Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee

Citations: 785 F. Supp. 1343; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2653Docket: Civ. A. Nos. 91-C-1121, 91-C-942, 91-C-985 and 91-C-1337

Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin; March 5, 1992; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including the estate of Konerak Sinthasomphone and several individuals, suing the City of Milwaukee and specific police officers for their alleged negligence and misconduct during the investigation of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer. On May 27, 1991, a 911 call reported a naked and beaten young man, Konerak Sinthasomphone, who was in urgent need of assistance near Dahmer's residence. Dahmer, who was later convicted of murdering 17 young men, often targeted vulnerable individuals, including many from minority backgrounds. The subsequent civil cases address broader systemic issues related to police conduct, particularly regarding their treatment of minorities and the LGBTQ+ community, and the failure to adequately respond to calls for help. The decision notes the gruesome nature of Dahmer's crimes and the implications of police policies in the context of these events, highlighting the significant community concerns raised by the plaintiffs.

Dahmer murdered Sinthasomphone on the evening of May 27, 1991, after police had responded to an earlier call and found no issues. He subsequently killed several others before Tracy Edwards escaped and led police to Dahmer, resulting in his arrest on July 22, 1991. Following the arrest, Dahmer confessed to 17 murders. The estate of Sinthasomphone and his family have filed a lawsuit against three Milwaukee police officers (Gabrish, Balcerzak, and Porubcan) and the City of Milwaukee, alleging violations of constitutional rights. Other plaintiffs include family members of Dahmer's subsequent victims and Tracy Edwards. The defendants have moved to dismiss the cases under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaints do not adequately state claims for relief.

Key allegations from the amended complaint include that Dahmer, on probation for a previous sexual abuse conviction, held Sinthasomphone captive, drugged, and abused him. After Sinthasomphone managed to escape, he was discovered by two women who called the police. Upon arrival, the officers ignored critical information provided by the witnesses regarding Sinthasomphone's condition and Dahmer's attempts to control him. The police allegedly threatened the witnesses and ultimately returned Sinthasomphone to Dahmer's custody, mistakenly concluding they were adult partners. This action is claimed to have interfered with potential rescue efforts. The court must accept the allegations as true for the purpose of the motion to dismiss, which should only be granted if it is clear that no facts could support the plaintiffs' claims.

The complaint alleges that the City of Milwaukee and its police department have a longstanding practice of intentional discrimination against racial minorities and homosexuals, suggesting that this conduct is entrenched enough to be considered a de facto policy of the city and the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). Specific claims include the use of excessive force against minorities, inadequate training and discipline of police officers, neglect of complaints from minority communities, and discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. The complaint references a history of civil rights litigation against the MPD dating back to 1958, indicating a pattern of discrimination perpetuated within the department.

Criticism of the MPD's practices is highlighted, including commentary from current and former police chiefs and the police union regarding Chief Philip Arreola's limited condemnation of police conduct. It is alleged that Officers Balcerzak, Gabrish, and Porubcan embody the discriminatory policies of the department, leading them to misinterpret a serious incident involving victim Konerak Sinthasomphone and respond with indifference. The officers are accused of disregarding crucial information and failing to act on a call from a concerned citizen, ultimately depriving Sinthasomphone of his constitutional rights and impacting his family's right to association.

The complaint also connects the alleged negligence in the Sinthasomphone case to subsequent victimization of plaintiffs Lacy, Bradehoft, and Edwards, arguing that had the police intervened, these individuals would not have been harmed. Legal challenges are noted, particularly referencing the doctrine from DeShaney v. Winnebago County, which establishes that the Constitution protects individuals from state action rather than guaranteeing protection from private harm. The effectiveness of the Sinthasomphone complaint in navigating these legal hurdles is questioned.

Judge John Reynolds determined that no constitutional claim existed in the case assigned to him, a finding supported by both the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. The higher court clarified that a state's failure to protect an individual from private violence does not violate the due process clause. The Court also dismissed the argument that state officials had a "special relationship" with Joshua, despite their awareness of the danger he faced from his father and their stated intention to protect him. A "special relationship" is recognized only when the state holds an individual in custody against their will, such as in prisons or mental hospitals, not when the individual is with a family member. 

Supporting this conclusion, the court referenced several precedents, including Archie v. City of Racine, where claims against a fire dispatcher were dismissed, and Ellsworth v. City of Racine, concerning police failure to protect an individual, both reinforcing the notion that the state did not create or subject individuals to danger. Similarly, in Losinski v. County of Trempealeau, a case was dismissed because the state did not create the danger that led to a woman’s death. 

However, the document notes exceptions to the DeShaney doctrine. In White v. Rochford, the court found constitutional violations when police left children unattended in a vehicle, leading to dangerous circumstances. In Ross v. United States, despite a rescue attempt being obstructed by a deputy sheriff, the court allowed a claim against both the county and the deputy, suggesting that the distinction between failures to act and affirmative acts may influence the outcome of cases. Justice Brennan's dissent in DeShaney highlights that the characterization of a violation—whether a failure to act or an affirmative act—can determine the case's resolution.

In a constitutional framework that differentiates between action and inaction, the characterization of misconduct under Section 1983 can significantly influence case outcomes. The court's initial rejection of an affirmative duty by states to care for citizens suggests a predetermined conclusion of no duty existing in the specific case at hand. The court in Ross distinguishes the case from Archie by noting that the plaintiff's claim revolves around the county's imposition of unwanted services rather than a mere failure to provide rescue services. The plaintiff asserts that the county's policy arbitrarily cut off private rescue options without offering viable alternatives.

The distinction between action and inaction is not new, as highlighted by Bowers v. DeVito, which illustrates that a state's failure to protect individuals from harm can equate to active wrongdoing. In the Sinthasomphone case, the plaintiffs argue that police actions, rather than inactions, violated Konerak Sinthasomphone's due process rights by preventing private citizens from assisting him and returning him to the custody of Jeffrey Dahmer instead of his parents. The allegations present a scenario of police action that exacerbated the danger to Sinthasomphone, contrasting with the DeShaney case where no special relationship was found due to the temporary nature of state custody.

The Sinthasomphone case raises complex questions about whether the police's conduct created a "special relationship" that could impose liability, particularly given that Sinthasomphone had escaped Dahmer and expressed fear before being returned to him. This situation complicates the assessment of the state's responsibility for the subsequent harm suffered by the minor.

Courts typically resist recognizing special relationships outside of prisons or mental institutions. In Harris v. District of Columbia, the court ruled that police officers did not have a "clearly established constitutional obligation" to provide medical care to an individual suffering from a drug overdose, thereby granting them qualified immunity. The court focused on the qualified immunity issue rather than the existence of a constitutional obligation. In contrast, the Sinthasomphone case raises questions about whether a special relationship existed between the police officers and the victim, Konerak. The complaint alleges that police actions, including inaction, were driven by intentional discrimination, violating the equal protection clause due to bias based on race, color, national origin, or sexual orientation.

To successfully claim municipal liability under section 1983, plaintiffs must demonstrate a deprivation of constitutionally protected rights due to actions taken under color of state law, along with a connection to a municipal policy or practice. The Sinthasomphone complaint asserts that a longstanding discriminatory custom exists within the Milwaukee Police Department, highlighted by the police union's reaction to disciplinary measures against involved officers. The City challenged the relevance of these allegations, arguing that the current chief's actions disproved the existence of such customs. Nonetheless, the complaint presents a broad indictment of the department's culture, suggesting that discriminatory behavior has been tolerated historically, fostering an environment where such incidents could occur.

The complaint successfully asserts a claim of a de facto custom or policy that may lead to section 1983 liability, although proving this claim will be challenging and will ultimately be decided by a jury. The defendants argue for the dismissal of claims from the siblings and parents of Konerak Sinthasomphone. The court, relying on precedent from Bell v. City of Milwaukee, dismisses the claims of the siblings but allows those of the parents to proceed. The Sinthasomphone case is deemed the strongest among four cases discussed, as police had prior contact with Sinthasomphone and failed to protect him, arguably placing him in danger. In contrast, the cases of Lacy, Bradehoft, and Edwards hinge on the ruling from Martinez v. California, which determined that the actions of a parole board did not directly harm a victim and that the consequences were too remote to hold them liable. The court finds no "special relationship" between the police and the victims of Dahmer, asserting that the police could not have known of any specific danger posed by him. Consequently, the complaints related to Lacy and Bradehoft are dismissed, as is the unserved complaint from Edwards. The court emphasizes that liability cannot be attributed to the City or police officers, directing that claims can only be pursued against Dahmer himself. The order concludes with the denial of the motions for dismissal of the Sinthasomphone complaint, except for the siblings' claims, and schedules a conference for the Sinthasomphone case.