Amylou R. v. County of Riverside Appellant's Opening Brief

INTRODUCTION
This action against the County of Riverside for negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment arises out of difficult and
unusual circumstances.
Plaintiff Amylou Ryan, a young rape victim, contends that
her rights as a victim were violated by conduct of law enforcement officers insensitive
to her emotional needs. But plaintiff was not just the victim of rape; she was the sole
witness with respect to the rape and murder of her school friend.
She escaped being
killed herself when the perpetrator decided to drive her to a telephone, giving her a
quarter to call for help before he disappeared.
Under these circumstances, the officers
had to balance plaintiff's needs and sensitivities against the needs of the investigation,
the goal of which was to apprehend the perpetrator before he raped and killed again.
In an ideal world it might be hoped that a criminal investigation could be
conducted in a manner that would make no one uncomfortable, save the object of the
investigation.
But the reality is that officers, in the interest of public safety, must ask
hard questions, often under the most emotional of circumstances, questions that by
their nature might make a subject, or even a witness, uncomfortable.
As a matter of
public policy, vigorous investigation of crimes cannot be impeded by the fear of
subsequent imposition of civil liability based on amorphous standards adjudicated on
an ad hoc basis.
Not surprisingly, controlling law, both case and statutory, sharply
limits actions against law enforcement agents for precisely this reason.
Yet, despite
these limitations, the trial court allowed plaintiff to proceed to trial.
The result was a
trial infected with error that mandates reversal of the judgment.
First, the trial court admitted evidence of defamatory communications allegedly
made by detectives during the course of the investigation, although these
communications were clearly privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b).
By admitting this evidence, the trial court, contrary to clear authority, allowed a cause
1