Skip to main content

Former Bell, California Police Officer Sentenced to Nine Years on Federal Civil Rights Charge for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON—A judge sentenced Feliciano Sanchez, a former officer with the Bell, California Police Department, to nine years in federal prison and three years of supervised release for sexually assaulting a female motorist and violating her civil rights, the Justice Department announced.

Sanchez, 35, of Pico Rivera, Calif., pleaded guilty last year to violating the female victim’s civil rights when he forced her to perform oral sex after stopping her for a traffic violation. Sanchez admitted in court that on May 16, 2007, he took the victim in his patrol car to an isolated parking lot away from the traffic stop. During the assault, Sanchez placed his hand on his duty weapon and forced the victim to perform the sex act.

According to evidence presented in court and in documents filed by prosecutors, Sanchez forced the victim to commit the sex act while armed and in his full police uniform. After the incident, Sanchez twice went to the victim’s workplace to tell her that he would be watching her, which caused her to quit her job.

“These actions not only brutalized the victim, but undermined the public’s trust in its law enforcement officers,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Department will aggressively prosecute law enforcement officers who violate the rights of the people they have sworn to protect and disregard the laws they have pledged to uphold.”

“This former police officer violated his oath to serve and protect the community by committing a crime that was particularly offensive, dehumanizing and harmful,” said U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. “In this case, Mr. Sanchez committed an egregious assault, caused incalculable pain and suffering to the victim, and damaged to the honor of the thousands of men and women in law enforcement who serve us every day.”

This case was investigated by agents from the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. The case was prosecuted by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Tammy Spertus of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, and Trial Attorney Karen Ruckert Lopez and former Trial Attorney Christine Dunn of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more