SAN DIEGO — Over the course of the past year, Arthur Scott, a Black San Diego Police Officer who has worked for the department for 26 years, has been passed up for promotion after promotion, demoted to a job where he "folds letters" that get sent to hit-and-run victims, forbidden to drive a police cruiser, accused of taking money to testify against the department in racial discrimination cases, and is now the subject of a criminal investigation by the City Attorney's Office that he calls a sham.
Those allegations and much more are included in Scott's new lawsuit against the city of San Diego for retaliating against him for reporting on racial misconduct by fellow officers.
This is not the first time that Scott says he has been targeted for reporting racism within SDPD's rank and file.
In 2015, Scott sued the city for what he believed was retaliation after he reported what he felt was racial discrimination, namely complaints of an image in SDPD's locker room depicting then-President Obama as an African tribal chief with the word, "Obamacare" under it, as well as a cartoon from 1909 that was used during an SDPD training class that showed SDPD's first Black Officer, Frank McCarter, as an ape chasing after Chinese men.
In that case, the jury ruled in favor of the City of San Diego in February 2017 but SDPD did stop using the 1909 cartoon in future training.
This new lawsuit is the latest example of reported racism inside the department and a pledge by many officers inside to protect fellow officers regardless of the accusations against them.
CBS 8's investigative team reported on many examples where officers were found to have made racist comments, targeted Black citizens who were not guilty of crimes, posted racially insensitive content and in the case of one officer who was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, yelled, "I kill [Black people] for a living" to an older Black man at a motel in Old Town.
The Latest Lawsuit
On January 31, Scott filed his latest lawsuit against the city and the department that he has worked for over the past 19 years.
Similar to his first complaint, Scott alleges constant retaliation for his reporting racially insensitive misconduct by officers. He says he was demoted and later accused of taking money from attorneys who represented other police officers for testifying in their cases.
Reads the lawsuit, "Defendant(s) committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, oppressively, and with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice or despicable conduct. Alternatively, Defendant’s wrongful conduct was carried out with a conscious disregard for [Scott’s] rights.
Then, in 2019, a female Black officer submitted a complaint after a White officer touched her backside during work. Her complaint, however, was not properly documented, according to his lawsuit.
After the female officer approached Scott with his concerns, he took it to a Lieutenant to make sure the complaint was processed.
In the months that followed, Scott again approached his superiors with complaints about a cardboard cutout of rap star Rick Ross that two Southeastern Sergeants placed into the lineup room.
The cutout, as first reported by CBS 8 in its investigation into racial misconduct investigations, featured the sentence, “Every day I am hustling, and you can too… sign up for some OT.”
Again in July 2020, Scott went to his ranking officers to report a painting that a sergeant at SDPD's Central Division placed of himself showing the sergeant to be, according to the lawsuit, "wearing what appeared to him to be a Nazi uniform hanging in the hallway."
Scott removed the painting and was later told what looked like a Nazi symbol was actually the Iron Cross.
Passed up for jobs
Following the reports, Scott was passed up for what would be one of many attempts for promotion.
At the same time, in March of last year, Scott testified at the trial of the officer who said a White colleague sexually assaulted her.
It was during that trial that Deputy City Attorney Erin Kilcoyne, the same city attorney that accused Scott of getting paid by outside attorneys to testify against the department and accused Scott of holding a grudge against the department for not receiving any money from the 2015 lawsuit.
Following his testimony, Scott says he was turned down for yet another promotion, one that only he was eligible for.
"Scott felt embarrassed because many other SDPD officers knew that he was the only eligible Sergeant in Central Division to be promoted," reads the lawsuit."
The discrimination and retaliation reached the pinnacle the following month when he was informed that the City Attorney's Office launched a "criminal investigation into him." At the same time, Scott was transferred to the Traffic Division to investigate hit-and-run accidents.
”Sgt. Scott was unaware he was being transferred and unsure of the reasons for it. Sgt. Scott could not believe what was happening and could not imagine what he was apparently being investigated for."
Added the lawsuit, "He was given a desk and told to review collision reports, file information on the computer, and fold letters that would later be sent to persons involved in hit-and-run collisions."
Later, according to the lawsuit, Scott's lawsuit states that the 26-year veteran was not under criminal investigation but instead was under an administrative investigation.
"The San Diego Police Officer’s Association (“POA”) was able to determine Sgt. Scott was not under criminal investigation as first alleged but allegedly was under some kind of administrative investigation by the City Attorney’s office. On information and belief, it is not common practice for the City Attorney’s office to investigate Police Officers as these investigations are generally done by Internal Affairs."
Not long after, Scott's superiors told him that he was barred from using his police cruiser and was instructed to only use his personal car.
According to the lawsuit, Scott's treatment differed greatly from that of others who were under actual investigation.
"It was common practice for SDPD officers under investigation to remain in their same role while being investigated. For example, an SDPD Sergeant (a White male) was also assigned to Traffic Division and, on information and belief, was under investigation for months. On information and belief, this Sergeant was facing termination. However, he was not involuntarily transferred and was allowed to continue his regular supervisory duties including working overtime in uniform as the Administrative Tow Supervisor."
San Diego Police Dept response
CBS 8 reached out to the San Diego Police Department as well as the City Attorney's Office for comment.
In a response via email, a representative from San Diego Police Department said, "When the San Diego Police Department is made aware of a criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency against one of our officers, SDPD generally removes the officer from the field pending the outcome of the criminal, and any administrative investigations."
The City Attorney's Office declined to comment, citing pending litigation.