Introduction
The police are by theory in our communities to serve and protect. That is often not true if you live in America’s urban chaos cities or when the “officer friendly” you call sees you as an sex object. The police sexual aggressors discussed thus far, “hunt” or “troll” for victims’ through proactive policing strategies such as the customary “rolling and patrolling” of uniformed officers in marked law enforcement vehicles at the local, county, state, and federal level. The primary purpose is to provide a visible presence to prevent crime or other breaches of social order. Police-citizen encounters are most likely to occur during proactive stops under valid suspicious circumstances. However, proactive, aggressive police actions known as zero tolerance , stop and frisk, and quality of life policing cause the most police-community relations problems in urban minority communities, raising the specter of racial, ethnic, and status profiling. We saw in the last chapter that sexually abuse inclined LEOs use people and traffic stops as a pretext to identify potential sex victims. Reactive policing actions result from officer initiated actions and call for help or assistance.
For the most part, reactive policing strategies do not involve quid pro quo exchanges. The victim seldom gains anything by “submitting” to the sexual abuse. They are victims of a crime, some disturbance, or emergency, and they trust the police to help in some manner. However, some citizens’ dial 911, expecting help and their “helper” turn out to be their worst nightmare. Vulnerable domestic violence victims are injured, psychologically and physically, when they report their victimization. Crime victims report their victimization and the unthinkable happens. They are groped, raped, and sodomized by the responding law enforcement officers.
Police sexual abuses during proactive calls are true exercises of abuse of power and the cruelest form of police sexual abuse. For example, a Toronto, Canada police sergeant is accused of two separate sexual assaults of women after offering them rides home late at night (Takema, May 5, 2016). These sexual assaults destroy trust in the police agency—Betrayal of Trust .
* * *
Milwaukee, Wisconsin—Ladmarald Cates: Dial 911—Get a Rapist
“I called 911 for help,” the 19 year-old mother of two said in court, “I didn’t call 911 to be the victim.” (Daley, January 19, 2012)
According to newspaper accounts and court documents, L.L., single mother of two, returned to high-school to better herself and improve the future for her and her young children. She received her high-school diploma and enrolled in the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee majoring in Criminal Justice . She was on track to fulfill her dream of becoming a police officer or lawyer until she dialed 911 on July 16, 2010. Following her call for help, she became a severally depressed former college student contemplating suicide. Her responding officer allegedly sodomized and raped her (Barton, February 12, 2011 and US v. Ladmarald D. Cates—No. 12-870). Then, she received vile treatment by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD ). She was arrested and jailed for four days. Adding injury to insult the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office declined to prosecute her rapist.
LL’s version of the July 16, 2010 event began with neighborhood girls throwing bricks through her windows and yelling at her. She called 911 and officer Ladmarald Cates and his partner arrived. Instead of talking to the tormenting girls, the officers appeared intent on getting everyone out of the house except L.L. The officers urged her to call someone to get the young children. She did. Then Officer Cates’s partner handcuffed the woman’s brother, saying there was a missing person’s report on him. The officer took him outside and placed him in the police car. Cates allegedly gave L.L.’s boyfriend, present on the scene, $10 and told him to go to a nearby store and buy some water. Cates declined water from the refrigerator because it “looked cloudy.” Cates and L.L. were now alone.
Officer Cates followed L.L. to the bathroom where L.L. reached behind the toilet and retrieved a brick that landed there. When she turned around, Cates allegedly stood with his pants down and an erection. He demanded oral sex, according to L.L. and she complied out of fear. He then had sexual intercourse with her and let her go.
L.L. ran outside, screaming, “He raped me. He just raped me.” Her excited cries drew a sympathetic crowd. Her 15-year-old brother, who had been let out of the police car with the handcuffs removed, shouted at the two officers, demanding they take action. Officer Cates allegedly told L.L. to shut up and threw her to the ground, increasing the crowd’s agitation. The growing crowd and its loud objections to L.L.’s treatment led the jumpy officers to put in an urgent “officers need assistance now” call.
Ten officers responded. L.L. told a responding officer she had been raped by Officer Cates and needed to go to the hospital, “He cracked up laughing,” L.L. alleged (Barton, January 16, 2011). The officer added, “You’re not going to the hospital. You’re going to jail. Quit lying.” She was arrested and transported to jail.
At the jail, the booking officer allegedly did not believe her accusation of rape by a police officer and refused her request to go to the hospital. While she was in her cell L.L. alleges, Officer Cates came in and told her “You better tell them you made it up.” If she didn’t “he and his partners will be coming for me.” L.L. asked to speak to a supervisor. A sergeant came to her cell and told her she would not get out of jail by lying. L.L. again says she repeated her request to go to the hospital. Twelve hours later an Internal Affairs (IA ) detective came to see her. He sent her to the hospital for treatment and collection of evidence. The detective interviewed L.L. at the hospital and returned her to jail, two days later she was released without being charged.
The IA detective interviewed Officer Cates, and allegedly he gave different stories of what happened. First, he said that he did not have any sexual contact with L.L. the day of the incident. However, he added he had consensual intercourse with her when they first met nine months ago. At that time, he stopped L.L. for a traffic violation, and they exchanged telephone numbers and had sex in his car two weeks later. The next day Cates changed his story and admitted he had oral sex and intercourse with L.L. on the day of the call. He admitted he let his sexual arousal get the best of him and it was a stupid mistake to have sex on duty—an act prohibited by regulations. Finally, Cates, according to published sources, admitted the earlier story of consensual sex nine months earlier was false.
Cates’s back and forth contradictory explanations of the events provided ample justification for his dismissal. He was fired, and the results of the investigation were forwarded to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office for prosecution. Following two months of review, the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office Sensitive Crimes Team declined to prosecute. The letter to the police chief from an Assistant District Attorney cited the reason/s for declining prosecution: “After completing my review as outlined above, I determined that the sustainability of criminal charges depended on the credibility of the victim and citizen witnesses. While I find the victim’s version of events credible, I do not believe that her testimony would be strong enough to successfully prosecute Officer Cates (Hall, July 16, 2010).” Not satisfied with this inaction, L.L. decided to search for other remedies.
L.L. searched the Internet for an attorney and found Robin Shallow. Shallow convinced an Assistant US Attorney to prosecute Ladmarald Cates for violating L.L.’s civil rights . Cates was indicted on two federal counts: Count one stated “while acting as a Milwaukee police officer [Cates], deprived a woman [LL] of her due process right to bodily integrity by sexually assaulting her in violation of 18 U.S. C. 242. Count two charges Mr. Cates with using and carrying a firearm in relation to and in furtherance of a crime of violence….”
At trial, Ladmarald Cates took the stand and described a bizarre case of consensual sex , where the victim flirted with him and engaged in three acts of oral sex and one act of sexual intercourse. The trial lasted for three days before the jury, after three hours of deliberation, returned a guilty verdict on count one and not guilty on count two, using a firearm in a crime of violence. The federal judge sentenced him to 24 years in prison. His sentence was enhanced by two years for lying under oath. L.L. filed a civil suit against Ladmarald Cates, the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Police Department . The lawsuit alleged the City of Milwaukee knew that Cates had a history of violent assaults on women.
L.L.’s suit points to a frequent occurrence in police sexual abuse cases, prior indications of aberrant behaviors that were ignored or mishandled. The police chief at the time of Cates’s arrest admitted an “obvious pattern” of serious allegations was overlooked. He should have been fired years before the rape of L.L. Ladmarald Cates was accused of breaking the law at least five times in his 13-year police career, according to published reports, three of those allegations involved sexual abuse. The first obvious sex-related incident calling for termination involved a domestic violence charge.
In 2000, Cates was suspended for two days for sexual battery. His victim was a girlfriend, also a Milwaukee, police officer. He choked and shoved her during an argument. Domestic violence conviction is a career ender for police officers; federal law prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence offenses from carrying guns. The Lautenberg Amendment (1996) to the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms and ammunition.
The Milwaukee PD found a way around this prohibition with a charge and conviction on a lesser but related crime. Women’s groups, including the National Center for Women and Policing , have complained for years that police officers have high domestic violence rates—2 to 4 times higher than the general public (womenandpolicing.com/violence); however, police departments treat officers differently when handling domestic violence cases. According to published reports, Cates was allowed to avoid domestic violence charges through a one-year prosecution diversion program. He kept his police job if he refrained from committing any criminal activity, avoided criminal contact with the victim and underwent counseling.
According to newspaper reports, the manner in which Cates domestic violence incident was handled by the Milwaukee Police Department was typical Milwaukee Police Department reaction (Barton, October 30, 2011). In 2001, a Milwaukee PD officer was arrested for battery, domestic violence and battery, and misconduct in public office. The charges could have resulted in 5½ years in prison and barred him from possessing a gun for the rest of his life. An internal investigation concluded the domestic violence charges were true and resulted in administrative action, six days suspension. Barton (October 30, 2011) reports that in 2010 the wife of a high-ranking commander in the Professional Performance Division, the Internal Affairs Division that investigates police misconduct, called 911 because she was in fear of violence from her husband. No report was taken, and there is no recording of the 911 call. Another MPD officer was convicted of disorderly conduct after fighting with his wife and choking her cousin, a common technique to downgrade the charge from domestic violence to avoid the Lautenberg Rule. A MPD sergeant received deferred prosecution, same as Cates, for the charge of domestic violence . He got treatment for depression and alcohol abuse, and the charge was dismissed. The newspaper analysis revealed five current Milwaukee officers accused of domestic violence had received deferred-prosecution agreements.
The domestic violence incident is not the only firing sexual abuse offenses Ladmarald Cates committed before the rape of L.L. (Barton, October 30, 2011). In 2005, Cates, working as a head jailer, was accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a female prisoner. He was given a six-day suspension. In 2007, Officer Cates was accused of having sex on duty with a 16-year-old girl. The investigators sent this incident to the prosecutor’s office, and they declined to prosecute. There is a clear pattern of police sexual abuse misconduct in this officer’s history. He should have been terminated years before the July 16, 2010, rape.
Iredell County, North Carolina—Richard “Ben” Jenkins: Domestic Violence Victim Abuser
“Finding dates working with victims of domestic violence is like shooting fish in a barrel.”
Deputy Richard “Ben” Jenkins . (Italics supplied. Wick & Mangiardi v. Redmond 2013). US District Court No 5-12-cv-00052-RLV’DSC. (2013-P.5)
The quote from Iredell County Deputy Richard Jenkins comes from court documents filed in a civil suit against him and the sheriff for sexual harassment . The plaintiffs, two women, went to Jenkins , the department’s domestic violence (DV) investigator, to file violence charges against their husbands and seek protection. Instead, Deputy Jenkins allegedly made lewd comments and continually propositioned and stalked them on and off duty. Investigator Jenkins allegedly treated domestic violence victims as his special cache of sexual partners. However, he was no bad apple; the barrel was rotten.
His perverted behaviors were emblematic of the more significant problem in the Iredell Sheriff’s office, prompting a federal judge to conclude “Here, the evidence shows that there was a custom of male ICSO [Iredell County Sheriff’s Office ] deputies and officers using their positions to sexually harass females over whom they had power” (Wick & Mangiardi v. Redmond 2013). There were multiple victims.
Court records reveal Victim 1 was married to an alcoholic who subjected her to psychological and physical abuse. In December 2008, the husband in a drunken rage began strangling their son, and she intervened. He punched her in the face, breaking her jaw. In January 2009, she confronted her husband with an affair he was having with a co-worker, and he viciously attacked her. The adulterer pulled her by her hair into a walk-in closet and kept her confined there for four hours. He pointed a loaded gun at her head threatening to shoot her, while she cowered in a corner. He punched a hole in the drywall and fired a shot into the drywall before she escaped.
The woman fearing for her life and the safety of her children consulted an attorney who advised her to file charges. Her husband was arrested, and she was referred to the Iredell Sheriff’s department domestic violence unit (DVU) and met Detective Sergeant Richard “Ben” Jenkins —a really bad day for an abused woman seeking help.
Court records describe Investigator Jenkins’s relentless efforts to force Victim 1 into a sexual relationship. He frequently called Victim 1 off duty and after work hours, engaging in salacious conversation, such as asking the color of her panties and beseeching her to come to his house. In one particularly vulgar call, he told the victim that “his balls were three times their normal size and asked her to lick them and take away the pressure,” adding, “he shaved his balls so that they would not prick her in the face.” During other calls, Jenkins , according to court records, made comments about having an erection, masturbating, and wanting her to come to his house and “finish him off.” He continually bragged about being a great lover. In a discussion in his office on a Sunday, he repeatedly asked her to go to the bathroom and take pictures of her vagina. He offered to take photos of himself and give them to her. She said she feared he would violently sexually assault her. His cruelest threat came when he told Victim 1 that if she continued to rebuff his demands he would have the charges against her husband dropped and she knew what would happen to her and her children if he were released.
Court records show Victim 1 reported the lewd conversations and threats through her attorney to the Iredell Sheriff’s Department. Two high-ranking officers were assigned to investigate the complaint. In a perfunctory investigation, Jenkins admitted to several sexual harassment incidents, including asking for pictures of Victim 1’s vagina, asking her to help him with his “swollen balls,” and asking her to come to his house. The investigator’s failed to interview any of the witnesses Victim 1 supplied and one investigator blamed the victim saying, “I think she’s kind of leading him on as well…. I believe she is partially to blame” (Wick & Mangiardi v. Redmond 2013). The investigators concluded Jenkins had sexually harassed Victim 1 and reported their results to the chief deputy. This same chief deputy was later accused of sexual harassment of female employees.
The investigators allegedly never considered termination and recommended on the spot to reassign Jenkins to a mid-level jailor position at a higher salary. The sheriff’s department made no attempts to determine if Jenkins had sexually abused other domestic violence victims. The matter was closed, or so they thought.
Victim 2 did not come forward until Victim 1’s complaint became public with the civil suit (Sheldon, May 1, 2012). She worked as a mediator at the Iredell County Court House in frequent contact with Jenkins . That contact was amicable until she approached the ICSO Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) for help and obtained a temporary restraining order against her abusive husband of seven years. Now, as a domestic violence victim, she became another fish in Jenkins’s barrel of potential victims. Jenkins allegedly in an effort “to help her” called her into his office, closed the door and gyrated his hips, grabbed his genitals, and asked her if she wanted “some of this.” This terrified the woman, but her nightmare had just begun.
What followed was allegedly a year of sexual harassment and abuse. From then on, every time they passed in the courthouse Jenkins made sexual gestures imitating fellatio or cunnilingus. Allegedly, he would ask her if she wanted it, grabbing his penis. He began stalking her. In a Mexican restaurant, he slid in beside her in a booth, started touching her leg, saying, “Can I just put my hands up your skirt? Can I just get a feel?” (Wick & Mangiardi v. Redmond 2013). At work one day, he slid his hands inside the back of her skirt. These abusive groping behaviors occurred after Jenkins was moved to the jailor’s position following Victim 1’s complaint. She joined Victim 1 in the civil suit against Jenkins and the sheriff. Jenkins prior acts of sexual abuse of domestic violence victims and department inaction became public during the civil suit.
The investigation revealed in 2006 Jenkins began a sexual relationship with a woman who reported an abusive husband threatened to kill her. A deputy discovered the relationship and reported it to the sheriff and chief deputy telling them “if [Jenkins ] wasn’t already screwing her he would be” (Wick & Mangiardi v. Redmond 2013). The sheriff and chief deputy said nothing and told the whistle-blower to leave. Sometime later, according to the civil suit, Jenkins’s wife found him at 2:30 a.m. in his mother’s house asleep in his underwear with the same woman sleeping in his arms. Jenkins and his wife got into an altercation, leaving Jenkins with visible bruises. Jenkins self-reported the altercation with his wife and admitted the sexual relationship to his female DVU lieutenant. She took no action against Jenkins, and he continued his sexual pursuit of domestic violence victims—departmental inaction created a real sense of low risk for PSM.
The civil suit brought to light the department’s history of sexual harassment and failure to act when it was reported. It was a rogue sheriff’s department. Court records revealed the ICSO’s chief deputy sexually harassed multiple female subordinates, causing several women to quit their jobs when complaints went uninvestigated (Wick & Mangiardi v. Redmond 2013). Numerous reported sexual relationships with subordinates were ignored. Court records revealed many sexual harassment victims failed to come forward because “they were afraid to talk.” They kept it to themselves. Sexual harassment was so pervasive in the ICSO that victims ignored it. The federal judge in his ruling against summary judgment for the sheriff’s department faulted the sheriff for his “boys will be boys” attitude toward sex-based harassment and cited a statement the sheriff made, “You have to expect this working with the guys.”
The civil suit was settled for $425,000. Deputy Jenkins was promptly fired after the settlement. The sheriff announced he would not seek reelection. The ICSO announced it would revise its sexual harassment policy and provide sexual harassment training for staff members; there had never been any.
Detroit Officer—Deon Nunlee
Standard police protocol when responding to domestic violence calls is to separate the “alleged” combatants until the preliminary investigation is completed. However, during this separation officers should not lose sight of their partner. Allegedly Detroit Police Officer Deon Nunlee ignored the second part of the protocol. He and his partner answered a 911 call where a boyfriend assaulted a 31-year-old woman (Damron, March 7, 2014). The officers arrived, and allegedly Nunlee took the woman upstairs to a bedroom. While they were upstairs Officer Nunlee allegedly sexually assaulted the woman. His partner downstairs questioning the boyfriend claimed he was unaware of the assault. Not believable, but possible. She reported the assault and Nunlee was placed on administrative leave. When the results from the rape kit came back, Nunlee was suspended without pay. His DNA was found on the woman. He was charged with three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count each of assault with intent to penetrate and misconduct in office. The six-year veteran officer entered into a plea deal, pleading guilty to misconduct in office and second-degree sexual conduct and sentenced to serve 18 months to 15 years in prison.
Hickman County, Tennessee Deputy Sheriff—Kenneth H. Smith
In 2011, Deputy Sheriff Kenneth H. Smith pleaded guilty to violating the civil rights of two domestic violence victims (DOJ, 2011). He somehow convinced the gullible domestic violence victims to allow him to take nude pictures of them, including their private parts, as part of his investigation. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison.
Shelby County, Tennessee Sheriff’s Office—Deputy James Bishof
A woman, who had been arrested the night before for domestic violence —she struck her estranged husband and a woman he was with—went to the Downtown Memphis, TN office of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department to talk about her arrest (McKenzie, July 29, 2011). The Domestic Violence Detective, James Bishof , said he could help her. He allegedly convinced the woman that he needed to take photographs to support her case. They went to a private women’s restroom where Bishof took photos of her breasts, buttocks, and private parts, even though there were no injuries. He allegedly then told the woman that he had a better camera at his home and made arrangements to meet her at her residence to take better photographs. He met her at her residence and allegedly had her strip naked, and he sexually assaulted her. She reported the assault and investigating detectives recovered the photographs from his work camera, and Bishof was arrested.
Chicago, Illinois—CPD Officers Paul Clavijo & Juan Vasquez—Intoxicated Victim Raped
A common defense to sexual assaults is the victim consented even though intoxicated. That defense fails when the sexually assaulted victim cannot consent due to their intoxication. The woman, in this example, had a blood alcohol content of 0.38 percent—nearly five times the legal limit to drive. The victim was too intoxicated to give informed consent to the two Chicago police officers who offered their assistance then allegedly raped her. Published reports present the following scenario.
It was about 2 a.m. on March 30, 2011, when Chicago police officers Paul Clavijo and Juan Vasquez parked their marked Chicago PD Tahoe SUV in an unlit area in Chicago’s Northside near Wrigley Field (Meiser, May 25, 2011). A 22-year-old female was coming down the dark street. She was crying and having trouble walking. She had spent the night drinking and arguing with a male friend. The officers drove forward and signaled the woman to approach the police vehicle. Sensing her distress, they offered her a safe ride to her destination. She accepted, after all, they were cops, and they wanted to help her.
Had her brain not been addled by liquor, she would have realized that the cops’ next statement had evil intentions. She was told she was not allowed to sit in the back seat. She would have to sit in Officer Clavijo’s lap in the passenger seat (Jane Doe v. Clavio, Vasquez & City of Chicago. US District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division—Complaint).
Their next move was brazen and demonstrates a feeling among the officers that there were no consequences for misconduct. Vasquez drove to a liquor store. He went in—in uniform—and bought a bottle of vodka. While Vasquez was in the liquor store, Clavijo allegedly sexually assaulted the intoxicated woman. The officers drove to the woman’s apartment that was outside their assigned patrol area. The three of them played strip poker, and she had sex with one of the officers. They suggested a threesome, unnerving the woman. In fear, she began banging on the wall while screaming for help. She left the apartment and ran down the hallway screaming. The two officers fled the apartment; one naked, clothes in hand, the other dressed in his uniform. The hasty exit caused them to leave behind a cell phone and parts of a Chicago police uniform (Alverez, May 12, 2011).
Responding officers sent the woman to the hospital where her BAL was 0.38, five times the legal limit to drive. Extreme intoxication. DNA analysis showed that both officers had sexual contact with the woman.
The sexual abuse allegations evoked a strong reaction from city officials. The interim police superintendent said, “The offenses are insulting to hardworking Chicago police officers.” The Cook County State’s Attorney , Anita Alvarez waxed on indignantly, “Citizens are expected to follow the orders of police officers and to respect their authority. In these cases, these officers committed disgusting violation of that trust” (Alverez, May 12, 2011).
Both officers were relieved of duty and stripped of their police powers, and in May were charged with Criminal Sexual Assault (Class 1 Felony) and Official Misconduct (Class 3 Felony). Clavijo was also charged with Criminal Sexual Assault and Official Misconduct for a separate sexual assault of a 26-year-old woman three weeks earlier.
The prior assault happened under similar circumstances. Clavijo and Vasquez allegedly offered a ride to a woman waiting on a bus early in the morning. They drove the woman home and then asked to use her bathroom. Vasquez went to the bathroom, and Clavijo allegedly followed the woman into the bedroom, pushed her down on the bed and raped her. She says she did not immediately report the assault because she worked in the area and the officers know where she lived.
In May 2011, the victim of the March 30 assault filed suit against the city and the Chicago Police Department alleging that there was a “code of silence” among Chicago police officers and unwillingness by supervisors to investigate misconduct.
Clavijo and Vasquez resigned from the police department. In February 2014, both officers entered into plea agreements. They pleaded guilty to official misconduct involving battery and received two years probation. The previously indignant city officials did not put out any press releases after the sentencing. No public announcements. The second assault charge against Clavijo was dropped. In the plea arrangements, they did not admit any sexual offenses, escaping registration as sex offenders. However, because of the felony conviction, they cannot serve as police officers again. The victim received a settlement of $415,000, ending her civil suit with taxpayers ultimately paying for police misconduct.
Wellford, South Carolina—Bennie Brandon Hand: Sexual Abuse of Mentally Challenged Woman
Wellford, South is located in Spartanburg County, South Carolina, and has a six-person police department. In 2012, the small town and the police department were rocked by the arrest of Officer Brandon Hand (Smith, May 13, 2013). The thirty-two-year-old 6-year veteran officer was arrested by SLED (South Carolina Law Enforcement Division) for misconduct in office, third-degree criminal sexual misconduct and abuse of a vulnerable adult. According to the arrest warrants, the 5′11″330-pound officer did engage “in a sexual battery [oral sex] with a person who he knows is mentally defective and suffers from a mental disease, which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct.” The act/s allegedly occurred on several occasions between July 1, 2012, and January 1, 2013, while he was on duty and in uniform. He is currently in jail and awaiting trial.
Sacramento, California—Gary Dale Baker: Rape of Stroke Victim
The judge sentencing Gary Dale Baker , a black 22-year veteran of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD), called his crimes “unspeakable” (Bernstein, November 11, 2015). The alleged events described in the arrest warrant and newspaper accounts are disturbing (Wilkinson, December 20, 2012; SPD Warrant 10-352728, September 19, 2012).
First assault—November 24, 2010—The 75-year-old stroke victim was suffering from Aphasia, a speech, and language disorder caused by damage to the brain, and recovering in a senior living complex when first approached in a driveway by an unknown black male between 35 and 45. She described him as being 5″6′–5″9″ with a medium build and black hair. She told investigators that he could be a policeman, deputy sheriff, or security guard from the vehicle he was driving. She had a short conversation with the man, and he left. Later, the same man knocked on her door and forced his way into the apartment. He immediately started kissing her as she objected. He pushed her down onto a couch and attempted vaginal intercourse as she struggled. The assailant allegedly forced the woman to orally copulate him to ejaculation. The rapist fled, and the victim reached a medical alert and activated the alarm.
SPD investigators collected DNA at the scene and sent the victim to the hospital. The rape examination found evidence of a rape and bruising and tearing of the vaginal area. No DNA matches were found, and no suspects were identified.
Second Assault—September 20, 2012—Two years after the first assault, the victim reported that the same man returned and allegedly raped her and forced her to orally copulate him. The hospital exam confirmed the evidence of rape.
Third Assault—December 11, 2012—The same assailant returned to the victim’s senior living apartment and allegedly attempted to force the victim into sex. The attempt was unsuccessful and investigating officers recommended the family install a motion detector camera in the apartment, which they did.
Fourth Assault—December 18, 2012—Seven days after the third assault, and one day after the installation of the camera, the rapist returned and sexually assaulted the elderly victim. The investigating detective viewed the film footage and recognized the rapist, Sacramento Police Officer Gary Baker
Baker was arrested and placed on administrative leave. Two days later after confirmation of a DNA match in all the sexual assaults, he was charged with nine counts, including rape, forcible oral copulation , sexual battery, and burglary. He was convicted at trial and sentenced to 62 years to life.
* * *
Police Sexual Abuse of Domestic Violence Victims in England and Wales
We know of officers who develop inappropriate relationships with victims of domestic abuse. They have ignored their professional duty and their moral responsibility, and instead abused their position of power to exploit victims. We do not know the true scale of this, but everyone in this room knows it goes on far more than we might care to admit.—British Home Secretary in a speech to the British Police Federation, May 2016
According to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HAIC ), the UK government watchdog agency for England and Wales police forces, there were 430 reported allegations of abuse of force during 24 months (2015–2016). The victims came from the similar available pool of “perfect victims” domestic abuse victims, alcohol and drug addicts, sex workers , and arrested persons. Police sexual aggressors are a problem common to the occupational work setting no matter what country is examined. “It [police sexual abuse] is an exploitation of power where the guardian becomes the abuser,” said the Inspector of Constabulary. Thirty-nine percent of the abuse of force allegations involved victims of domestic violence who had sought police help. Sixty-eight of these vulnerable victims, 16% of total, had “abused their authority to exploit them or develop an inappropriate relationship with them” (http://aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk–police-officers-accused-of-sexual-abuse).
This particular report originated as a result of an investigation by The Guardian , a British daily newspaper known for its investigative reporting. The original investigation was a result of the conviction and sentencing of a Northumbria police constable to life for the rape and sexual assault of women he met on duty. He sexually assaulted abused addicts, shoplifters, and a disabled teenager, demanding sex for help. According to the news report, they identified 59 officers from 25 police forces who raped, sexually assaulted and sexually harassed women from 2008 to 2012. The sexual predators ranged from constables and officers up to the rank of deputy chief constable. Particularly appalling were the officers who sexually abused domestic violence victims in safe women’s refuges. The domestic violence women in these refugees were drug addicts, prostitutes, and women with no money and no home. As the newspaper reported, who would believe these women over a police officer? The obvious answer is—NO ONE. The Guardian concluded that police sexual abuse in England and Wales police forces was the result of “a lack of supervision, a failure to vet officers and the turning of a blind eye to the sexual exploits of male officers, in a still macho police service” (Laville, December 8, 2016).
Conclusion
The last Illustrative Examples of the repeated rapes of an elderly stroke victim challenge the earlier assertion that PSM is, with the exception of sexually motivated serial killers the result of rational behavior responding to inclination, opportunity, and real or perceived low risk. From all appearances, the sexual aggressor was not “normal” or rational; however, we do not have the necessary information to make that determination. This points to the need for information and research on PSM. How did this person become a police is an unanswered question. The remaining I.E.s fits within the PSM Causal Equation.