Case: Riley v. Los Angeles County

00-239825 | California state trial court

Filed Date: Nov. 6, 2000

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case, Riley v. County of Los Angeles, was one of many cases filed against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department [LASD] in the late 1990s and early 2000 that challenged various policies and practices of the LASD relating to the operation of its Jail. The suit in Riley was filed against the County and the Sheriff on November 6, 2000 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Riley's attorneys, the Law Offices of Litt & Associates, were class counsel in other similar cases pending in f…

This case, Riley v. County of Los Angeles, was one of many cases filed against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department [LASD] in the late 1990s and early 2000 that challenged various policies and practices of the LASD relating to the operation of its Jail. The suit in Riley was filed against the County and the Sheriff on November 6, 2000 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Riley's attorneys, the Law Offices of Litt & Associates, were class counsel in other similar cases pending in federal and state court in California, including Williams v. Block, Case No. CV-97-03826-WJR (C.D.Cal.) (JC-CA-33 of this database).

Shortly after suit was filed, the Court entered a stipulated order to stay all further proceedings while the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. The LASD eventually entered into a global settlement agreement that resolved issues in the Riley case and some dozen other lawsuits pending in federal and state court. The claims raised in those suits fell into three classes: (1) "overdetentions" (i.e., persons not released from custody from the Los Angeles County jails within a reasonable period of time after they became entitled to release); (2) strip and visual body cavity searches of persons who had been returned to jail from court to be processed for release; and (3) wrong warrant arrests and detentions (persons arrested on a warrant that in fact was for another person, and held for an unreasonable period of time before being released). As part of the settlement, LASD agreed to pay $27 million in damages and also agreed to institute major injunctive-type reforms. The class damages portion of the settlement was handled by the court in Williams v. Block. (See JC-CA-33 for a summary of the Williams case). The injunctive relief component was resolved by the Riley case.

A Class Actions Injunctive Relief Agreement was entered by the parties in September 2001. That Agreement called for institution of LASD practices meeting the following criteria by July 31, 2001:

♦ Overdetentions - People shall be released within eight hours of the entry of entitlement to release into the LASD computer system, or, for court returnees and those with expired sentences, by midnight of the day they become entitled to release, unless they sign a form requesting to be returned to the general population before release.

♦ Strip/Visual Body Cavity Searches - People returned from court and entitled to immediate release shall not be subjected to a strip or visual body cavity search without reasonable suspicion on an individualized basis.

♦ Wrong Warrant Arrests - There shall be implementation of policies that specifically include the use of Live Scan in an attempt to make a positive identification when an inmate claims he or she is being held on a warrant for another person. A determination whether he or she is in fact the person named in the warrant will be made within 24 hours after a complaint form is provided by the inmate to LASD personnel for completion of a Disputed Warrant Verification Form.

As part of the injunctive relief settlement, the LASD also agreed to pay $5.5 million in attorneys' fees to class counsel.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (1/20/2008)

Related Cases

Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Central District of California (1997)

People


Judge(s)

Bascue, James (California)

Klausner, Gary (California)

Kough, Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burton, John C. (California)

Litt, Barrett S. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Lawrence, David D. (California)

Pellman, Lloyd W. (California)

Riley , Martha (California)

Judge(s)

Bascue, James (California)

Klausner, Gary (California)

Kough, Ann (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burton, John C. (California)

Litt, Barrett S. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Lawrence, David D. (California)

Pellman, Lloyd W. (California)

Riley , Martha (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Sept. 5, 2001 Docket

Class Actions Injunctive Relief Agreement

[Riley v. Los Angeles County/Williams v. Los Angeles County]

Sept. 1, 2001 Settlement Agreement

Docket

Last updated May 13, 2022

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Strip Search Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 6, 2000

Closing Date: 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individuals detailed at the LA County jails and subjected to 1) overdetention; 2) strip and/or visual body cavity searches; and/or 3) wrong warrant arrests and detentions.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, Los Angeles), County

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Los Angeles), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

General:

Over/Unlawful Detention

Search policies

Strip search policy

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Type of Facility:

Government-run