Doe v. City Of Los Angeles

169 P.3d 559 (Cal. 2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Does (Ps) now in their 40's, sued the City of Los Angeles and the Boy Scouts of America alleging they had been sexually abused by David Kalish, a police officer while they were participants in the Los Angeles Police Department Explorer Scout Program in the 1970s. Doe 1, alleged that it was common knowledge among LAPD officers that Kalish sought out and befriended boys in the DAP program who 'became his eventual victims.' Kalish encouraged boys to join the Explorer Scout program after they completed the DAP program 'so that he could have further access to them in subsequent years.' Doe 1 joined the Devonshire Explorer Scout program. BSA required law enforcement agencies like LAPD to comply with guidelines that, among other things, required proper vetting and supervision of adult leaders, prohibited fraternization between the adult leaders and scouts outside of sanctioned events and also prohibited one-on-one contact between adult leaders and scouts. The Explorer Scout program at Devonshire was supervised by a lieutenant who was the designated community relations officer. Doe 1 also alleges that Explorer Scouts were used for activities of questionable value to the community such as refurbishing Kalish's home. They were given beer, though none was old enough to drink alcohol legally. Doe 1 alleged that Kalish was a pedophile and a friend of Vince Pirelli, a known pornographer who specialized in pornographic movies featuring boys. Pirelli was present at Kalish's house at the same time as some of the Explorer Scouts, and Kalish pressured Doe 1 to participate in Pirelli's pornographic movies. Doe 1 alleges that Kalish filmed sexual encounters at his home with victims other than Doe 1 and had a preference for 'young, slight blond boys,' a description that fits at least two of his victims from the Explorer Scout program. Kadish allowed Explorer Scouts to drink and watch pornography. On one occasion, a boy who had been drinking at Kalish's house became drunk and was involved in a traffic incident that resulted in a police report. Kalish drank with some of his victims in the parking lot of Devonshire station, took a boy to the police academy to watch Kalish complete his monthly firearm qualification, and then bought his victim gifts at the police academy gift shop. He took the boy to the police academy to play racquetball or jog, after which they showered together, and then Kalish would take the boy home at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. He also did ride-alongs with boys. It was known that Kalish traveled to Thailand which is 'a known haven for pedophiles.' On one of these trips, other LAPD officers observed Kalish with a young Thai boy. Nationwide there have been at least 31 reported incidents of the sexual abuse of Explorer Scouts by police officers participating in the Explorer Scout program. There were 'other instances of misconduct ... between Advisors and Scouts involving drinking and sexual fraternization' that should have put those in charge of the program on notice of the need to make changes to protect the scouts against sexual exploitation. Doe 2 alleges that he was molested by Kalish between 1974 and 1979 while he was a participant in the Explorer Scout program. The complaint also identifies Doe 2 as the other victim referred to in Doe 1's complaint whom Kalish allegedly had to drive him home because Kalish was too intoxicated to drive and whom Kalish took to the police academy to watch Kalish complete his monthly firearm qualifications and to play racquetball and jog. Doe 2's also alleges that BSA has maintained `Confidential Files' on questionable scout leaders, including those suspected of child molestation.' Doe 2 alleges other specific incidents of sexual abuse from the Hollywood Division's Explorer Scout Program including underage pregnancies. Based on this information Ps alleged that Ds knew or should have known. The Court dismissed the action because Ps (both over 26) failed to adequately plead that Ds 'knew or had reason to know, or [were] otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct' by Kalish. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Ps appealed.