4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

Jane Doe-3, ) C.A. No.: 4:16-cv-02576-BHH

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
Horry County, South Carolina, Horry ) PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND
County Police Department, Troy Allen ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
Large, Saundra Rhodes, Scott ) DEFENDANT HORRY COUNTY AND
Rutherford, Thomas Delpercio, William ) HORRY COUNTY POLICE
Squires, and Dale Buchanan, ) DEPARTMENTS MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants. )

The Defendants Horry County, South Carolina and Horry County Police Department have

filed motions for summary judgment as to all claims asserted against them by the Plaintiff, Jane

Doe-3. (ECF No. 43). The Plaintiff respectfully opposes Defendants motion as set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

This case stems from inappropriate sexual contact made by Defendants employee, Senior

Detective Troy Allen Large, toward the Plaintiff during Detective Larges 27-year tenure with the

Horry County Police Department. Although these Defendants attempt to distance themselves from

Detectives Larges conduct while also denying that he did anything wrong, the record indicates

that his status as an employee of these Defendants gave Detective Large the access and authority

for his actions to take place. The record further indicates that these Defendants had actual and

constructive knowledge of Detective Larges behavior stemming back as far as 2003. The

Defendants recitation of facts is inconsistent with the requirement that, on summary judgment,

the facts and evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Perini

Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1990). Further, the court must construe

1
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 2 of 25

all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party. United

States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1962).

The record in this case indicates that the Plaintiff was a victim of domestic abuse who first

came in contact with Detective Troy Allen Large when he was assigned to investigate an assault

upon the Plaintiff by her then-husband in 1996. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Confidential Deposition

of Jane Doe-3, Page 23, Lines 14-15; Page 23, Lines 20-23; Page 24, Lines 1-2). Detective Large

was again assigned to investigate a domestic assault in March of 1998, when the Plaintiff was shot

once through the hip and four times through the hand by her then-husband. (Confidential Exhibit

1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 23 Line 24 Page 24, Line 5; Page 24, Lines 12-20). Plaintiff testified

that although Detective Large was inappropriately flirty during this time period, she had no major

concerns about her contact with the detective. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page

26, Line 20 Page 27, Line 10). The Plaintiff testified that once her divorce and the court

proceedings that resulted in her former husbands conviction were finalized, she left South

Carolina for a number of years. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 25, Lines 11-

21).

After leaving the state, the Plaintiff fell out of contact with Detective Large until January

of 2015. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 33, Lines 16-21). In the interim, the

Plaintiff had enrolled in school to obtain her license to become a private investigator. (Confidential

Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 73, Lines 4-12). As part of the licensing requirements, she

had to complete 40 hours of practical experience, which could involve shadowing a police officer.

The Plaintiff had also remarried in 2014. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 33,

Line 22 Page 34, Line 1). Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was involved in another domestic

altercation in January of 2015, when her third husband threatened her and other members of her

2
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 3 of 25

family with a firearm that Jane Doe-3 legally possessed. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3

Depo. at Page 34, Line 19 Page 35, Line 12). Detective Large responded to her home after the

initial 911 report to law enforcement, and actually took steps to return the firearm that was used in

the altercation to the Plaintiff. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 35, Lines 2-8).

After reestablishing contact with the Plaintiff through the course and scope of his

employment as a detective, Detective Large engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse and coercive

behavior. The Plaintiff testified that between January of 2015 and December of 2015, she was

assaulted by Detective Large on over 50 total occasions which included multiple instances of

sexual assault. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 127, Line 18- Page 128, Line

7; Page 123, Line 24 Page 125, Line 9). The pattern of abuse also involved coercing the Plaintiff

to participate in a nude, sexual fetish catfight video with another female victim of domestic abuse

within the home of a law enforcement officer in North Carolina. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane

Doe-3 Depo. at Page 40, Line 22 Page 41, Line 3; Page 43, Lines 6-14; Page 43, Lines 22-23;

Page 118, Lines 21-24; Page 129, Lines 1-8). Plaintiff noted that she felt incapable of leaving due

to the presence of armed law enforcement officers at this fight. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-

3 Depo. at Page 118, Lines 21-24). This encounter was videotaped by Detective Large and later

obtained by counsel for the Plaintiff. The tape has been produced to the Defendants in discovery

along with a second nude, sexual fetish catfight video that was taped in the personal residence

of Detective Large. The Plaintiff has testified affirmatively that her encounters with Detective

Large were not consensual and that she was personally repulsed by Detective Large, but felt forced

to engage in these activities as a result of his position of authority. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane

Doe-3 Depo. at Page 71, Line 10 - Page 72, Line 5).

In July of 2015, Defendants received yet another independent report of criminal sexual

3
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 4 of 25

conduct made against Detective Large. As part of the investigation, it was revealed through a

data extraction of Detective Larges cellular phone a cellular phone issued by and paid for by

these Defendants using Cellebrite software that he had engaged in inappropriate contact with

Plaintiff Jane Doe-3 during the course and scope of his employment. Importantly, no further action

was taken by Defendants until November of 2015, at which time the case was turned over to the

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. (Confidential Exhibit 2, Nov. 4, 2015 Letter to

SLED). This delay resulted in continued, unwanted contact by Detective Large with Jane Doe-3

under the guise of his authority as an officer through December of 2015. On September 15, 2016,

the Horry County Grand Jury indicted Detective Large on eleven (11) counts of criminal sexual

conduct and misconduct in office. Two of the eleven accounts specifically address his alleged

criminal interactions with the Plaintiff Jane Doe-3. (Confidential Exhibit 3, S.C. Attorney

Generals Arraignment Packet at Pages 10-13).

As set forth below, the facts and evidence show that the Defendants, as well as multiple

supervisory employees who have been named individually, had actual notice of Detective Larges

propensity to abuse his position of power; actual knowledge of Detective Large having previously

used this position of power to form unconstitutional sexual relationships with female victims of

crime; and specific knowledge of Detective Larges unconstitutional, sexualized contact with

Plaintiff Jane Doe-3.

ARGUMENT

I. DEFENDANTS MOTION MUST BE DENIED FOR FAILURE TO

COMLY WITH FED. R. CIV. P. 56
Initially, the Plaintiff contends that this Court must deny Defendants motion for summary

judgment purely on procedural grounds. Rule 56(a) provides that the court shall grant summary

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

4
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 5 of 25

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ. Pro. 56(a). In order to make this

showing, however, the movant must comply with the rules governing these motions. If a movant

contends that a particular fact cannot be disputed, he must make an affirmative showing as set

forth in Rule 56(c):

(c) PROCEDURES. (1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact
cannot be [] disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including Depositions,

documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials;

or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of
a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.

Fed. R.Civ. Pro. 56(c).

The Defendants have wholly failed to comply with this rule. Defendants have provided an

alleged Statement of the Case which fails to cite particular portions of the record to support the

facts asserted. Most of the paragraphs have no citations to the record at all. In fact, Defendants

virtually concede that there is an issue of material fact with regard to two specific areas actual

notice provided to the Defendants in 2003 following a report by Detective Larges father-in-law

that he was having inappropriate contact with female crime victims and the 2014 report by Jane

Doe-1 that she had been sexually assaulted by Detective Large before his contact with Plaintiff

Jane Doe-3. (ECF No. 43-1 at Pages 7-8). However, rather than complying with Rule 56(c) and

explaining why these two specific instances do not provide actual notice, Defendants attempt to

reserve the right to more fully respond to this issue in the future. (ECF No. 43-1 at FN 7, FN

8). Such an approach is not in compliance with the requirements of a moving party set forth in

Rule 56(c), and Defendants motion should be denied on this basis alone.

5
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 6 of 25

II. A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS AS TO WHETHER DETECTIVE LARGE

WAS ACTING WITHIN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT
The Plaintiff asserts that there is an issue of material fact as to whether Detective Large

was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the assaults upon the Plaintiff

which can only be resolved by the finder-of-fact. The evidence of record indicates that Detective

Large came in contact with the Plaintiff in 2015 in his official capacity as a detective when he

responded to a report of criminal domestic violence against the Plaintiff in January of 2015. Supra,

(Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 33, Lines 16-21). Thereafter, Detective Large

promised to assist the Plaintiff in obtaining 40 hours of supervised law enforcement job shadowing

which she understood to be necessary to obtain her license to serve as a private investigator.

(Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 40, Lines 5-8; Page 40, Line 22 Page 41, Line

3). Under the guise of job shadowing, Detective Large took the Plaintiff to the home of another

law enforcement officer where he coerced her to engage in the sexual fetish catfight noted above.

Detective Large displayed his gun and badge in route to this purported job shadowing appointment.

(Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 42, Lines 18-22).

In the months that followed, Detective Large relied on his position as a detective with the

Horry County Police Department to gain access to the Plaintiffs home in order to carry on his

abuse. Plaintiff testified that she was under the belief that Detective Large was on duty during the

many encounters within her home, as he always displayed his gun and badge during these terrifying

encounters. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 55, Line 22-Page 56, Line 3).

Detective Large made inappropriate, sexualized contact with the Plaintiff using his county cellular

phone, paid for and issued by these Defendants. (Confidential Exhibit 4, Jane Doe-2 IA

Investigation, Page HCPD 000144). When asked why the Plaintiff did not simply deny Detective

Large access to her home, she noted that his role as an officer as well as his county issued gun and

6
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 7 of 25

badge were the only reason she did not deny access to her home. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane

Doe-3 Depo. at Page 71, Lines 20-25). When asked why she did not report Detective Large to the

police, she noted that he was the police. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 72,

Lines 6-9). When asked how other members of the police were supposed to have known of his

inappropriate contact, the Plaintiff pointed out that Detective Large admitted that his phone had

been downloaded by the police agency, or cell brighted with the use of law enforcement

Cellebrite data extraction software, and that his contacts with the Plaintiff on this police-issued

phone had to have been discovered by his fellow officers. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3

Depo. at Page 72, Lines 10-19). Plaintiff noted that she deemed Detective Larges threats against

her family to be credible due to his position and tenure within the department, which she thought

to be the reason that the complaints she eventually made to other members of the Horry County

Police Department were not taken seriously. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page

124, Lines 20-25; Page 125, Lines 4-9).

The South Carolina Supreme Court has noted that [w]hat is within the scope of

employment may be determined by implication from the circumstances of the case. Hamilton v.

Miller, 301 S.C. 45, 48, 389 S.E.2d 652, 653 (1990) (citing Hancock v. Aiken Mills, 180 S.C. 93,

185 S.E. 188 (1936)). Any doubt as to whether the servant was acting within the scope of his

authority when he injured a third person must be resolved against the master, at least to the extent

of requiring that the question be submitted to the jury. Wade v. Berkeley Cty., 330 S.C. 311, 319,

498 S.E.2d 684, 688 (Ct. App. 1998) (citing Adams v. South Carolina Power Co., 200 S.C. 438,

21 S.E.2d 17 (1942)). The record indicates that it was solely though his position of power with

the Defendants that Detective Large came in contact with the Plaintiff; gained access to her home;

and successfully intimidated the Plaintiff to continuing to have unwanted contact with him. All

7
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 8 of 25

contact derived from his position as Senior Detective with the Horry County Police Department,

and occurred primarily while he was on the clock, displaying his gun and badge. It was only as a

result of the power bestowed upon to Detective Large by the Defendants and allowed to remain

in place, unchecked, despite actual notice of his sexual contact with other female victims of crime

that the ordeal was allowed to continue.

Finally, Defendants take the position that if the Plaintiffs allegations are true, that the

criminal nature of Detective Larges behavior would take all of his acts outside the scope of his

employment. The Defendants, however, deny that any abusive behavior took place.1 (ECF No. 4,

12, 13). While Defendants may be entitled to a special interrogatory on the issue of course and

scope of employment at the trial of this matter, contrary to the Defendants position the record

before the Court does not justify summary judgment solely because the nature of Detective Larges

disputed actions was so egregious as to take them outside the scope of his employment and thereby

absolve those within the department who had actual knowledge of his behavior as set forth below.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants motion for summary

judgment with regard to course and scope of employment be denied.

III. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PLACE DEFENDANTS ON

ACTUAL NOTICE OF DETECTIVE LARGES DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR
TOWARD FEMALE CRIME VICTIMS PRIOR TO HIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONTACT WITH JANE DOE-3

In addition to the evidence which indicates that Detective Large was acting within the

course and scope of his employment at the time of the sexual assaults upon the Plaintiff, the record

is replete with evidence placing Defendants on actual and constructive notice of Detective Larges

1
The South Carolina Attorney Generals Office and Horry County Grand Jury disagree. As stated
above, on September 15, 2016, the Horry County Grand Jury found sufficient probable cause to
indict Detective Large on one count of Criminal Sexual Conduct and one count of Misconduct in
Office based on his interactions with Plaintiff Jane Doe-3.
8
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 9 of 25

unconstitutional, sexualized behavior toward female crime victims and his inappropriate contact

directly with Jane Doe-3. As correctly recited within Defendants motion for summary judgment,

the South Carolina Supreme Court has held that [u]nder certain circumstances, an employer is

under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control an employee acting outside the scope of his

employment. Degenhart v. Knights of Columbus, 309 S.C. 114, 116, 420 S.E.2d 495, 496 (1992).

The Plaintiff asserts that each of these conditions are met in this case. More specifically,

South Carolina Courts have held that an employer may be liable for negligent supervision if the

employee intentionally harms another when the employee: (1) is upon the premises of the

employer, or is using a chattel of the employer, (2) the employer knows or has reason to know that

he has the ability to control his employee, and (3) the employer knows or should know of the

necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. Moore by Moore v. Berkeley Cty. Sch.

Dist., 326 S.C. 584, 590, 486 S.E.2d 9, 12 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing Degenhart, 309 S.C. at 115-17,

420 S.E.2d at 496). In the instant case, Detective Large utilized key chattels of his employer during

each and every interaction with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff testified that Detective Larges county

issued gun and badge were the only reason that she provided him with initial and continued access

to her home. (Confidential Exhibit 1, Jane Doe-3 Depo. at Page 55, Line 22-Page 56, Line 3; Page

71, Lines 20-25).

With regard to the second prong of the analysis, the Defendants have set forth no evidence

to challenge the fact that they had the ability to control their employee, Detective Large. Finally,

there is uncontroverted evidence in the record to support that the Defendants were on notice of the

need for exercising control over the conduct of Detective Large dating back over ten years prior

to the assault of the Plaintiff. As set forth below, a minimum of seven, independent instances of

9
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 10 of 25

notice continued through the time period of Detective Larges ongoing abuse of the Plaintiff

between January and December or 2015.

a. 2003 Correspondence from Detective Larges Father-in-Law

There is uncontroverted evidence in the record to support that Defendants were on notice

of the need for exercising control over the unconstitutional conduct of Detective Large dating back

over ten years prior to the assault of Jane Doe-3. Defendants have produced correspondence from

the Horry County Police Department files dating back to 2003 in which they were made

specifically aware of concerns regarding Detective Larges inappropriate contact with crime

victims. The correspondence, which was addressed to Lieutenant (and later Deputy Chief) W.

Scott Rutherford and which copies Chief Goward, Internal Affairs Investigator Captain Charlotte

Stephens, and Horry County Council Chairman T. Cooper, among others, follows up on a meeting

that the author, Detective Larges father-in-law, had with members of the Horry County Police

Department to voice concerns. The letter highlights several key omissions from the minute

meetings, including allegations that Detective Large had spent several months nurturing a crime

victim he had been tasked to investigate and had moved her into his home while his wife was out

of town on business. (Confidential Exhibit 5, 2003 Correspondence). The victim identified in the

correspondence contacted the Horry County Police Department on June 1, 2002, to report that she

had been raped while under the influence of prescription drugs. Detective Large was assigned to

investigate the case, which was closed as unfounded two days later on June 3, 2002. (Confidential

Exhibit 6, 2002 Incident Report). The 2003 correspondence further states that Detective Large

had an unlimited supply of county vehicles which he uses for stalking purposes, and that Detective

Large had been tipped off that that a meeting between Detective Larges in-laws and Detective

Larges supervisors was to take place. (Confidential Exhibit 5, 2003 Correspondence).

10
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 11 of 25

This correspondence places the Defendants on actual notice of Detective Larges

propensity to abuse his position of power, and more specifically, to use this position of power to

form inappropriate relationships with female victims of crime. Despite this knowledge,

Defendants did not initiate an Internal Affairs investigation or investigation of any sort into the

allegations or Detective Larges behavior. See (Confidential Exhibit 7, Confidential Deposition

of Charlotte Stephens, Page 33, Lines 1-8). Moreover, Jane Doe-3s law enforcement expert, Dr.

Timothy Maher, has specifically opined that the report of Detective Larges father-in-law required

an official investigation by the Office of Professional Standards/Internal Affairs or the South

Carolina Law Enforcement Division. Instead, he notes that the report was actively concealed,

demonstrating indifference toward the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff. (Confidential Exhibit

8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher). Under these circumstances, a reasonable factfinder could

certainly determine that Defendants inaction rises to the level of deliberate indifference to or tacit

authorization of the alleged offensive practices by Detective Large.

b. Jane Doe-1 in-house investigation March 2014

On December 24, 2013, a woman identified by the pseudonym Jane Doe-1 to protect her

anonymity contacted the Horry County Police Department to report that she was a victim of a

sexual assault. Specifically, she reported that she was held at gun point while the assailant

attempted to force her to perform oral sex. On December 27, 2013, Jane Doe-1 was contacted by

Detective Large after he was assigned to investigate her December 24, 2014, report of sexual

assault. Over the course of the next six (6) months, Detective Large engaged in a course of

coercive behavior, unwanted sexual advances, and sexual assault. On one occasion, Jane Doe-1

was sexually assaulted by Detective Large inside of his Horry County issued police vehicle en

route home from a court hearing. (Confidential Exhibit 9, Confidential Deposition of Jane Doe-1,

11
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 12 of 25

Page 70, Lines 9-11). On a separate occasion, Jane Doe-1 was sexual assaulted by Detective Large

on the front porch of her home. (Confidential Exhibit 9, Jane Doe-1 Depo. at Page 82, Lines 21-

Page 83, Lines 1-6). According to Jane Doe-1, Detective Large utilized his Horry County issued

vehicle and visually displayed his Horry County Police Department badge and police issued

firearm during his interactions with her. (Confidential Exhibit 9, Jane Doe-1 Depo at Page 67,

Lines 6-13). On September 15, 2016, the Horry County Grand Jury indicted Detective Large on

one charge of Misconduct in Office based upon his interactions with Jane Doe-1. (Confidential

Exhibit 3, S.C. Attorney Generals Arraignment Packet, Pages 8-9).

On March 13, 2014, an in-house, off-the-books investigation was conducted at the

request of two of Detective Larges supervisors, Defendant Captain Dale Buchanan and Defendant

Leuitenant Chip Squires. The investigation was based upon reports that Large was romantically

involved with Jane Doe-1, a victim of a sexual assault whose case had previously been closed by

Detective Large as unfounded. This came to the attention of the Defendants through Will Lynch

of the county-wide Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU), who reported that a confidential informant had

reported Detective Large was frequenting Jane Doe-1s residence, a home that was being actively

investigated by the DEU as a suspected drug manufacturing location. (Confidential Exhibit 10,

Confidential Deposition of William Squires, Page 39, Lines 10-22) (Confidential Exhibit 11, June

2, 2014 Officers Report).

Despite Defendants actual knowledge that Detective Large was frequenting the home of

an alleged sexual assault victim whose case he was recently assigned to investigate which had

since been personally closed by him as unfounded and who was under active investigation as a

suspected manufacturer of narcotics Defendant Squires authorized the off-the-books

investigation yet refrained from questioning Detective Large; questioning Jane Doe-1; questioning

12
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 13 of 25

the confidential informant; or reporting the complaint to the Office of Professional

Standards/Internal Affairs. (Confidential Exhibit 10, Squires Depo. at Page 40, Lines 24 Page

41, Lines 1-6; Page 42, Lines 20-22). Instead, Defendants Squires and Buchanan directed Lt. Jack

Stewart to place a GPS monitoring device on Detective Larges patrol vehicle. Defendant Squires

testified that during his tenure as a law enforcement officer with the Horry County Police

Department, this was the one and only occasion he had even heard of during which a GPS

monitoring device was surreptitiously placed on a fellow officers police vehicle. (Confidential

Exhibit 10, Squires Depo. at Page 43, Lines 11-18).

When asked about the botched, in house investigation, Defendant Buchanan testified that

he later informed Defendant Deputy Chief Rutherford and Defendant Chief Rhodes of the report

from the confidential informant, and that Defendant Rutherford was upset that he was not informed

prior to the placement of the GPS monitor on Detective Larges vehicle. (Confidential Exhibit 12,

Confidential Deposition of Dale Buchanan, Page 59, Lines 18-25). Defendant Buchanan also

testified that this was the first time in his forty (40) years as a law enforcement officer that he had

directed the placement of GPS monitor device on any officers patrol vehicle. (Confidential

Exhibit 12, Buchanan Depo. at Page 65, Lines 5-11). Defendant Buchanan further testified that it

would be inappropriate for an officer who was tasked to investigate a sexual assault case to

maintain regular contact with the victim after the case was closed. (Confidential Exhibit 12,

Buchanan Depo. at Page 61, Lines 13-21). Despite his knowledge regarding Detective Larges

purported conduct, Defendant Buchanan also testified that he did not interview anyone and had no

knowledge of anyone else doing so. (Confidential Exhibit 12, Buchanan Depo. at Page 62, Lines

3-13).

When asked about the botched investigation, an investigation which could have prevented

13
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 14 of 25

the sexual assault upon Jane Doe-3, Jane Doe-4, and a multitude of other women from taking place,

Defendant Rutherford testified that a romantic relationship between an officer and a victim the

officer has been assigned to investigate is not only impermissible conduct, it could be considered

criminal. (Confidential Exhibit 13, Confidential Deposition of Scott Rutherford, Page 101, Lines

7-17). When asked if this report was considered a warning sign of potential abuses of power by

Detective Large, Defendant Rutherford conceded that there should have been some follow up

investigation. (Confidential Exhibit 13, Rutherford Depo. at Page 100, Lines 17-25). While

Defendants assert that the GPS monitoring device was placed on Detective Larges patrol vehicle

for a period of two months, no records have been produced identifying the findings of the GPS

monitor and there are conflicting reports in the Internal Affairs report whether the GPS monitor

was placed for two weeks or two months. That aside, Detective Large testified that he was made

aware of the placement of the GPS monitor on his vehicle, which alerted him to the in-house

investigation. (Confidential Exhibit 14, Deposition of T. Allen Large, Page 225, Lines 23 Page

226, Lines 1-8).

Plaintiffs law enforcement expert, Dr. Timothy Maher, is of the opinion that the report of

Detective Larges visits to Jane Doe-1s residence should have been formally investigated by the

Office of Professional Standards or the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. He further

opines that this type of investigation should never be conducted by a subordinates supervisors.

This case provides a prime example as to why this should not occur, as Detective Large testified

that he was informed of the placement of the GPS monitoring device by his fellow officers thereby

placing him on notice of the investigation. (Confidential Exhibit 14, Large Depo. at Page 225, Line

23 Page 226, Lines 8). Dr. Maher further opines that the actions of the Horry County Police

Department, particularly Captain Buchanan and Lt. Squires, in actively concealing this report

14
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 15 of 25

demonstrated a reckless disregard for the rights of any other citizens who might come into contact

with Detective Large, including Jane Doe-3 and Jane Doe-4. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert

Report of Dr. Timothy Maher).

As the above-cited deposition passages make clear, there was widespread knowledge

throughout the department, particularly with Detective Larges supervisors including Defendants

Buchanan and Squires, as early as March of 2014 that Detective Large was exhibiting predatory

behavior toward female victims of crimes. This behavior was improperly investigated, which led

to Detective Large continuing to prey on Jane Doe-1 and to subsequently prey on the Plaintiff and

Jane Doe-4.

c. Jane Doe-1 Internal Affairs Investigation June 2014

A formal Internal Affairs investigation took place in June of 2014 after Jane Doe-1

reported Detective Larges sexual misconduct directly to the Horry County Police Department

after her arrest for drug related charges. This investigation was closed as unfounded on June 17,

2014, at the direction of Chief of Police Saundra Rhodes. While the investigation of Detective

Large in the matter of Jane Doe-1 was classified as unfounded by Chief Rhodes, the investigation

should have raised many serious indicators/red flags suggesting Detective Large was involved in

an inappropriate relationship with Jane Doe-1. A factfinder could certainly determine that these

indicators placed Detective Larges supervisors on actual and/or constructive notice that he was

preying on the women that he was meeting through his work as a detective. According to Dr.

Maher, these activities place a reasonable supervisory officer on notice that Detective Large was

abusing his power, and that this abuse of power was most likely related to his desire for sexual

gain. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher). The red flags/indicators

identified in the Internal Affairs investigation include the following:

15
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 16 of 25

1. Detective Large admits that he had paid for Jane Doe-1s prescription medications on
several occasions;

2. Corroborated testimony that Detective Large was frequenting Jane Doe-1s residence (a
residence which had now been confirmed to have been a location where narcotics were
being manufactured) for months after her case was closed as unfounded;

3. The presence of a Facebook message dated January 18, 2014, where Jane Doe-1 reports to
Defendants employee, that he (Large) had attempted to touch her inappropriately, and

4. The presence of cell phone records further corroborating Jane Doe-1s report that Detective
Large had numerous cellphone calls to Jane Doe-1s cell phone. The log shows that there
were 79 outgoing calls to Jane Doe-1s cellphone from Detective Larges cellphone from
December 23, 2013 to May 15, 2014 (this does not include any calls during the time-period
of January 22, 2014 to February 15, 2014 due to a deficiency in the records).

See (Confidential Exhibit 15, Jane Doe-1 IA Investigatory Report) (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert

Report of Dr. Timothy Maher) (Confidential Exhibit 16, Facebook Message from Jane Doe-1 to

Defendant Horry Countys employee).

Although these Defendants attempt to highlight in their briefs that this Internal Affairs

investigation was eventually closed as unfounded, the attached affidavit of Internal

Affairs/Professional Standards Investigator Matthew Darrah provides context. In the affidavit,

Investigator Darrah testifies that Defendant Rhodes prevented him from further investigating the

matter and essentially directed him to base the outcome of the investigation solely on whether

Detective Large confessed to any wrongdoing. (Confidential Exhibit 17, Affidavit of Matthew

Darrah, 4-11). Moreover, contrary to counsels assertions, Defendant Rhodes testified that she

was the only person capable of making a finding regarding investigations into employee

misconduct. (Confidential Exihibt 18, Confidential Deposition of Saundra Rhodes, Page 44, lines

23 Page 45, lines 1-3). Consistent with her actual deposition testimony, Defendant Rhodes

approved the findings by signing the Status of Complaint form on July 31, 2014. (Confidential

Exhibit15, Jane Doe-1 IA Investigatory Report).

16
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 17 of 25

According to Dr. Maher, the actions of the Horry County Police Department, including

Chief Saundra Rhodes who reviewed and approved the report, demonstrates a reckless disregard

for the rights of any other citizens who might come into contact with Detective Large, including

the Plaintiff. Dr. Maher further opines that the failure to investigate Detective Larges behavior

resulted in his continued access to and continued abuse of other crime victims, including the

Plaintiff. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher).

d. Report of Jane Doe-4s mother winter of 2014

The next report in the series of troubling reports came from the mother of Jane Doe-4. Jane

Doe-4 came into contact with Detective Large in the fall of 2014 before she had turned twenty-

one years old. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Confidential Deposition of Jane Doe-4, Page 21, Lines

19-23; Page 6, Lines 8-9). At the time of Detective Larges initial contact with the Jane Doe-4,

she was actively addicted to heroin. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 30, Lines

7-11). Detective Large contacted her on her phone, and identified himself as Detective Large with

the Horry County Police Department. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 24,

Lines 1-4). Large indicated that he needed to speak with the Plaintiff in person, and showed up at

her residence shortly thereafter. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 24, Lines 5-

13). During the initial meeting, Detective Large made it clear that he had accessed the police

database, and discussed her prior arrests and reported history of childhood sexual abuse, which

had previously been investigated by the Horry County Police Department. (Confidential Exhibit

19, Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 27, Line 12 Page 28, Line 2). The following day, Detective Large

again visited Jane Doe-4s residence. On this visit, he entered her bedroom. Jane Doe-4 testified

that Detective Large noticed her heroin needles on a bookshelf. He then placed his service weapon

directly next to the heroin needles and forced her to submit to oral sex. (Confidential Exhibit 19,

17
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 18 of 25

Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 34, Line 1 Page 35, Line 21). In the months that followed, Detective

Large regularly contacted Jane Doe-4 about participating in fights with other women; touched her

inappropriately on multiple occasions; and took her to purchase heroin which she carried in his

police vehicle. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 36, Lines 13-17; Page 39, Lines

3-13; Page 43, Line 24 Page 44, Line 9).

One evening Detective Large picked Jane Doe-4 up in his police vehicle from her mothers

residence. Instead of coming to the door, he called Jane Doe-4 on her mobile phone and told her

to come outside. Her mother requested that Detective Large come inside, introduce himself, and

explain his intentions with her daughter. Detective Large entered the residence and informed her

that he wanted to help Jane Doe-4, but could not provide any examples of how he was actually

going to help her. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Confidential Deposition of Jane Doe-4s Mother, Page

76, Lines 2-20; Page 78, Lines 7-14). Her mother became suspicious when her daughter returned

home from visiting with Detective Large visibly high on drugs. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Jane

Doe-4 Mother Depo. at Page 55, Lines 9-19). On another occasion, Detective Large picked her up

from her mothers residence, but had not returned her home by 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. Her mother

then contacted Detective Large directly on his cellphone to inquire into her daughters

whereabouts. Detective Large informed Jane Doe-4s mother that he had dropped her off a private

residence to clean despite the late hour. When she inquired into the location of the residence,

Detective Large could not provide her with a credible answer. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Jane Doe-

4 Mother Depo. at Page 51, Lines 15 Page 52, Line 20). She thereafter contacted the Horry

County Police Department and asked to speak with Detective Larges supervisor. (Confidential

Exhibit 20, Jane Doe-4 Mother Depo. at Page 52, Lines 20 Page 53, Line 1). She spoke with a

male officer who identified himself as Detective Larges supervisor. (Confidential Exhibit 20,

18
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 19 of 25

Jane Doe-4 Mother Depo. at Page 53, Lines 21-25). She then reported that Detective Large had

been picking up her daughter and bringing her home high on drugs. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Jane

Doe-4 Mother Depo. at Page 54, Lines 16-25). She expressed concerns that he was either trying

to use her for a drug sting or liked her. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Jane Doe-4 Mother Depo. at

Page 55, Lines 9-19). Detective Larges supervisor then took her name and informed her that he

would look into it. (Confidential Exhibit 20, Jane Doe-4 Mother Depo. at Page 55, Lines 20-23).

She never heard back from anyone at the Horry County Police Department. (Confidential Exhibit

20, Jane Doe-4 Mother Depo. at Page 57, Lines 2-4). Jane Doe-4 entered a drug rehab facility in

February of 2015, and did not hear from Detective Large once her cellular telephone was

disconnected. (Confidential Exhibit 19, Jane Doe-4 Depo. at Page 54, Lines 3-16).

As the above-cited deposition passages make clear, there was widespread knowledge

throughout the department, particularly with Detective Larges supervisors, that Detective Large

was exhibiting predatory behavior toward female victims of crime. This behavior was improperly

investigated and concealed, which led to Detective Large continuing to prey on female victims of

crimes including the Plaintiff and Jane Doe-4 who had not yet been abused by Detective Large at

this point in time.

e. Officers Report - May 2015

On May 29, 2015, Sgt. Thomas Delpercio reported a decline in the performance of

Detective Allen Large in a memorandum directed to Defendant Buchanan. (Confidential Exhibit

21, May 29, 2015 Officers Report). This report identifies several problems areas that, according

to Dr. Maher, necessitated corrective action beyond a simple reprimand. (Confidential Exhibit 8,

Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher). For example, it was reported that since January of 2015,

Detective Large was closing case files with little to no case work being documented, that many of

19
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 20 of 25

his investigative reports are usually only one paragraph in length, and that he had improperly

closed several investigations. (Confidential Exhibit 21, May 29, 2015 Officers Report). More

importantly, the May 29, 2015 report also identifies an encounter involving a witness in a criminal

sexual assault case where Detective Large loses control and makes threats during an escort without

the assistance of uniform patrol. (Confidential Exhibit 21, May 29, 2015 Officers Report). The

witness in the criminal sexual assault case that Sgt. Delpercio identified was actually a victim who

Detective Large was assigned to investigate on May 19, 2015. Detective Large had closed her file

on May 28, 2015 as unfounded. (Confidential Exhibit 22, Dec. 5, 2015 Statement of Troy Allen

Large). It is further reported that this encounter was videotaped, went viral on Facebook, and

was reported to Defendants Rhodes, Squires, Rutherford and Buchanan. In response to these

findings, the decision was made to take no immediate action but for Detective Large to simply

decompress over the weekend. (Confidential Exhibit 21, May 29, 2015 Officers Report).

According to Dr. Maher, this report was another example of Detective Large continuing to form

inappropriate interpersonal relationships with female crime victims whose cases had previously

been closed as unfounded. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher).

f. Horry County Disciplinary Report June 2015

According to the Horry County Disciplinary report authored by Defendant Rutherford

dated June 24, 2015, Detective Large received a written reprimand and was referred to Employee

Assistance Program for losing control and acting in an unprofessional and unsafe manner during

the course and scope of his employment while interacting with Jane Doe-2. (Confidential Exhibit

23, June 24, 2015 Horry County Disciplinary Report). In connection with the written reprimand,

Defendant Rutherford authored a memo stating his desire for Detective Large to return to work as

soon as possible but without new assignments, further suggesting Defendant Rutherford

20
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 21 of 25

recognized a pattern of inappropriate behavior by Detective Large. (Confidential Exhibit 24,

Memorandum of Scott Rutherford). According to Dr. Maher, the Defendants failure to take the

appropriate corrective action allowed Detective Large access to other crime victims including the

Plaintiff. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher).

g. Report of Jane Doe-2

The final Internal Affairs investigation into the conduct of Detective Large prior to his

termination and arrest was opened on July 13, 2015. On July 4, 2015, Jane Doe-2 complained that

Detective Large had behaved inappropriately while investigating a May 2015 report of criminal

sexual conduct in which she was a victim. Specifically, on May 19, 2015 Jane Doe-2 reported to

Horry County Police Department that she was kidnapped and raped by a known assailant. Jane

Doe-2 alleged that while Detective Large was supposedly investigating her case, he offered to pay

her to let him watch her fight other women and frequently offered to pay her to perform oral sex.

She also reported that Detective Large repeatedly told her that he wanted to watch her perform

oral sex on other law enforcement officers. (Confidential Exhibit 4, Jane Doe-2 IA Investigative

Report). Jane Doe-2 later reported that Detective Large coerced her into performing a sex act.

(Confidential Exhibit 25, Confidential Deposition of Jane Doe-2, Page 175, Lines 14 Page 176,

Line 1).

As part of the investigation, it was revealed through a forensic examination of Detective

Larges cellular phone issued by and paid for by Defendants using Cellebrite software, that

Detective Large had engaged in inappropriate contact with Plaintiff Jane Doe-3 during the course

and scope of his employment. Not only was Jane Doe-3s name revealed, Jane Doe-3 was also

identified as a victim of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature that Detective Large

was previously assigned to investigate. (Confidential Exhibit 4, Jane Doe-2 IA Investigative

21
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 22 of 25

Report, Page HCPD 000144).

On July 30, 2015, Detective Large submitted to a polygraph examination. The examination

revealed deception when Detective Large was questioned about asking Jane Doe-2 for oral sex,

when questioned about asking other women to participate in fighting, and when questioned about

asking other women to watch them give oral sex to other police officers. (Confidential Exhibit 4,

Jane Doe-2 IA Investigative Report, Page HCPD 000141).

According to the affidavit of Investigator Darrah, after receiving information that there

may be additional victims of Detective Large, he informed Defendant Rutherford of his desire to

identify any additional victims. Investigator Darrah states that he was later informed by Defendant

Rutherford that after additional discussion with Chief Rhodes on the subject, Investigator Darrah

was to cease and desist in his efforts to gather information about additional victims. (Confidential

Exhibit 17, Affidavit of Matthew Darrah, 16-17). Defendant Rutherford later confirmed this

conversation via email. (Confidential Exhibit 26, Cease and Desist Email, HCPD 00007).

Rutherford acknowledged in his deposition that by ceasing to gather further information, this may

have prevented the Horry County Police Department from identifying other victims of Detective

Large. (Confidential Exhibit 13, Rutherford Depo. at Page 139, Line 24 Page 140, Line 7). He

also testified that concealing the identity of these additional victims could have resulted in

Detective Large remaining unpunished for the alleged crimes he committed. See (Confidential

Exhibit 13, Rutherford Depo. at Page 140, Lines 8-15).

Jane Doe-2s allegations of misconduct against Detective Large were sustained on August

19, 2015. No further action was taken by Defendants until November of 2015 at which time the

case was turned over to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, resulting in continued

contact by Detective Large under the guise of his authority as an officer with the Plaintiff through

22
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 23 of 25

December of 2015. (Confidential Exhibit 2, Nov. 4, 2015 Letter to SLED). On September 15,

2016, a grand jury indicted Detective Large on eleven (11) counts of criminal sexual conduct and

misconduct in office. As stated above, two of the eleven accounts specifically address his criminal

interactions with Jane Doe-3.

h. Despite knowledge of widespread misconduct, Horry County Police Department has

no policies, procedures, and training addressing police sexual misconduct.

In a related case, the Defendants were compelled to produce copies of all citizen complaints

pertaining to unwanted sexual advances and/or sexual assaults by members of the Horry County

Police Department during the time period of January 1, 2006 to September 26, 2016. (Exhibit 27,

Order Granting Motion to Compel). The compelled discovery responses identify thirteen

independent internal investigations, excluding the above-referenced investigations pertaining to

Detective Large, into complaints of sexual misconduct by officers of the Horry County Police

Department towards members of the public. The response does not include citizen reports that

were not investigated by the Office of Professional Standards/Internal Affairs. Dr. Maher had an

opportunity to review these investigations, and has opined that many of the cases of officer sexual

misconduct were not properly addressed. For example, the officers were often allowed to resign

in lieu of termination, allowing these officers to transfer to other police departments without record

of their misconduct. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher).

Plaintiff has also received copies of all policies and procedures of the Horry County Police

Department in place during the time period in question none of which address sexual misconduct

in contravention of national accepted standards. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr.

Timothy Maher). According to Dr. Maher, Defendants failure to address the issue of sexual

misconduct within the department, through training, policies and procedures, or otherwise,

contributed to and increased the likelihood of sexual misconduct among officers employed by the

23
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 24 of 25

Defendants. (Confidential Exhibit 8, Expert Report of Dr. Timothy Maher).

In their brief in support of summary judgment, Defendants assert that Plaintiff does not

possess any admissible relevant evidence establishing knowledge of these Defendants of specific

prior improper conduct by Large similar to that alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint that was known

by these Defendants prior to allegations asserted by Jane Doe 2 in July 2015 (ECF No. 43.1,

Page 8). As set forth above, this characterization of the facts is misleading at best. The record

reflects that there was widespread knowledge of Detective Larges predatory behavior, particularly

amongst his supervisors, which was actively concealed and led to his continued predatory behavior

towards female victims of crime, including the Plaintiff.

IV. The Public Duty Rule Is Inapplicable to the Plaintiffs Claims

With regard to the Defendants position regarding the public duty rule, the Defendants

concede that the public duty rule is not applicable to the Plaintiffs specific claims against

Detective Allen Large nor to her claims which relate to the negligent supervision of Detective

Large by the Defendants. See (ECF No. 43.1, Page 14). The additional portions of the Plaintiffs

complaint cited by the Defendants which set forth specific instances of negligence simply provide

additional detail regarding the manner in which the Defendants failed to discharge their duties to

the Plaintiff under the common law. The South Carolina Supreme Court has noted that [w]hen,

and only when, the plaintiff relies upon a statute as creating the duty does a doctrine known as the

public duty rule come into play. Arthurs ex rel. Estate of Munn v. Aiken Cty., 346 S.C. 97,

103, 551 S.E.2d 579, 582 (2001). However, where the Plaintiff relies upon common law duties

arising under the Tort Claims Act, the public duty rule has no application. As the South Carolina

Supreme Court has clarified, the TCA does not create causes of action, but removes the common

law bar of sovereign immunity in certain circumstances. Arthurs ex rel. Estate of Munn v. Aiken

24
 4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47 Page 25 of 25

Cty., 346 S.C. 97, 105, 551 S.E.2d 579, 583 (2001). As such, the public duty rule has no

application in this case.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Plaintiff respectfully request that the Defendants

Motion for Summary Judgment be denied in its entirety.

EVANS MOORE, LLC

s/ James B. Moore III

James B. Moore III, Fed ID # 10844
Scott C. Evans, Fed ID # 10874
121 Screven Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
(843) 995-5000
(843) 527-4128 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Georgetown, South Carolina

November 8, 2017

25
4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47-1 Page 1 of 1

Confidential
Exhibit 1-26

Submitted to the Court for In Camera Review in Connection with

Motion to Seal Filed Simultaneously Herewith
4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47-2 Page 1 of 2
4:16-cv-02576-BHH Date Filed 11/08/17 Entry Number 47-2 Page 2 of 2