Civil Rights – Town dodges liability for police officer’s alleged sexual assault

Where a woman sued a North Carolina town, alleging her civil rights were violated when she was allegedly sexually assaulted by an on-duty police officer, but her injuries did not result from the police department‘s failure to adopt policies prohibiting the officer’s conduct or from the department’s failure to train and supervise its officers, her suit was dismissed.

Background

Shannon Mullen filed this action against the Town of Sunset Beach, North Carolina, asserting claims of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on allegations of sexual assault committed by a Sunset Beach police officer, Isaac Krammes.

The district court awarded summary judgment to Sunset Beach concluding that, as a matter of law, Mullen’s injuries did not result from the Sunset Beach police department’s failure to adopt policies prohibiting the officer’s conduct or from the department’s failure to train and supervise its officers. The district court also awarded summary judgment to Sunset Beach on Mullen’s claims for negligent hiring, supervision and retention under North Carolina law.

Policies

Municipal liability may arise through an “omission,” such as the failure to adopt policies preventing unconstitutional conduct, or the failure to adequately train or supervise employees regarding the impropriety of such conduct. To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must show that the omission “manifests deliberate indifference” on the part of the municipality “to the rights of citizens.”

Deliberate indifference requires proof that municipal policymakers (1) knew or should have known that their failure to act was likely to result in constitutional injury and (2) disregarded that risk. Here, no facts in the record show that Chief Klamar or any other individual with policymaking authority knew of a substantial risk that sexual assaults likely would be committed by Sunset Beach officers while on duty.

The only prior incidents identified by Mullen involved officers engaged in consensual sexual relations while on duty. Although this conduct violated the department’s rule requiring officers to be attentive while on duty and plainly was not appropriate, as evidenced by Chief Klamar’s recommendation that these officers be fired, the prior incidents do not resemble the allegations of sexual assault and coercion in this case.

Because those prior incidents did not involve coercion or abuse of authority to compel sexual activity, they did not place department policymakers on notice of a repeated problem of sexual assault that would require a response by those policymakers. Without evidence of a pattern of prior similar constitutional violations, Sunset Beach lacked the notice necessary to establish its deliberate indifference to the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights.

Nothing in the record suggests that Chief Klamar knew or should have known about Krammes’ misconduct toward Mullen and could have acted to prevent it. Although Krammes’ patrol car may have been parked near Mullen’s home, Chief Klamar explained that officers routinely parked in the area near Mullen’s home to monitor traffic.

Further, there was no evidence to suggest that Krammes was engaged in anything other than police work on those occasions. Both Mullen and Krammes stated in their deposition testimony that no one in the department knew about Krammes’ sexual assault and harassment of Mullen.

The record shows that the first time that department officials could have been aware of Krammes’ unlawful conduct toward Mullen arose several months after that conduct had ended. Krammes resigned two months later. And because Sunset Beach lacked notice that any other officer was committing similar sexual assaults, no reasonable jury could conclude that the department’s policies or its training and supervision reflected a deliberate indifference to Mullen’s constitutional rights.

State law

Regarding Mullen’s negligent supervision claim, as noted above, there were no indications about Krammes’ or other officers’ conduct that should have caused Chief Klamar or other department officials to take additional supervisory actions regarding the prevention of sexual assault committed by officers while on duty. And because Krammes resigned soon after department officials first had evidence indicating that he may have engaged in misconduct toward Mullen, a jury could not reasonably conclude that Sunset Beach negligently retained Krammes as an officer.

Turning to Mullen’s claim of negligent hiring, the evidence is insufficient to show Krammes’ propensity to commit sexual assault. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that department officials could not be held liable for negligent hiring under North Carolina law.

Affirmed.

Mullen v. Town of Sunset Beach, Case No. 25-1526, May 7, 2026. 4th Cir. (Keenan), from EDNC at Wilmington (Flanagan). Raymond Curtis Tarlton for Appellant. Norwood Pitt Blanchard III for Appellee. VLW 026-2-168. 16 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-2-168