West Sacramento Police Officer Sergio Alvarez often encountered prostitutes within his area of patrol. On several occasions he arrested or threatened to arrest women unless they could "do something for him". "Something" was a euphemism for "services on the house", which in turn is a euphemism for rape and forced oral copulation. Eventually one of the women came forward and a subsequent investigation identified more women Alvarez had assaulted.
Following a jury trial Alvarez was convicted of at least 18 criminal counts and received a sentence of 205 years to life. He appealed.
The Third District reverses a few counts and stays the sentences on two counts, but affirms the balance of the judgment.
The published portion of the opinion deals with Alvarez's attacks on the kidnapping counts and enhancements. Kidnapping is the use of force or fear to move someone against their will. It is not kidnapping if the person consents to the movement, even if her consent is a result of fraud or false promises. If I get into my neighbor's car after he asks me if I'd like a ride to work, I have not been kidnapped, even if my neighbor has no intent of taking me to work and instead plans to drive me to a remote place to leave me to walk home as revenge for letting my yard fall into disrepair. But, once I realize his plan and ask him to stop the car and let me out, if he does not let me out and instead continues driving, his actions morph into a kidnapping.
There is also a kidnapping defense of lawful arrest. Arresting a suspect, handcuffing him, putting him the backseat of your patrol car and driving to the local jail, is not kidnapping, although it satisfies the definition (using force to move a person against his will). As long as the officer is acting under his legal authority to arrest, there is no kidnapping.
Alvarez argues, depending on the specific count, that the victims either got into his car voluntarily or were in his car as a result of a legal arrest. As to one count the panel agrees. On this occasion, the victim got into Alvarez's car as the result of his promise to take her home and did not protest when he drove her to an alley.
The "lawful arrest" argument doesn't get much traction. While Alvarez argues that a "lawful arrest" makes him immune from being convicted for kidnapping or any lesser offense, the panel makes quick work of such nonsense. Giving Alvarez the benefit of the doubt that some of the victims were subject to lawful arrest, Alvarez lost any immunity the second he ceased "acting pursuant" to his legal authority to transport a suspect to the jail and instead drove to a vacant alley to sexually assault his charge. Additionally, the panel notes that an arrest is not legal if it is made in a manner unauthorized by law. Despite Alvarez's pleas otherwise, the law does not authorize extended periods of pawing at a suspect's crotch as part of an arrest for being under the influence.
The net effect of the opinion, if my calculations are correct, is if Alvarez can hold on for 89 more years, he may get a shot at parole.
No comments:
Post a Comment