SACRAMENTO—After reading the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s response to the county’s $1.3-million payout in May to a Wildomar man who accused deputies of using excessive force, readers might conclude the county gives away large sums of money on a willy-nilly basis. That would be disturbing from a fiscal perspective. But the alternative conclusion is worse (and more likely): The department turns a blind eye to disturbing behavior from its employees.
“The settlement in this case is irrelevant and solely a business decision between attorneys, insurance companies, and risk management of the county,” according to the department’s statement to this newspaper. “It in no way reflects on the facts of the case or points toward wrongdoing by deputies. Part of the decision-making must be the type of evidence and how attorneys will be able to manipulate already anti-law enforcement jurors with partial truths.”
I understand that government agencies are loath to admit wrongdoing. It can be costly to defend civil lawsuits in court, especially ones that feature photographs of the plaintiff’s face beaten to a pulp. It sounds like a wise “business decision” to settle a case where the underlying reason for the altercation wasn’t any grave public-safety danger. And who wants to defend a lawsuit alleging that deputies acted in an “excessively brutal, sadistic and malicious” manner?
This newspaper summed up the specifics: “Kenneth Ciccarelli was sitting in his backyard patio one summer night, listening to … loud music … when a Riverside County sheriff’s deputy appeared seemingly out of nowhere and demanded he turn off the tunes. Blinded by the deputy’s flashlight, Ciccarelli initially didn’t believe it was a real law enforcement officer … so he was slow in turning down the music that had drawn complaints from neighbors in June 2019. By the time the encounter was over, Ciccarelli’s face had been bashed by deputies and he was arrested on suspicion of battery on a peace officer.”
Ciccarelli’s attorney, Jerry Steering, alleges the department destroyed photos, withheld evidence and wrongly prosecuted the victim on that battery charge. The incident also left Ciccarelli in limbo for years as he faced criminal charges. Steering argues the county’s use-of-force policies are more about protecting it from civil liability than protecting the public.
Despite the department’s boilerplate, the “facts of the case” do seem pertinent and disturbing. An ordinary, fair-minded citizen—or juror—might find it hard to believe that deputies couldn’t have calmly de-escalated a loud-music situation. If this behavior were “appropriate,” then the settlement isn’t “irrelevant”—not to taxpayers who foot the bill or face the prospect of receiving similar “lawful” treatment.
In all likelihood, the county paid $1.3 million because it found the facts of the case alarming enough that it believed it risked a much larger verdict at trial. That’s the definition of “risk management.” Most astonishingly, the sheriff’s department doesn’t seem to trust the jury system or the judgment of some people who serve on juries. That’s quite an admission and worth pondering as we celebrate an Independence Day weekend that commemorates our nation’s self-government.
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” said Thomas Jefferson. The founders were right that juries are the “conscience of the community” and crucial to our freedom, even though we’ve all seen some questionable jury verdicts.
The Riverside sheriff’s department worries about laws allowing “anti-police activists and admitted biased persons to participate as jurors,” but Jefferson worried mainly about government officials manipulating the process. In my experience, there’s little stopping a more frequent occurrence: participating jurors with a strong pro-police/pro-government bias.
Still, I rather trust flawed jurors than any alternative. Riverside’s dissing of juries is even more perplexing given that California conviction rates in criminal cases top 60%. Presumably the department is satisfied with the jury system most of the time. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are known to spin interesting yarns—but police and district attorneys do the same thing (and they hold the cards). It’s just odd for a law-enforcement agency to hold such a shabby view of the justice system.
A jury split 11-1 to acquit Ciccarelli (charges were then dropped) on that battery charge, so maybe it’s understandable why the department isn’t keen on juries. Some readers might figure Ciccarelli got the “lawful and appropriate” beating that was coming to him and believe the county hands out $1.3 million on a whim. The rest of us might not be so sure.
Whatever the case, mind your p’s and q’s while in Riverside County given its, er, interesting standards for appropriate deputy behavior. And if you live there, you might have a good excuse the next time you want to avoid jury duty. Just tell the court that if the sheriff doesn’t trust the jury system, you don’t either. Hey, it’s worth a shot.
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.