 61. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that after his arrest on April 19, 1993, Melvin Heinemann gave 19 Officer Orman information which was used to obtain the issuance of search warrants for 3116 Lone Tree Way, Apt. 1 in Antioch and 20 for 2606 Fairmont Lane in Antioch, but Melvin Heinemann told Officer Orman on April 19, 1993, after he agreed to act as a 21 police informant for Officer Orman, that Heinemann was not involved in the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine. 22 62. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Melvin Heinemann gave Officer Orman information on April 19, 23 1993, after he agreed to act as a police informant, which led Officer Orman on April 19, 1993, to a suspected methamphetamine 24 laboratory site at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde, California, but that on April 19, 1993, Heinemann told Officer Orman that he 25 was not involved in the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine. 26 63. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 19, 1993, Melvin Heinemann was then released by 27 Officer Orman without Heinemann being booked or charged with any 28 9 , 1 offense, because of his cooperation in obtaining the search warrants for Lone Tree Way and Fairmont Lane, as well as 2 providing defendant Orman with the site of the methamphetamine laboratory at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde. 3 64. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that after the execution of the search warrants for 3116 Lone 4 Tree Way, Apt. 1 in Antioch and for 2606 Fairmont Lane in Antioch on April 19, 1993, Officer Orman discovered, and had reasonable 5 cause to believe, that Melvin Heinemann was himself involved in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, that 6 Heinemann had lied to Officer Orman while acting as a police informant about Heinemann' s being personally involved in the 7 manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, and that Melvin Heinemann was not reliable as an informant. 8 65. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 20, 1993, police officers conducted a 9 parole search on Heinemann' s home and at that time, Heinemann still contended that he was not involved in the manufacture or 10 distribution of methamphetamine. 66. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 11 that on April 20, 1993, Melvin Heinemann was placed under arrest for violation of parole during the search of his home, and at 12 that time implicated James Hove in the methamphetamine laboratory located at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde in attempt to receive 13 favorable consideration for the arrest of April 19, 1993, and the parole violation arrest of April 20, 1993. 14 67. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 20, 1993, Melvin Heinemann told Officer Orman that 15 he was a partner in the lab at 211 Wellington with James Hove, but Heinemann did not mention Larry Rapp as being involved in the 16 methamphetamine laboratory operation at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde. 17 68. A copy of defendant Orman' s affidavit in support of search warrant 93-159c for claimant' s phone records is attached 18 as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant Orman indicated in his affidavit that on May 26, 1993, the 19 informant, Melvin Heinemann stated that Larry Rapp had been to the lab site at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde on approximately 20 April 17, 1993: 20. Also in that same time period, Larry Rapp arrived 21 at the house and spoke to James Hove about when he would get a return on the money he and invested in the 22 methamphetamine laboratory. Later, when James Hove was done manufacturing the phenyl-2-propanone, Larry Rapp 23 assisted him in breaking down, and bagging and boxing it. CRI#1 stated that they moved it in boxes to the 24 garage behind the house. 69. Larry Rapp has never been to the address at 211 25 Wellington Avenue in Clyde, and the statements alleged in paragraph 20 of the search warrant affidavit quoted above are not 26 true in that claimant is, and has not been, involved in or with the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine. 27 70. Defendant Orman advised the magistrate that as to the 28 10 1 informant Melvin Heinemann: "This subject has never supplied any false or misleading information about other subjects involved in 2 illicit activities, however, it should be noted that this subject has supplied false information about this subject' s own 3 involvement in illicit activities. " 71. In the sealed portion of his affidavit, defendant Orman 4 told the magistrate: In respect to the false statement that this subject 5 gave to law enforcement about this subjects own involvement with illicit crimes, the subject told me 6 that he used to have a storage locker in Pittsburg, but no longer had it when a public storage key card was 7 discovered in his wallet. It was later determined that the card belonged to the Antioch Public Storage 8 Facility, and that the subject still had a locker at that location. 9 72. Defendant Orman did not advise the magistrate who issued' search warrant 93-159c that Melvin Heinemann had given 10 other materially false information to Officer Orman while working as a police informant in order to escape liability for criminal 11 charges. 73. Defendant Orman made material false statements to the 12 magistrate regarding the reliability of the informant Melvin Frank Heinemann in that Orman did not advise the magistrate that 13 Heinemann while working as a police informant had lied to Officer Orman as to his being involved in the very crime which Officer 14 Orman was investigating. 74. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 15 that the informant, Melvin Frank Heinemann, while working as an informant, gave Officer Leonard Orman materially false 16 information relative to the crime which Leonard Orman was investigating. Officer Orman intentionally withheld this critical 17 and material information from the issuing magistrate and did so with the intent and purpose of misleading the magistrate into 18 issuing the search warrant which no reasonable magistrate would have issued had the true facts regarding the informant' s lack of 19 credibility relative to the very crime under investigation were made known to the issuing magistrate. 20 75. Defendant Orman knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements provided by Melvin 21 Heinemann reporting claimant as being involved in the manufacturing of methamphetamine were false in that defendant 22 Orman knew that Melvin Heinemann did not identify claimant for over six weeks of cooperation with law enforcement officers when 23 he had been identifying other principals since his arrest on or about April 19, 1993, but did not according to defendant Orman's 24 report identify claimant' s involvement until May 26, 1993. 76. When the false statements of defendant Orman are 25 deleted from his affidavit of probable cause in support of said search warrant, there is no probable cause to believe that 26 claimant was involved in any criminal activity and therefore the search warrant should not have issued. 27 77. When the material omissions relating to Melvin 28 11 1 Heinemann' s credibility made by defendant Orman are added to his affidavit of probable cause in support of said search warrant, 2 there is no probable cause to believe that claimant was involved in any criminal activity and therefore the search warrant should 3 not have issued. 78. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon 4 alleges, that Officer Leonard Orman withheld reports containing Heinemann' s statements and regarding the nature and extent of the 5 informant' s lack of reliability from prosecuting .authorities for the specific and intended purpose of keeping from both the 6 prosecution and claimant the informant' s lack of credibility; claimant was entitled to and required by the prosecution to be 7 informed as to all facts relating to Melvin Heinemann's lack of credibility and to all of his statements in that Melvin Heinemann 8 was also being prosecuted in the same Grand Jury Indictment; claimant requested to be informed by the prosecuting authorities 9 as to all statements made by Heinemann and as to all facts relating to Melvin Heinemann' s lack of credibility; and claimant 10 was not advised by the prosecuting authorities as to all statements made by Heinemann and as to all facts pertaining to 11 Melvin Heinemann' s lack of credibility because of Officer Orman' s withholding of material information relating to probable cause 12 and the reliability of the informant. 79. On or about July 22, 1993, defendant Orman violated 13 claimant' s rights under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, to wit, a violation of claimant ' s rights under the 14 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from search and seizure without reasonable and probable cause. 15 80. Search warrant number 93-159c was illegally obtained and executed in that neither the Fourth Amendment to the United 16 States Constitution nor Article 1, Section 13, of the California Constitution allow for a search warrant to be issued other than 17 on reasonable or probable cause. 81 . A reasonably well-trained police officer would know 18 that reliance on an informant who has lied to the officer while working as an informant on material issues is not reliable and 19 that a search warrant issued solely on such information could not and would not constitute probable or reasonable cause. 20 82. On or about July 22, 1993, defendant Orman violated claimant' s rights under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United 21 States Code, to wit, a violation of claimant' s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free 22 from search and seizure without reasonable and probable cause. 83. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 23 that the intent and purpose of defendant LEONARD ORMAN in initiating an investigation of claimant was to charge claimant 24 with a crime. 84. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 25 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN of the Antioch Police Department commenced an, investigation and instituted prosecution of claimant 26 for the purpose and with the intent of retaliating against Larry Rapp for filing the civil rights suit pertaining to the execution 27 of the September 16, 1990, search warrant for claimant' s 28 12 1 residence and to improperly cause claimant' s arrest and incarceration. 2 85. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, 3 and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct the prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant LARRY BYRON 4 RAPP through the Grand Jury process and subsequent criminal prosecution. 5 86. Defendant Leonard Orman was instrumental in and did direct the arrest of claimant on March 13, 1994, by other members 6 of the Antioch Police Department. 87. Defendant Orman acted without reasonable or legal cause 7 in investigating and instituting criminal proceedings against claimant and knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should 8 have known, that there was not legal or reasonable cause to support the search warrant for claimant' s phone records, to 9 support his request for instituting prosecution of claimant, and to support the Grand Jury Indictment. 10 88. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution 11 initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a reasonable and objective belief that there was sufficient 12 probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible evidence for the 13 filing a charge against claimant was that certain persons alleged to be involved in illegal methamphetamine activities had made 14 phone calls to claimant ' s residence, a state of facts that no reasonably well-trained officer could reasonably believe was 15 sufficient probable or reasonable cause to arrest or charge claimant with a crime. 16 89 . Defendant Orman acted with malice towards claimant in undertaking his investigation and instituting prosecution of 17 claimant with the intent to injure claimant and to cause his incarceration. 18 90. The Grand Jury Indictment of claimant was not supported by probable or legal cause. 19 91 . Defendant Orman violated claimant' s rights under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, more 20 specifically, by maliciously prosecuting claimant while intending to violate claimant' s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth 21 Amendments, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, not to be prosecuted without probable cause under 22 the due process cause, to the right of freedom of speech, and the right to be free from reasonable seizure of claimant' s person. 23 92. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN of the Antioch Police Department 24 commenced an investigation and instituted prosecution of claimant Larry Rapp for the purpose and with the intent of retaliating 25 against Larry Rapp for filing the civil rights suit pertaining to the execution of the September 16, 1990, search warrant for 26 claimant' s residence. 93. Defendant Orman' s investigation and request for 27 prosecution was substantially and primarily motivated because 28 13 _ r 1 claimant had previously filed a civil rights action against the City of Antioch and a fellow Antioch police officer regarding the 2 activities of the drug task force unit. 94. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 3 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct the 4 prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant LARRY BYRON RAPP through the Grand Jury process and subsequent criminal 5 prosecution. 95. Defendant Leonard Orman was instrumental in and did 6 direct the arrest of claimant on March 13, 1994, by other members of the Antioch Police Department. 7 96. The Grand Jury Indictment of claimant was not supported by probable or legal cause. 8 97. Defendant Orman acted without reasonable or legal cause in investigating and instituting criminal proceedings against 9 claimant and knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that there was not legal or reasonable cause to 10 support the search warrant for claimant' s phone records, to support his request for instituting prosecution of claimant, and 11 to support the Grand Jury Indictment. 98. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 12 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a 13 reasonable and objective belief that there was sufficient probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal 14 conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible evidence for the filing a charge against claimant was that certain persons alleged 15 to be involved in illegal methamphetamine activities had made phone calls to claimant' s residence, a state of facts that no 16 reasonably well-trained officer could reasonably believe was sufficient probable or reasonable cause to arrest or charge 17 claimant with a crime. 99. Defendant Orman acted with malice towards claimant in 18 undertaking his investigation and instituting prosecution of claimant and with the intent to injure claimant and cause his 19 incarceration. 100. The acts of the defendant Leonard Orman set forth 20 herein constitute a violation of Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code in that an investigation was improperly 21 commenced and claimant was subsequently prosecuted in retaliation for claimant' s having filed a civil rights suit against the City 22 of Antioch and a fellow Antioch police officer relative to the activities of the drug task force unit. 23 101. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN of the Antioch Police 24 Department commenced an investigation and instituted prosecution of claimant for the purpose and with the intent of retaliating 25 against claimant for his earlier filing of the civil rights suit pertaining to the execution of the September 16, 1990, search 26 warrant for claimant' s residence. 102. Defendant Orman' s investigation and request for 27 prosecution was substantially and primarily motivated because 28 14 1 claimant had previouslyfiled a civil rights action against the City of Antioch and a fellow Antioch police officer regarding the 2 activities of the drug task force unit. 103. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon 3 alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct 4 the prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant LARRY BYRON RAPP through the Grand Jury process and subsequent criminal 5 prosecution. 104. Defendant Leonard Orman intentionally and unlawfully 6 caused claimant' s arrest by authorizing, directing, and encouraging other members of the Antioch Police Department to 7 arrest claimant. 105. Defendant Orman acted without reasonable or legal 8 cause in investigating and instituting criminal proceedings against claimant and knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care 9 should have known, that there was not legal or reasonable cause to support the search warrant for claimant' s phone records, to 10 support his request for instituting prosecution of claimant, and to support the Grand Jury Indictment. 11 106. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the 12 prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a reasonable and objective belief that there was 13 sufficient probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible 14 evidence for the filing a charge against claimant Larry Byron Rapp was that certain persons alleged to be involved in illegal 15 methamphetamine activities had made phone calls to claimant Larry Byron Rapp' s residence, a state of facts that no reasonably well- 16 trained officer could reasonably believe was sufficient probable or reasonable cause to arrest or charge claimant with a crime. 17 107. Defendant Orman acted with malice towards claimant in undertaking his investigation and instituting prosecution of 18 claimant. 108. The acts of defendant Leonard Orman set forth herein 19 constitute a false arrest of the claimant by defendant Orman on or about March 13, 1994. 20 109 . Upon issuance of the Grand Jury Indictment against claimant, claimant had a right to counsel under the Sixth 21 Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding the subject matter of the Grand Jury Indictment as well as under Article 1, 22 Section 15 of the California Constitution. 110. Claimant was intentionally and actively compelled and 23 coerced by Officer Moore to be a witness against himself. Claimant Rapp made statements which the prosecution would have 24 attempted to used against Rapp if he testified at his trial and may have been admitted against him at trial. Said statements were 25 relayed by the police to the Contra Costa County District Attorneys ' Office. 26 111 . Claimant was intentionally and actively compelled and coerced by Officer Moore to give statements in violation of 27 claimant ' s right to counsel. Claimant Rapp made statements after 28 15 1 invoking his right to counsel which were relayed by the police to the Contra Costa County District Attorneys' Office. 2 112. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City of Antioch, the City of Antioch Police 3 Department, County of Contra Costa, and the Contra County District Attorney' s Office have a custom, policy, and practice of 4 intentionally continuing in custody interviews in violation of criminal suspect' s right to counsel for the intended purpose of 5 gathering incriminating admissions and impeachment material and to prevent the suspect from testifying in his behalf at trial. 6 113. Claimant Rapp is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City of Antioch, the City of Antioch 7 Police Department, the County of Contra Costa, and the Contra Costa District Attorney' s Office have a custom, policy, and 8 practice of intentionally continuing in custody interviews in violation of criminal suspect ' s right to remain silent for the 9 intended purpose of gathering incriminating admissions and impeachment material and to prevent the suspect from testifying 10 in his behalf at trial. 114. On March 13, 1994, defendants Bruce Moore, City of 11 Antioch, and the City of Antioch Police Department intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously violated claimant' s right to counsel 12 guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in so doing, violated Section 1983 of Title 42 13 of the United States Code. 115. As a further proximate result of the aforementioned 14 acts and continued questioning, claimant Rapp suffered mental distress and suffering, including but not limited to, feelings of 15 isolation, anger, betrayal, distress, and humiliation. 116. As a further proximate result of the aforementioned 16 acts and continued questioning, claimant Rapp' s criminal defense counsel was required to research and prepare to move the Superior 17 Court to exclude the statements taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth 18 Amendment right to counsel. 117. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon 19 alleges, that Deputy District Attorney MARY KNOX was in some manner 'involved in the investigation of claimant and the securing 20 of Delta search warrant number 93-159c for claimant' s phone records and that of others. 21 118. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MARY KNOX conspired with Leonard Orman and others 22 to retaliate against claimant for suing the drug task force, to investigate claimant for suing the drug task force, to indict 23 claimant without legal or reasonable cause, to delay the filing of criminal charges against claimant in order to interfere with 24 his prosecution of his action against the drug task force, and to cause claimant ' s arrest. 25 119. Deputy District Attorney MARY KNOX affirmatively and intentionally presented misleading and suggestive photograph 26 identification procedures to the Grand Jury in an attempt to cause claimant' s indictment in violation of a prosecutor' s 27 ethical duties and claimant' s rights to due .process of law. 28 16 1 120. Deputy District Attorney .MARY KNOX affirmatively and intentionally prosecuted claimant for an offense which there was 2 no reasonable or probable cause, and no reasonable likelihood of obtaining a criminal conviction against claimant. 3 121. Claimant requested that he be provided with information which tended to show his innocence, for all 4 statements of co-defendants Melvin Frank Heinemann and James .Bruton, for all information relating to the credibility of 5 Officer Leonard Orman, all information relating to the credibility of Melvin Frank Heinemann, and all information 6 relating to the credibility of James Bruton. MARY KNOX refuses to produce the aforementioned information in order for claimant to 7 review his ability to obtain a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code § 851.8. 8 122. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the prosecution of Larry Rapp, deputy 9 assistant attorney MARY ELIZABETH KNOX, has intentionally withheld concealed, and/or destroyed information and evidence 10 which she was statutorily and ethically required to disclose to claimant which information could help claimant prove his 11 innocence to the charge and to establish his factual innocence to the charge under Penal Code § 851.8. 12 123-. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the prosecution of Larry Rapp, deputy 13 assistant attorney MARY ELIZABETH KNOX intentionally revealed information to other defendant(s) which she was required to 14 disclose to claimant as well for the specific purpose of inhibiting claimant ' s ability to prove his innocence and to 15 inhibit claimant' s ability to pursue civil claims against officers who had wronged claimant as well as to cover up her own 16 misconduct. 124. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon 17 alleges, that Contra Costa County District Attorney GARY YANCEY is aware of similar instances of prosecutorial misconduct 18 involving MARY KNOX, has not appropriately disciplined, admonished, or trained MARY KNOX to perform the duties of a 19 deputy district attorney in a legal and ethical manner, and that claimant ' s injuries were proximately caused by GARY YANCEY' s 20 failure to discipline and control the known prosecutorial misconduct tendencies of MARY KNOX. 21 125. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the District Attorney' s Office of Contra Costa 22 County has allowed a custom and practice of retaliation for complaints and actions against officer misconduct, coverup of 23 officer misconduct, and withholding of exculpatory information to exist, in cases involving prosecution of narcotics offenses to 24 the extent that both prosecutors and police officers feel that violation of the rights of those charged with criminal offenses 25 are accepted, will not result in discipline or reprimand , and that claimant' s injuries were proximately caused by such custom 26 and practice. 126. The aforementioned acts violated claimant' s rights to 27 be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to privacy, to 28 17 r . i 'A 1 counsel, to due process, to the right against self-incrimination, and constituted a false arrest of claimant. 2 127. The County of Contra Costa and the Contra Costa District Attorney' s Office are jointly and severally responsible 3 under Government Code § 895.2 for the acts and omissions of police officers who committed or participated in the acts herein 4 while members of the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team and the East Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team. 5 The County of Contra Costa and Contra Costa District Attorney' s Office liability is based further on is the memorandum outlining 6 the agreement made by affected agencies in the formation of a Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, dated August 1988, 7 and signed by various law enforcement agency personnel. Delayed Discovery 8 128. The accrual of the causes of action set forth herein was after March 13, 1994, after claimant was arrested on the 9 Grand Jury Indictment issued on March 2, 1994. Claimant discovered his causes of action existed only after being provided 10 with discovery relative to his indictment upon which he was arrested. This discovery revealed to him for the first time that 11 a search warrant had been obtained and served for his phone records. Prior to this discovery, he had no actual knowledge that 12 a search warrant had been obtained and served for his phone records, nor could he have reasonably been expected by the 13 exercise of due caution to have discovered the facts and circumstances giving rise to the causes of action in that the 14 search warrant contained a specific order to the telephone company that claimant not be informed of the existence of the 15 search warrant, and therefore, of the existence of the search itself giving rise to these causes of action. There was no 16 failure on the claimant' s part to investigate or to act prior to his being indicted and arrested. Under the belated discovery 17 rule, these causes of action did not arise until sometime after March 13, 1994. 18 All notices or other communications with this claim should 19 be sent to: JAY R. DOVE 20 Attorney at Law 131 Stony Circle, Suite 500 21 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 22 Dated: September 13, 1994 23 24 J y . Dove ttorney for Claimant 25 26 27 28 18 • " 1 JAY R. DOVE SBN#081848 Attorney at Law RE(_ 2 131 Stony Circle, Suite 500 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Se ' 419% 3 ( 707) 573-9954 4 Attorney for Claimant- CLERK BOARD OP SUPERVISORS LARRY BYRON RAPP CONTrA COSTA CO. 5 6 Claim of LARRY BYRON RAPP CLAIM FOR PERSONAL 7 INJURIES AND VS. VIOLATION OF 8 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; 9 OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 10 [Government Code § 910] 11 / 12 To the Office of the District Attorney, County of Contra Costa, by presentation to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors: 13 You are hereby notified that Larry Byron Rapp, whose address 14 is 1836 Vine Lane, Antioch, County of Contra Costa, California, claims damages from the County of Contra Costa and the District 15 Attorney'.s Office of the County of Contra Costa in an amount within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of. 16 California. 17 This claim is for a violation of claimant Rapp's rights to be free from retaliation for having brought a civil rights action 18 against the City of Antioch and an Antioch Police Officer, Robin Ferrari, which arose from their obtaining and executing of a drug 19 task force search warrant for claimant' s premises on September 16, 1990. This claim is also for causing claimant Larry Byron 20 Rapp to be indicted by the Contra Costa Grand Jury without legal or reasonable cause and for being falsely arrested. This claim 21 also encompasses the use of illegally seized evidence before the Grand Jury in obtaining the Grand Jury Indictment. This claim is 22 also for violation of claimant' s right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, and his right to due process of law with 23 respect to his being intentionally interviewed after claimant clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel upon being 24 arrested upon the Grand Jury Indictment. This claim is also against prosecuting authorities for their conspiracy and 25 participating in the aforementioned acts, as well as intentionally withholding, concealing, 'and/or destruction of 26 exculpatory information and information relating to the credibility of Officer Leonard Orman. 27 28 1 1. s .1 Statement of Facts 2 1 . On September 16, 1990, Officer Robin Ferrari and Officer Leonard Orman,- peace officers of the City of Antioch Police 3 Department, while assigned as narcotics officers to the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, prepared and obtained a , 4 search warrant, Delta Municipal Court search warrant 90-118, for the residence of Larry Byron Rapp at 1836 Vine Lane, Antioch, 5 which is located in the unincorporated area of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 6 2. Officer Ferrari' s search warrant affidavit stated: "On 09-16-90 at approximately 1500 hours, I spoke to Deputy Daniel L. 7 Reynolds of the Contra Costa County Sheriff' s Department who told me that at approximately 1202 hours on this date he came in 8 contact with Darryl Eugene Ledford DOB 5-3-62 in the area of Vierra Ave and Vine Lane in Antioch (refer to Report 90-27420) . 9 Ledford was subsequently arrested for being in possession of methamphetamine, a loaded "AMT" 380/9mm auto loading pistol, and 10 5 valium tablets. "Deputy Reynolds told Ledford that he could have some one pick up his vehicle or it would be towed. Ledford 11 told Deputy Reynolds that he could leave the keys with Robin Snyder at 1836 Vine Lane Antioch. Deputy Reynolds walked to the 12 residence on Vine Lane to drop off the keys to Ledford' s vehicle. When Deputy Reynolds approached the residence Robin Snyder and 13 Larry Rapp exited the house rapidly, meeting Deputy Reynolds in front of the residence. Deputy Reynolds noticed the front door to 14 the residence was open. He could smell a strong odor he associates only with the odor of a methamphetamine laboratory. " 15 [emphasis added] . Officer Ferrari ' s affidavit states that she believed that there was a methamphetamine laboratory at Larry 16 Rapp' s residence. 3. There is no odor which is only associated with a 17 manufacture of methamphetamine. 4. There was no odor emanating from the Rapp residence on 18 September 16, 1990. 5. There was no probable cause for obtaining the search 19 warrant for Larry Rapp's residence on September 16, 1990, and Officers Robin Ferrari and Leonard Orman were told that by 20 Sheriff' s Deputy Daniel Reynolds prior to Robin Ferrari and .Leonard Orman preparing and obtaining the search warrant for 21 Larry Rapp' s residence. 6. At approximately 10:45 p.m. , on September 16, 1994, the 22 drug task force stormed the house without knock/notice compliance. With guns drawn and pointed at the cooperative 23 occupants, the officers rushed in and put Larry Rapp to the ground with a shotgun to his head, threatening to blow his 24 "motherfucking head off. " Rapp was told that he was going "downtown. " After 10 minutes, it became clear to the officers 25 that no drug lab and no suspicious odor was present at Larry Rapp' s house. Despite that fact, the officers continued to 26 handcuff Larry Rapp while the officers proceeded to search every nook and cranny of the entire house, and then interviewed both 27 Larry Rapp and his girlfriend Robin Marin. Larry Rapp and Robin 28 2 ' l M8Lrin were cooperative at all times with the officers. 7. Officer Leonard Orman personally participated in both 2 the preparation of the search warrant application and in the execution of the search warrant for Larry Rapp' s residence. 3 8. No methamphetamine and no evidence of manufacturing of methamphetamine was found during the execution of the search at 4 claimant' s residence on September 16, 1990. 9 . On March 15, 1991, Larry Byron Rapp filed a governmental 5 tort claim with the City of Antioch pertaining to the violations of his constitutional rights in the manner in which the search 6 warrant for his residence on September 16, 1990, was obtained and executed. Said claim indicated that Larry Rapp was represented in 7 the matter by attorney Jay R. Dove. 10. On April 17, 1991, Antioch Police Officer Art Acosta 8 interviewed claimant without the knowledge or consent of his attorney Jay R. Dove, despite an inquiry by Larry Rapp as to 9 whether his attorney should be present during the interview. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that 10 Officer Art Acosta interviewed Larry Rapp at the direction of the City Attorney' s Office for the City of Antioch. Claimant is 11 informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer Art Acosta knew that claimant was represented by counsel before 12 attempting to interview claimant Larry Rapp. 11. The City of Antioch rejected Larry Rapp' s governmental 13 tort claim on July 9, 1991. 12. On September 11, 1991, Larry Rapp filed a civil rights 14 suit in the County of Contra Costa Superior Court pertaining to the violations of his constitutional rights in the manner in 15 which the search warrant for his residence on September 16, 1990, was obtained and executed. [Larry Byron Rapp and Robin Melinda 16 Marin v. Robin Ferrari; City of Antioch; Daniel L. Reynolds; County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. C91- 17 04354, hereinafter referred to as Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari. ] 13. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 18 that while claimant Larry Rapp' s underlying civil rights case concerning the September 16, 1990, search warrant was going 19 through the court system, Officer LEONARD ORMAN and the county drug task force, known variously as the Contra Costa County 20 Narcotics Enforcement Team, East Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, Eastern Contra Costa County Narcotics 21 Enforcement Team, East NET, continued to investigate claimant RAPP trying to arrest and prosecute claimant for any crime 22 involving methamphetamine distribution and its manufacture. 14. Claimant Larry Rapp has not been involved or 23 participated in the sale, manufacture, or distribution of methamphetamine. 24 15. On August 19, 1992, claimant' s counsel took the deposition of defendant Orman in the Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari 25 action and defendant Orman was aware of that civil action. 16. On or about July 22, 1993, Antioch Police Officer 26 Leonard Orman obtained a Contra Costa County search warrant for Pacific Bell records in Alameda County for claimant' s residence, 27 Delta Municipal Court search warrant number 93-159c; a copy of 28 3 'l the search warrant is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. The search warrant ordered the following to 2 be produced for the period of time from December of 1992 through May of 1993: 3 A. Record of subscriber's name(s) , home address, and billing address; 4 B. Record of dates of subscription; C. All telephone tolls for the telephone number(s) 5 assigned; D. All personal data regarding the subscriber; and 6 E. Record of any local telephone calls made. [emphasis added] . 7 17. In obtaining search warrant number 93-159c for Larry Rapp' s phone records and private personal data, Leonard Orman 8 requested and received an order from the issuing magistrate that: 4. The existence of this order shall not be 9 disclosed to any of the subscribers to telephone . numbers at the aforementioned addresses, or any 10 party associated with these telephone numbers or addresses, by the Pacific Bell Co. , or any party 11 there of, without a proper order of the court, issued by a judge with competent jurisdiction. 12 [emphasis added] . 18. A specific purpose of the non-disclosure order was so 13 that Larry Rapp would not be informed, and therefore, not know that the police had obtained and reviewed his phone records and 14 private personal information about Larry Rapp. 19. Search warrant 93-159c was served on the telephone 15 company. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer Leonard Orman was the person serving the search 16 warrant 93-159c, and that Leonard Orman received from the phone company Larry Rapp' s telephone records and private personal 17 information regarding Larry Rapp. 20. The telephone company did not advise Larry Rapp of the 18 search of his phone records and release of private personal data concerning him. 19 21 . On October 18, 1993, and October 20, 1993, in the Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari action, the validity of the September 16, 20 1990, search warrant for claimant' s residence was tried by the court before the Hon. James R. Trembath, who then took the case 21 under submission. 22. On February 17, 1994, the Hon. James R. Trembath issued 22 his tentative decision, which was mailed to the parties on February 18, 1994. 23 23. The tentative decision ruled that the September 16, 1990, search warrant was improperly obtained and therefore 24 invalid. 24. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 25 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a 26 reasonable and objective belief that there was sufficient probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal 27 conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible evidence for the 28 4 R • 'l Rfiling a charge against claimant Larry Byron was that certain persons alleged to be involved in illegal methamphetamine 2 activities had made phone calls to claimant' s residence, a state of facts that no reasonably well-trained officer could reasonably 3 believe that there was sufficient probable or reasonable cause to proceed further against claimant. 4 25. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, 5 and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct the prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant through the 6 Grand Jury process. 26. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon 7 alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant 8 Rapp for the improper purpose of retaliating against claimant for his earlier civil rights action arising from the September 16, 9 1990, search warrant. 27. On March 1 and March 2, 1994, Officer LEONARD ORMAN 10 testified before the Grand Jury for the County of Contra Costa. 28. On March 2, 1994, the Contra Costa Grand Jury, based 11 upon the testimony of Officer LEONARD ORMAN and other witnesses, issued an Indictment for claimant for violating Section 11379. 6 12 of the Health and Safety Code, manufacturing of methamphetamine, a felony. 13 29. The information from the phone records obtained by Officer Leonard Orman from search warrant 93-159c was presented 14 to the Contra Costa Grand Jury on March 1 and March 2, 1994. The information obtained from the telephone records was the sole 15 evidence against Larry Rapp which was presented to the Grand Jury with respect to any possible involvement on claimant' s part in 16 the alleged manufacturing of methamphetamine conspiracy theory presented to the grand jury. 17 30. A warrant in the amount of $500,000 was issued for the arrest of claimant in connection with the Grand Jury Indictment. 18 31. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Antioch Police Officer Leonard Orman prepared and completed 19 a briefing bulletin regarding the warrant for the arrest of Larry Byron Rapp and that Officer Leonard Orman requested and directed 20 that Officer Bruce Moore interview claimant about the case. 32. On March 13, 1994, claimant was arrested inside his 21 residence pursuant to the warrant by Officer Hernandez (Badge No. 2239 ) of the Antioch Police Department. According to police 22 reports provided to claimant, the arrest of Larry Rapp by Officer Hernandez was assigned by Sgt. Barmore. Larry Rapp was then 23 transported to the City of Antioch Police Department. While claimant was still in custody and with the indictment still 24 pending, Antioch Police Officer Bruce Moore (Badge No. 2111 ) advised claimant of his rights to counsel, including the 25 advisement under the Miranda decision. Claimant invoked his right to counsel and stated that he wanted a lawyer. Claimant invoked 26 his right to remain silent. Despite clear legal authority requiring that the interview must cease at that point in that 27 claimant made a clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to 28 5 ' l cbunsel and his right to remain silent, Officer Moore intentionally continued to interview claimant in the absence of 2 counsel regarding the charges and circumstances of the grand jury indictment in an effort to gather incriminating evidence, to 3 gather impeachment evidence against Larry Rapp, and to prevent claimant from testifying on his behalf at trial, in violation of 4 claimant' s right to counsel, right to remain silent, and right to due process. 5 33. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer Bruce Moore knew prior to arresting claimant that 6 claimant had a civil rights lawsuit pending against the City of Antioch and was represented by counsel in that lawsuit. 7 34. Until the arrest of March 13, 1994, claimant had never suffered an arrest. 8 35. Claimant did not learn of the existence search warrant number 93-159c, or its execution, until sometime after his arrest 9 on March 13, 1994. 36. On April 11, 1994, the City of Antioch agreed to having 10 a judgment entered against it in favor of Larry Rapp in the Larry Rapp v. Robin Ferrari civil rights action. 11 37. On July 15, 1994, the Contra Costa Superior Court dismissed the Grand Jury Indictment as to claimant because the 12 indictment was not supported by legal or reasonable cause. 38. The City of Antioch is jointly and severally 13 responsible under Government Code § 895.2 for the acts and omissions of police officers who committed or participated in the 14 acts herein while members of the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team and the East Contra Costa County Narcotics 15 Enforcement Team. The City of Antioch' s liability is based further on is the memorandum outlining the agreement made by 16 affected agencies in the formation of a Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, dated August 1988, and signed by 17 various law enforcement agency personnel. 39. Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy 18 protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States with respect to his telephone calling records and 19 private, confidential personal information maintained by Pacific Bell. 20 40. Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Public Utilities Code Sections 2891 and 2894, 21 Article 1, Section 1, and Article 1, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of California in his telephone calling 22 records and private, confidential personal information maintained by Pacific Bell. 23 41. Claimant did not consent or authorize the release of his telephone calling records and private, confidential personal 24 information to law enforcement, and did not authorize Pacific Bell to do so. 25 42. There was no good cause or legal cause presented to the magistrate in the search warrant application for dispensing with 26 the constitutional requirement of notice and the issuance of the order prohibiting Pacific Bell from contacting Larry Rapp that 27 his phone and personal records were being searched. 28 6 r 1 43. There was no good cause or legal cause presented which justified the magistrate dispensing with the constitutional 2 requirement of notice and the issuance of the order prohibiting Pacific Bell from contacting Larry Rapp that- his phone and 3 personal. records were being searched. 44. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges 4 that defendant Leonard Orman requested and obtained the search warrant for claimant' s telephone calling records and private, 5 confidential information dispensing with notice, intentionally, knowingly, and with deliberate disregard of the constitutional 6 requirement of notice, and for the specific purpose of avoiding the constitutional requirement of notice so that the person or 7 persons whose private records are being sought does not become aware of the police inquiry into his or her private affairs. 8 45. Penal Code Section 1534 provides that a search warrant shall be open to the public as a judicial record when the search 9 warrant' is executed. Despite that fact, claimant is unable to contact the telephone company to inquire into the circumstances 10 of the search of his records because of the possibility that such inquiry could be construed as contempt of the court for 11 nondisclosure, willful disobedience of a court order, or obstruction of justice. 12 46. Claimant Rapp is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the County of Contra Costa and County of Contra 13 Costa' s District Attorney Office have a policy, custom, and practice of its police officers and prosecutors obtaining search 14 warrants for phone records and pager records which intentionally request and obtain a court order that the person or persons whose 15 private records are being sought not be notified by the telephone or pager company, and that the intentional and specific purpose 16 of requesting and obtaining such an order of nondisclosure is that the person or persons whose records are sought is not 17 informed and does not become aware of the intrusion into his or her personal and private affairs and with intentional, knowing, 18 and deliberate disregard of the constitutional requirement of notice as evidenced by the following search warrants issued by 19 the Delta Municipal Court: 93-97 April 28, 1993 Pagenet Paging 20 93-98 April 28, 1993 Metromedia Paging 93-113 May 14, 1993 Pagenet Paging 21 93-116 May 17, 1993 Mobile Comm 93-125 May 24, 1993 Advanced Paging 22 93-129 June 3, 1993 Advanced Paging 93-184 August 30, 1993 Pagenet 23 93-192 September 7, 1993 Pacific Bell 94-2 Jan. . 6, 1994 Pagenet 24 94-7 January 24, 1994 Pagenet 94-38 March 17, 1994 Pac Bell 25 94-39 March 17, 1994 Pagenet Paging 94-43 March 21, 1994 Pac Bell Security 26 94-45 March 23, 1994 Pagenet Paging 94-56 April 8, 1994 Pagenet 27 94-57 April 13, 1994 Rolling Phones- Delta Cellular 28 7 11 94-61 April 25, 1994 PacBell 94-90 July 11, 1994 Pacific Bell 2 Search warrants 93-97 and 93-113 are pled on the basis of information and belief. 3 47. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the County of Contra Costa and the County of Contra's 4 District Attorney' s Office have a policy, custom, and practice of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens 5 in failing to train its officers and prosecutors to prepare and obtain search warrants which comply with the law, specifically 6 the constitutional requirement of notice. 48. The intrusion into claimant' s private affairs and 7 concerns was substantial, and of a kind that would be highly offensive to an ordinarily reasonable person. 8 49. Claimant Rapp was given no notice of the obtaining and the execution of the search warrant within reasonable time after 9 the service of the search warrant. 50. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 10 that no order has ever been issued authorizing Pacific Bell to notify claimant of the existence of the search warrant or the 11 fact that the claimant' s records were searched pursuant thereto. 51. Claimant Rapp was prejudiced by the lack of knowledge 12 of the existence of the search warrant for his phone records in that he was unable to present exculpatory evidence to the 13 prosecution and grand jury, and had no opportunity to advise the prosecution and grand jury regarding his pending civil rights 14 suit against the drug task force, and had no opportunity to request the prosecution and grand jury to look into the 15 misconduct of Officer Leonard Orman relative to his investigation of claimant Rapp and other citizens. 16 52. As a proximate result of the violation of claimant' s right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable police search 17 and seizure, claimant' s ability to live a normal day to day life has been seriously impaired in that he is afraid in his own home, 18 at his place of employment, in his personal affairs, and travelling in and around town. 19 53. As a proximate result of the violation of his privacy rights and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 20 as set forth herein, a Grand Jury Indictment for claimant was obtained on or about March 2, 1994, based solely and entirely on 21 the phone records obtained from Pacific Bell by Officer Orman. 54. As a further proximate result of the violation of his 22 privacy rights and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as set forth herein, claimant was arrested by members of 23 the City of Antioch Police Department on March 13, 1994, and held in jail on a $500, 000 bail on a violation of Health and Safety 24 Code section 11379 . 6, manufacture of methamphetamine, as found in the Grand Jury Indictment. Claimant was unable to make the 25 $500,000 bail and remained in custody for until March 25, 1994, when he was able to post a reduced bail of $50,000. 26 55. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s actions as set forth herein, claimant was prevented from 27 presenting exculpatory evidence to the grand jury or prosecuting 28 8 '1 officer in that he had no notification that he was under investigation and again being harassed by Officer Leonard Orman. 2 56. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s actions as set forth herein, claimant has been harmed in that 3 claimant was required to retain a criminal defense attorney to represent him on the charges brought in the Grand Jury 4 Indictment. Claimant has incurred legal costs in excess of $7, 500. 5 57. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman's actions as set forth herein, claimant was compelled to secure his 6 release by bail bond, for which claimant was required to expend $5,000.00 [Five Thousand Dollars] . 7 58. As a further proximate result of Officer Orman's actions as set forth herein, claimant has been harmed in that 8 claimant lost wages in that he was unable to attend to his regular occupation as a mechanic when he was in jail in 9 association with the Grand Jury Indictment. Further, claimant lost wages when he was required to be personally present at 10 hearings and proceedings on his criminal matter. 59 . As a further proximate result of Officer Orman' s 11 actions as set forth herein, claimant has suffered great physical and mental pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, 12 humiliation and indignity, embarrassment, and worry and fear that defendants will continue to make unlawful entries into his home 13 and private affairs and assaults on his person. 60. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 14 that convicted felon Melvin Frank Heinemann was arrested on April 19, 1993, by defendant Leonard Orman for being in possession of 15 methamphetamine. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 19, 1993, Melvin Heinemann agreed 16 after his arrest to cooperate with law enforcement to gain favorable consideration of felony charges and a parole violation 17 which may be brought against him stemming from the circumstances of his arrest on April 19, 1993. 18 61. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that after his arrest on April 19, 1993, Melvin Heinemann gave 19 Officer Orman information which was used to obtain the issuance of search warrants for 3116 Lone Tree Way, Apt. 1 in Antioch and 20 for 2606 Fairmont Lane in Antioch, but Melvin Heinemann told Officer Orman on April 19, 1993, after he agreed to act as a 21 police informant for Officer Orman, that Heinemann was not involved in the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine. 22 62. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Melvin Heinemann gave Officer Orman information on April 19, 23 1993, after he agreed to act as a police informant, which led Officer Orman on April 19, 1993, to a suspected methamphetamine 24 laboratory site at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde, California, but that on April 19, 1993, Heinemann told Officer Orman that he 25 was not involved in the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine. 26 63. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 19, 1993, Melvin Heinemann was then released by 27 Officer Orman without Heinemann being booked or charged with any 28 9 ' l ciffense, because of his cooperation in obtaining the search warrants for Lone Tree Way and Fairmont Lane, as well as 2 providing defendant Orman with the site of the methamphetamine laboratory at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde. 3 64. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that after the execution of the search warrants for 3116 Lone 4 Tree Way, Apt. 1 in Antioch and for 2606 Fairmont Lane in Antioch on April 19, 1993, Officer Orman discovered, and had reasonable 5 cause to believe, that Melvin Heinemann was himself involved in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, that 6 Heinemann had lied to Officer Orman while acting as a police informant about Heinemann' s being personally involved in the 7 manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, and that Melvin Heinemann was not reliable as an informant. 8 65. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 20, 1993, police officers conducted a 9 parole search on Heinemann' s home and at that time, Heinemann still contended that he was not involved in the manufacture or 10 distribution of methamphetamine. 66. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 11 that on April 20, 1993, Melvin Heinemann was placed under arrest for violation of parole during the search of his home, and at 12 that time implicated James Hove in the methamphetamine laboratory located at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde in attempt to receive 13 favorable consideration for the arrest of April 19, 1993, and the parole violation arrest of April 20, 1993. 14 67. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on April 20, 1993, Melvin Heinemann told Officer Orman that 15 he was a partner in the lab at 211 Wellington with James Hove, but Heinemann did not mention Larry Rapp as being involved in the 16 methamphetamine laboratory operation at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde. 17 68. A copy of defendant Orman' s affidavit in support of search warrant 93-159c for claimant' s phone records is attached 18 as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant Orman indicated in his affidavit that on May 26, 1993, the 19 informant, Melvin Heinemann stated that Larry Rapp had been to the lab site at 211 Wellington Avenue in Clyde on approximately 20 April 17, 1993: 20. Also in that same time period, Larry Rapp arrived 21 at the house and spoke to James Hove about when he would get a return on the money he and invested in the 22 methamphetamine laboratory. Later, when James Hove was done manufacturing the phenyl-2-propanone, Larry Rapp 23 assisted him in breaking down, and bagging and boxing it. CRI#1 stated that they moved it in boxes to the 24 garage behind the house. . 69. Larry Rapp has never been to the address at 211 25 Wellington Avenue in Clyde, and the statements alleged in paragraph 20 of the search warrant affidavit quoted above are not 26 true in that claimant is, and has not been, involved in or with the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine. 27 70. Defendant Orman advised the magistrate that as to the 28 10 'l ihformant Melvin Heinemann: "This subject has never supplied any false or misleading information about other subjects involved in 2 illicit activities, however, it should be noted that this subject has supplied false information about this subject' s own 3 involvement in illicit activities. " 71. In the sealed portion of his affidavit, defendant Orman 4 told the magistrate: In respect to the false statement that this subject 5 gave to law enforcement about this subjects own involvement with illicit crimes, the subject told me 6 that he used to have a storage locker in Pittsburg, but no longer had it when a public storage key card was 7 discovered in his wallet. It was later determined that the card belonged to the Antioch Public Storage 8 Facility, and that the subject still had a locker at that location. 9 72. Defendant Orman did not advise the magistrate who issued search warrant 93-159c that Melvin Heinemann had given 10 other materially false information to Officer Orman while working as a police informant in order to escape liability for criminal 11 charges. 73. Defendant Orman made material false statements to the 12 magistrate regarding the reliability of the informant Melvin Frank Heinemann in that Orman did not advise the magistrate that 13 Heinemann while working as a police informant had lied to Officer Orman as to his being involved in the very crime which Officer 14 Orman was investigating. 74. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 15 that the informant, Melvin Frank Heinemann, while working as an informant, gave Officer Leonard Orman materially false 16 information relative to the crime which Leonard Orman was investigating. Officer Orman intentionally withheld this critical 17 and material information from the issuing magistrate and did so with the intent and purpose of misleading the magistrate into 18 issuing the search warrant which no reasonable magistrate would have issued had the true facts regarding the informant' s lack of 19 credibility relative to the very crime under investigation were made known to the issuing magistrate. 20 .75. Defendant Orman knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements provided by Melvin 21 Heinemann reporting claimant as being involved in the manufacturing of methamphetamine were false in that defendant 22 Orman knew that Melvin Heinemann did not identify claimant for over six weeks of cooperation with law enforcement officers when 23 he had been identifying other principals since his arrest on or about April 19, 1993, but did not according to defendant Orman' s 24 report identify claimant' s involvement until May 26, 1993. 76. When the false statements of defendant Orman are 25 deleted from his affidavit of probable cause in support of said search warrant, there is no probable cause to believe that 26 claimant was involved in any criminal activity and therefore the search warrant should not have issued. 27 77. When the material omissions relating to Melvin 28 11 1 H6inemann' s credibility made by defendant Orman are added to his affidavit of probable cause in support of said search warrant, 2 there is no probable cause to believe that claimant was involved in any criminal activity and therefore the search warrant should 3 not have issued. 78. Claimant is further informed and believes, and thereon 4 alleges, that Officer Leonard Orman withheld reports containing Heinemann' s statements and regarding the nature and extent of the 5 informant ' s lack of reliability from prosecuting authorities for the specific and intended purpose of keeping from both the 6 prosecution and claimant the informant' s lack of credibility; claimant was entitled to and required by the prosecution to be 7 informed as to all facts relating to Melvin Heinemann's lack of credibility and to all of his statements in that Melvin Heinemann 8 was also being prosecuted in the same Grand Jury Indictment; claimant requested to be informed by the prosecuting authorities 9 as to all statements made by Heinemann and as to all facts relating to Melvin Heinemann' s lack of credibility; and claimant 10 was not advised by the prosecuting authorities as to all statements made by Heinemann and as to all facts pertaining to 11 Melvin Heinemann' s lack of credibility because of Officer Orman' s withholding of material information relating to probable cause 12 and the reliability of the informant. 79. On or about July 22, 1993, defendant Orman violated 13 claimant' s rights under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, to wit, a violation of claimant' s rights under the 14 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from search and seizure without reasonable and probable cause. 15 80. Search warrant number 93-159c was illegally obtained and executed in that neither the Fourth Amendment to the United 16 States Constitution nor Article 1, Section 13, of the California Constitution allow for a search warrant to be issued other than 17 on reasonable or probable cause. 81 . A reasonably well-trained police officer would know 18 that reliance on an informant who has lied to the officer while working as an informant on material issues is not reliable and 19 that a search warrant issued solely on such information could not and would not constitute probable or reasonable cause. 20 82. On or about July 22, 1993, defendant Orman violated claimant' s rights under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United 21 States Code, to wit, a violation of claimant's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free 22 from search and seizure without reasonable and probable cause. 83. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 23 that the intent and purpose of defendant LEONARD ORMAN in initiating an investigation of claimant was to charge claimant 24 with a crime. 84. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 25 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN of the Antioch Police Department commenced an investigation and instituted prosecution of claimant 26 for the purpose and with the intent of retaliating against Larry Rapp for filing the civil rights suit pertaining to the execution 27 of the September 16, 1990, search warrant for claimant' s 28 12 'l residence and to improperly cause claimant' s arrest and incarceration. 2 85. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, 3 and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct the prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant LARRY BYRON 4 RAPP through the Grand Jury process and subsequent criminal prosecution. 5 86. Defendant Leonard Orman was instrumental in and did direct the arrest of claimant on March 13, 1994, by other members 6 of the Antioch Police Department. 87. Defendant Orman acted without reasonable or legal cause 7 in investigating and instituting criminal proceedings against claimant and knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should 8 have known, that there was not legal or reasonable cause to support the search warrant for claimant' s phone records, to 9 support his request for instituting prosecution of claimant, and to support the Grand Jury Indictment. 10 88. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution 11 initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a reasonable and objective belief that there was sufficient 12 probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible evidence for the 13 filing a charge against claimant was that certain persons alleged to be involved in illegal methamphetamine activities had made 14 phone calls to claimant' s residence, a state of facts that no reasonably well-trained officer could reasonably believe was 15 sufficient probable or reasonable cause to arrest or charge claimant with a crime. 16 89. Defendant Orman acted with malice towards claimant in undertaking his investigation and instituting prosecution of 17 claimant with the intent to injure claimant and to cause his incarceration. 18 90. The Grand Jury Indictment of claimant. was not supported by probable or legal cause. 19 91 . Defendant Orman violated claimant' s rights under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, more 20 specifically, by maliciously prosecuting claimant while intending to violate claimant' s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth 21 Amendments, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, not to be prosecuted without probable cause under 22 the due process cause, to the right of freedom of speech, and the right to be free from reasonable seizure of claimant' s person. 23 92. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN of the Antioch Police Department 24 commenced an investigation and instituted prosecution of claimant Larry Rapp for the purpose and with the intent of retaliating 25 against Larry Rapp for filing the civil rights suit pertaining to the execution of the September 16, 1990, search warrant for 26 claimant' s residence. 93. Defendant Orman' s investigation and request for 27 prosecution was substantially and primarily motivated because 28 13 . 11 claimant had previously filed a civil rights action against the City of Antioch and a fellow Antioch police officer regarding the 2 activities of the drug task force unit. 94. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 3 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct the 4 prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant LARRY BYRON RAPP through the Grand Jury process and subsequent criminal 5 prosecution. 95. Defendant Leonard Orman was instrumental in and did 6 direct the arrest of claimant on March 13, 1994, by other members of the Antioch Police Department. 7 96. The Grand Jury Indictment of claimant was not supported by probable or legal cause. 8 97. Defendant Orman acted without reasonable or legal cause in investigating and instituting criminal proceedings against 9 claimant and knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that there was not legal or reasonable cause to 10 support the search warrant for claimant' s phone records, to support his request for instituting prosecution of claimant, and 11 to support the Grand Jury Indictment. 98. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 12 that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against he without a 13 reasonable and objective belief that there was sufficient probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal 14 conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible evidence for the filing a charge against claimant was that certain persons alleged 15 to be involved in illegal methamphetamine activities had made phone calls to claimant's residence, a state of facts that no 16 reasonably well-trained officer could reasonably believe was sufficient probable or reasonable cause to arrest or charge 17 claimant with a crime. 99. Defendant Orman acted with malice towards claimant in 18 undertaking his investigation and instituting prosecution of claimant and with the intent to injure claimant and cause his 19 incarceration. 100. The acts of the defendant Leonard Orman set forth 20 herein constitute a violation of Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code in that an investigation was improperly 21 commenced and claimant was subsequently prosecuted in retaliation for claimant' s having filed a civil rights suit against the City 22 of Antioch and a fellow Antioch police officer relative to the activities of the drug task force unit. 23 101 . Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN of the Antioch Police 24 Department commenced an investigation and instituted prosecution of claimant for the purpose and with the intent of retaliating 25 against claimant for his earlier filing of the civil rights suit pertaining to the execution of the September 16, 1990, search 26 warrant for claimant' s residence. 102. Defendant Orman' s investigation and request for 27 prosecution was substantially and primarily motivated because 28 14 • 'l . ciaimant had previously filed a civil rights action against the City of Antioch and a fellow Antioch police officer regarding the 2 activities of the drug task force unit. 103. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon 3 alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN was the lead investigating officer, and in that role did advise, assist, ratify, and direct 4 the prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of claimant LARRY BYRON RAPP through the Grand Jury process and subsequent criminal 5 prosecution. 104. Defendant Leonard Orman intentionally and unlawfully 6 caused claimant' s arrest by authorizing, directing, and encouraging other members of the Antioch Police Department to 7 arrest claimant. 105. Defendant Orman acted without reasonable or legal 8 cause in investigating and instituting criminal proceedings against claimant and knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care 9 should have known, that there was not legal or reasonable cause to support the search warrant for claimant' s phone records, to 10 support his request for instituting prosecution of claimant, and to support the Grand Jury Indictment. 11 106. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Officer LEONARD ORMAN requested that the 12 prosecution initiate and file criminal charges against claimant without a reasonable and objective belief that there was 13 sufficient probable cause to support an indictment, warrant, or criminal conviction; that the alleged basis of admissible 14 evidence for the filing a charge against claimant Larry Byron Rapp was that certain persons alleged to be involved in illegal 15 methamphetamine activities had made phone calls to claimant Larry Byron Rapp' s residence, a state of facts that no reasonably well- 16 trained officer could reasonably believe was sufficient probable or reasonable cause to arrest or charge claimant with a crime. 17 107. Defendant Orman acted with malice towards claimant in undertaking his investigation and instituting prosecution of 18 claimant. 108. The acts of defendant Leonard Orman set forth herein 19 constitute a false arrest of the claimant by defendant Orman on or about March 13, 1994. 20 109. Upon issuance of the Grand Jury Indictment against claimant, claimant had a right to counsel under the Sixth 21 Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding the subject matter of the Grand Jury Indictment as well as under Article 1, 22 Section 15 of the California Constitution. 110. Claimant was intentionally and actively compelled and 23 coerced by Officer Moore to be a witness against himself. Claimant Rapp made statements which the prosecution would have 24 attempted to used against Rapp if he testified at his trial and may have been admitted against him at trial. Said statements were 25 relayed by the police to the Contra Costa County District Attorneys ' Office. 26 111 . Claimant was intentionally and actively compelled and coerced by Officer Moore to give statements in violation of 27 claimant ' s right to counsel. Claimant Rapp made statements after 28 15 s 'l ihvoking his right to counsel which were relayed by the police to the Contra Costa County District Attorneys' Office. 2 112. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City of Antioch, the City of Antioch Police 3 Department, County of Contra Costa, and the Contra County District Attorney' s Office have a custom, policy, and practice of 4 intentionally continuing in custody interviews in violation of criminal suspect' s right to counsel for the intended purpose of 5 gathering incriminating admissions and impeachment material and to prevent the suspect from testifying in his behalf at trial. 6 113. Claimant Rapp is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City of Antioch, the City of Antioch 7 Police Department, the County of Contra Costa, and the Contra Costa District Attorney' s Office have a custom, policy, and 8 practice of intentionally continuing in custody interviews in violation of criminal suspect' s right to remain silent for the 9 intended purpose of gathering incriminating admissions and impeachment material and to prevent the suspect from testifying 10 in his behalf at trial. 114. On March 13, 1994, defendants Bruce Moore, City of 11 Antioch, and the City of Antioch Police Department intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously violated claimant' s right to counsel 12 guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in so doing, violated Section 1983 of Title 42 13 of the United States Code. 115. As a further proximate result of the aforementioned 14 acts and continued questioning, claimant Rapp suffered mental distress and suffering, including but not limited to, feelings of 15 isolation, anger, betrayal, distress, and humiliation. 116. As a further proximate result of the aforementioned 16 acts and continued questioning, claimant Rapp' s criminal defense counsel was required to research and prepare to move the Superior 17 Court to exclude the statements taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth 18 _Amendment right to counsel. 117. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon 19 alleges, that Deputy District Attorney MARY KNOX was in some manner involved in the investigation of claimant and the securing 20 of Delta search warrant number 93-159c for claimant' s phone records and that of others. 21 118. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MARY KNOX conspired with Leonard Orman and others 22 to retaliate against claimant for suing the drug task force, to investigate claimant for suing the drug task force, to indict 23 claimant without legal or reasonable cause, to. delay the filing of criminal charges against claimant in order to interfere with 24 his prosecution of his action against the drug task force, and to cause claimant' s arrest. 25 119. Deputy District Attorney MARY KNOX affirmatively and intentionally presented misleading and suggestive photograph 26 identification procedures to the Grand Jury in an attempt to cause claimant' s indictment in violation of a prosecutor' s 27 ethical duties and claimant' s rights to due process of law. 28 16 a 'n 11 120. Deputy District Attorney MARY KNOX affirmatively and intentionally prosecuted claimant for an offense which there was 2 no reasonable or probable cause, and no reasonable likelihood of obtaining a criminal conviction against claimant. 3 121. Claimant requested that he be provided with information which tended to show his innocence, for all 4 statements of co-defendants Melvin Frank Heinemann and James Bruton, for all information relating to the credibility of 5 Officer Leonard Orman, all information relating to the credibility of Melvin Frank Heinemann, and all information 6 relating to the credibility of James Bruton. MARY KNOX refuses to produce the aforementioned information in order for claimant to 7 review his ability to obtain a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Penal Code § 851.8. 8 122. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the prosecution of Larry Rapp, deputy 9 assistant attorney MARY ELIZABETH KNOX, has intentionally withheld concealed, and/or destroyed information and evidence 10 which she was statutorily and ethically required to disclose to claimant which information could help claimant prove his 11 innocence to the charge and to establish his factual innocence to the charge under Penal Code § 851 . 8. 12 123. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the prosecution of Larry Rapp, deputy 13 assistant attorney MARY ELIZABETH KNOX intentionally revealed information to other defendant(s) which she was required to 14 disclose to claimant as well for the specific purpose of inhibiting claimant ' s ability to prove his innocence and to 15 inhibit claimant' s ability to pursue civil claims against officers who had wronged claimant as well as to cover up her own 16 misconduct. 124. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon 17 alleges, that Contra Costa County District Attorney GARY YANCEY is aware of similar instances of prosecutorial misconduct 18 involving MARY KNOX, has not appropriately disciplined, admonished, or trained MARY KNOX to perform the duties of a 19 deputy district attorney in a legal and ethical manner, and that claimant' s injuries were proximately caused by GARY YANCEY' s 20 failure to discipline and control the known prosecutorial misconduct tendencies of MARY KNOX. 21 125. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the District Attorney's Office of Contra Costa 22 County has allowed a custom and practice of retaliation for complaints and actions against officer misconduct, coverup of 23 officer misconduct, and withholding of exculpatory information to exist, in cases involving prosecution of narcotics offenses to 24 the extent that both prosecutors and police officers feel that violation of the rights of those charged with criminal offenses 25 are accepted, will not result in discipline or reprimand , and that claimant ' s injuries were proximately caused by such custom 26 and practice. 126. The aforementioned acts violated claimant' s rights to 27 be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to privacy, to 28 17 • • 1 counsel, to due process, to the right against self-incrimination, and constituted a false arrest of claimant. 2 127. The County of Contra Costa and the Contra Costa District Attorney' s Office are jointly and severally responsible 3 under Government Code § 895.2 for the acts and omissions of police officers who committed or participated in the acts herein 4 while members of the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team and the East Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team. 5 The County of Contra Costa and Contra Costa District Attorney' s Office liability is based further on is the memorandum outlining 6 the agreement made by affected agencies in the formation of a Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, dated August 1988, 7 and signed by various law enforcement agency personnel. Delayed Discovery 8 128. The accrual of the causes of action set forth herein was after March 13, 1994, after claimant, was arrested on the 9 Grand Jury Indictment issued on March 2, 1994. Claimant discovered his causes of action existed only after being provided 10 with discovery relative to his indictment upon which he was arrested. This discovery revealed to him for the first time that 11 a search warrant had been obtained and served for his phone records. Prior to this discovery, he had no actual knowledge that 12 a search warrant had been obtained and served for his phone records, nor could he have reasonably been expected by the 13 exercise of due caution to have discovered the facts and circumstances giving rise to the causes of action in that the 14 search warrant contained a specific order to the telephone company that claimant not be informed of the existence of the 15 search warrant, and therefore, of the existence of the search itself giving rise to these causes of action. There was no 16 failure on the claimant' s part to investigate or to act prior to his being indicted and arrested. Under the belated discovery 17 rule, these causes of action did not arise until sometime after March 13, 1994. 18 All notices or other communications with this claim should 19 be sent to: JAY R. DOVE 20 Attorney at Law 131 Stony Circle, Suite 500 21 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 22 Dated: September 13, 1994 23 24 J y R. Dove ttorney for Claimant 25 26 27 28 18 `1 � 1 ` k� 97J 0 t Ji r rt C-1 ++.�wyy 03 AM "S rt z a W n t Qrn ` to.* g O' X ti O D4 Ss C) 'o Z Tn oy 1.�. 1"s ~i."1 .t• s v (Art `, `UU SSLJJ t4 I N ' O N '�� N N ,r {2 y `Cy O Oza .oma " o `'nmO o L,4 LA O Os O� O` 0- O �i T"o n - c A� r