by Kristy Wolski
• Police Officer Anthony Arevalos was arrested in June 2011
after several women accused him of sexually assaulting them while in uniform.
• He was convicted in November of eight felony and four
misdemeanor charges involving five women, including multiple counts of sexual
battery by restraint, asking for a bribe and assault and battery by a police
officer.
• He was sentenced in February 2012 to 8 years and 8 months
in prison.
• Seven women have filed claims against the city in
connection with the Arevalos case.
SAN DIEGO – The San Diego City
Attorney’s Office seems to be flip-flopping its stance regarding a victim in
the federal lawsuit against a former San Diego police officer convicted of
bribing and sexually assaulting women.
In 2011 Anthony Arevalos pulled
over a woman, identified as “Jane Doe,” for drunk driving in the Gaslamp
District. She later testified he told her he’d let her off the DUI if she gave
him her panties. She said they went to a 7-11 nearby and she gave him her
underwear in the restroom.
Ex-SDPD officer Anthony
Arevalos was sentenced for bribing and sexually assaulting women he stopped in
the Gaslamp District for drunken driving and other offenses. (2-10-2012)
“That’s where I took my pants
off and took of the panties and where he had me pull my shirt up and where he
touched me,” said Jane Doe.
In a recently filed motion for
summary judgement, attorneys for the City of San Diego claimed Jane Doe was the
one bribing Arevalos to avoid arrest.
The document reads, “Plaintiff
bribed Officer Arevalos with her panties to get out of the DUI. Both Plaintiff
and Arevalos agreed to consummate the bribe in a nearby 7-Eleven in the
Gaslamp. Plaintiff then reported Arevalos to the SDPD. Plaintiff now claims
that she was raped by Officer Arevalos.”
Attorney Dan Gilleon was
shocked by the city’s claim.
“It’s a dangerous way to defend
a case like this,” said Gilleon.
Gilleon represented eight of
the other victims. His cases have all been settled.
“The jury is going to be asked
to believe one of two people. Mr. Arevalos said she bribed me, and Ms. Doe says
I didn’t bribe him. Who are they going to believe? The guy sitting in prison or
the victim who was once called a hero?”
Thomas Mitchell, a spokesperson
for the city attorney’s office, released the following statement Wednesday
afternoon:
“We think that it is important
that people understand that it is the conduct of former police officer Anthony
Arevalos that has placed the City in this unfortunate position. However, the
City has stepped up to the plate and settled 12 of the 13 lawsuits it faced
over Arevalos’ conduct and paid those victims a combined amount of $2.3
million. The city has engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with the
current plaintiff and made a very generous settlement offer. Unfortunately the lawyers in this case have
demanded outrageous sums of money. Even though we condemn the actions of
Arevalos, we also have an obligation to protect the taxpayers. If we proceed to trial, the amount will be
left to the jury after hearing all the facts.”
Gilleon said he believed the
bribery stance would backfire.
“If you’re going to go to trial
and you want to defend the taxpayers by all means, do that,” said Gilleon. “But
don’t do it in a way that’s going to cost the taxpayers huge amounts of money
and that’s what this is going to do. If you anger a jury because of the way you
treat the victim, you’re going to be looking back on that outrageous settlement
demand as a good deal.”
Late Wednesday afternoon the
City Attorney’s Office changed its stance again, after Assistant City Attorney
Paul Cooper said he reviewed the accusation of bribery.
“That accusation is contained
in several sentences of a 40 page brief filed in connection with a motion
before the judge,” Cooper wrote in a statement. “I determined that accusation
was unnecessary and inappropriate in that is was Anthony Arevalos- not Jane
Doe- who was convicted of a crime.
Accordingly, I have requested that the court strike reference to bribe.
Rather than characterize or accuse, the City will rely upon undisputed factual
evidence in addressing the pending motion.”
The next court hearing will
take place February 7. Trial is expected to start May 20.
