TIMELINE
SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY - https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6
Last updated
SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY - https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6
Last updated
The victim rents a Lime scooter.
Electric motor malfunctions; Victim continues using the rented non-motorized Lime as a kick scooter.
The victim arrived at 5th and Tehama, where he was walking west bound along 5th street pushing the malfunctioning scooter along a pedestrian crosswalk.
The driver ignores a double yield sign, crosses a bicycle lane, and strikes the Victim in a crosswalk. An eyewitness sees the incident.
Relevant Code: California Vehicle Code § 21950(a) mandates that drivers yield the right of way to pedestrians in marked crosswalks. The driver's actions constitute a prima facie violation.
The driver flees the scene without calling 911 or providing assistance.
Relevant Code: California Vehicle Code § 20001(a) (felony hit-and-run); California Penal Code § 135 (destruction or concealment of evidence, implied by fleeing).
Relevant Code: California Vehicle Code § 20001(c), addressing the failure to fulfill duties after a collision causing injury.
The victim calls his sibling, Emily, fearing he will die and be identified as "John Doe"
The victim crawls to a corner to seek help; Driver is nowhere in sight.
Relevant Code: California Civil Code § 1714 (general duty of care), highlighting the duty to render aid under dangerous conditions.
The driver returns with the vehicle.
Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 20001(b)(2), addressing delayed return to the scene without just cause.
The victim takes a photo of the Driver as he returns to the scene, possibly to conceal or modify evidence.
The driver attempts to bribe the Victim with a $5 bill. The victim informs Driver that evidence will lead to his arrest.
Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 67.5 (attempted bribery of a witness), potentially enhancing criminal charges.
The driver reluctantly calls 911 after repeated demands. During the call, the Driver admits hitting the Victim (excited utterance) but then a few mins later changes story and lies to 911 operator, fabricating a narrative that the Victim fell while riding the scooter. The Driver's statement during the 911 call, "I hit the Victim," can be argued as an excited utterance under § 1240. At the time of the call, the Driver was still under the stress of the collision and the realization of his actions, which would likely qualify the statement as spontaneous and thus admissible. Conversely, the Driver's later, calculated denial to the police ("I never hit or touched the Victim") lacks the spontaneity required under § 1240 and could be excluded as unreliable or deliberate fabrication.
Relevant Code: California Evidence Code § 1240 (excited utterance exception); Penal Code § 118 (perjury by false testimony).
Excited Utterance Exception
Code Reference: California Evidence Code § 1240
Violation: Permits the driver's initial admission ("hit the Victim") during a high-stress moment to be admissible as evidence despite being hearsay.
Perjury by False Testimony
Code Reference: California Penal Code § 118
Violation: The driver knowingly provides false statements to law enforcement by fabricating that the Victim fell while riding a scooter.
Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 20002
Violation: Failing to stop and remain at the scene after causing injury to a pedestrian.
Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 20004
Violation: Not providing necessary assistance or information after the accident.
Code Reference: California Penal Code § 136.2
Violation: Misrepresenting the facts of the accident to police or during legal proceedings.
Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 23103
Violation: Operating the van with a willful disregard for safety, leading to the accident.
Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 23103.5
Violation: Driving in a manner that falls below the standard of care expected, resulting in the accident.
Code Reference: California Vehicle Code § 20001
Violation: Not reporting the accident to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or relevant authorities within the required timeframe.
Code Reference: California Penal Code § 136.1
Violation: Attempting to hide or destroy evidence related to the accident, such as damaging the van’s black box or altering the accident scene.
Relevant Code: Reinforces Penal Code § 20001(a) and Civil Code § 1714 for failure to assist.
First responders are dispatched.
EMTs from the fire department arrive. The Driver immediately denies hitting the Victim, contradicting earlier excited 911 call utterances and eyewitness accounts.
Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 148.5(a) (knowingly providing false information to peace officers).
Officer Thompson records eyewitness testimony that the Driver struck the Victim. The body cam captures critical testimony.
Relevant Code: Penal Code § 135 (concealment or suppression of recorded evidence, later noted in the case).
Description: This statute prohibits the intentional concealment, suppression, destruction, or falsification of any evidence that has been lawfully obtained. This includes recorded evidence such as body cam footage or eyewitness testimonies.
Application: Officer Thompson intentionally hides, destroys, or fails to present the body cam footage or eyewitness testimony, they would be violating this code.
Description: This section makes it unlawful to tamper with, alter, or destroy evidence with the intent to prevent its discovery or use in a legal proceeding.
Application: Failing to Enter the witness testimony in the body cam footage, manipulating eyewitness statements, or any action that changes the integrity of the evidence would constitute tampering under this code.
Description: This statute prohibits any act that obstructs, influences, or impedes the due administration of justice. This includes hindering investigations, prosecutions, or the execution of legal processes.
Application: Concealing or suppressing evidence to impede an investigation or legal proceeding directly falls under obstruction of justice.
Description: Defines perjury as the act of willfully providing false statements under oath during any official proceeding.
Application: IOfficer Thompson knowingly provides false or omits false testimony or misrepresents facts in official reports or court testimonies, they would be committing perjury.
Description: This section addresses actions that resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the performance of their duties.
Application: If someone actively interferes with Officer Thompson’s efforts to record or present evidence, it may fall under this violation.
Officer Simmons interrogates the Victim. Driver lies to Officer DeLeon, denying any contact with the Victim or involvement in the incident.
Relevant Code: Penal Code § 148.5(a) (false report to law enforcement).
The SFPD claims to have obtained an alleged verbal confession from the Victim admitting to breaking motor vehicle traffic laws during an interrogation conducted only minutes after the Victim sustained life-threatening injuries. This confession is entirely absent from any body cam video. Subsequently, the police use the alleged confession to assign fault to the Victim and submit an official police incident report stating that the Victim is responsible for being hit and abandoned to die by the driver. This report is completely devoid of the eyewitness account of the vehicle vs pedestrian collision, this testimony was recorded in Officer Thompson's body cam footage yet never appeared in the official police report.
Relevant Code: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of constitutional rights via due process violations).
Constitutional Violations
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (U.S. Constitution): USC 5 & USC 14: Due Process and Equal Protection
By using the victim's testimony obtained under coercive or compromised conditions and suppressing the driver's confession, the police have violated the victim's due process rights.
The failure to treat the victim equitably and to investigate the incident impartially constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of Law
The police acted under the color of law to suppress critical evidence and unfairly assign blame to the victim. This provides a basis for a civil rights lawsuit against the officers and the police department.
California Penal Code Violations
California Penal Code § 118.1: False Reporting by a Peace Officer
If the officers fabricated or misrepresented facts in the police report to shift blame onto the victim, they may be guilty of false reporting.
California Penal Code § 135: Suppression or Concealment of Evidence
The deliberate suppression of the driver's confession constitutes a violation of Penal Code § 135, which criminalizes the willful destruction or concealment of evidence.
California Penal Code § 422.6: Interference with Civil Rights
If the police acted with bias or discrimination (e.g., targeting the victim unfairly or protecting the driver), they may have violated Penal Code § 422.6, which prohibits interference with an individual’s civil rights.
California Civil Code Violations
California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act): Coercion or Threats
Coercing a gravely injured victim into providing testimony and suppressing exculpatory evidence violates the Bane Act, which protects individuals from interference with their constitutional rights through coercion, threats, or intimidation.
California Government Code Violations
California Government Code § 815.6: Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty
The police have a mandatory duty to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation and to preserve all evidence. Failing to perform these duties makes the officers and their department liable for negligence.
File a Civil Rights Lawsuit
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
The victim can sue the individual officers and the police department for violating constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection.
Claims may include suppression of evidence, coercive practices, and bias in the investigation.
Under the California Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1):
The victim can file a lawsuit for interference with their constitutional rights through coercion or intimidation.
Pursue Criminal Charges Against the Officers
False Reporting (§ 118.1) and Suppression of Evidence (§ 135):
The victim can request the District Attorney to investigate and prosecute the officers for these crimes. Evidence of misconduct (e.g., body cam footage, missing confessions) will strengthen this request.
File a Civil Suit for Negligence
Government Code § 815.6:
The victim can sue the police department for failing to perform their mandatory duties, resulting in harm.
Despite eyewitness testimonies and evidence of felony hit-and-run, police fail to arrest the Driver, allowing him to leave the scene.
Relevant Code: California Penal Code § 849(b) (arrest without warrant when probable cause exists); Penal Code § 135 (implied suppression of evidence supporting arrest).
Fifth Amendment: Protection Against Self-Incrimination
Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)): Failure to advise the victim of their Miranda rights prior to an interrogation violates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. If the police claim the victim "confessed" to violating the law during this interrogation, such statements may be inadmissible in court.
Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process and Equal Protection
Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process: Interrogating the victim without reading Miranda rights and using an alleged confession to assign fault violates the victim’s right to due process. The police may also have violated equal protection under the law by favoring the driver’s narrative and failing to impartially assess the facts of the case.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: The victim may have a civil claim against the officers or the police department for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law, particularly if the interrogation resulted in a prejudicial determination against the victim without fair legal treatment.
California Penal Code § 118.1: False Reporting by a Peace Officer
If the police report falsely claims the victim violated the law, leading to an improper determination of fault, the officers may be guilty of filing a false report, which is a criminal offense under California Penal Code § 118.1.
California Penal Code § 135: Destruction or Concealment of Evidence
Ignoring or failing to preserve evidence that supports the victim’s account (e.g., eyewitness statements, physical evidence, or surveillance footage) may constitute evidence suppression under Penal Code § 135. This could include omitting key details that exonerate the victim or implicate the driver.
California Penal Code § 149: Unlawful Assault or Battery by Public Officers
If the police coerced the victim into a confession during the interrogation (e.g., through intimidation, threats, or physical coercion), they may have violated Penal Code § 149, which prohibits unlawful use of force or threats by public officers.
California Penal Code § 422.6: Interference with Civil Rights
The police may have violated Penal Code § 422.6 if their conduct involved discrimination or bias against the victim, resulting in the denial of equal protection or fair treatment under the law.
California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act): Interference with Constitutional Rights
Using intimidation, coercion, or threat to compel a confession or shift blame to the victim may violate the Bane Act. This law protects individuals from interference with their constitutional rights by state actors.
Improper Assignment of Fault
California Vehicle Code § 21950(a): Drivers are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians in crosswalks. The police’s assignment of fault to the victim, despite the absence of evidence or a citation, contradicts this statutory duty and may reflect procedural bias.
California Evidence Code § 1240: Excited Utterance Exception
The driver’s statements during the 911 call or on-scene admissions (if any) may qualify as admissible evidence under the excited utterance exception. Ignoring or suppressing these admissions could constitute evidentiary misconduct.
Improper Use of Victim’s Statements
Statements obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings are inadmissible in criminal proceedings. If the police relied on such statements to justify their conclusion, this evidentiary violation undermines the credibility of the investigation.
California Government Code § 815.6: Breach of Mandatory Duty
Law enforcement has a mandatory duty to conduct impartial investigations and protect all parties’ rights. The failure to hold the driver accountable while blaming the victim may constitute negligence in performing this duty.
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
Officers are bound by professional ethics to uphold justice and avoid misconduct. Interrogating a victim without legal basis and relying on coerced statements violates these ethical obligations.
Despite multiple eyewitness testimonies and clear evidence of a felony hit-and-run under California Vehicle Code § 20001(a), law enforcement officers failed to exercise their statutory authority under California Penal Code § 849(b), which permits the arrest of an individual without a warrant when probable cause exists. By allowing the Driver to leave the scene, the officers not only undermined the immediate administration of justice but also potentially facilitated the destruction or alteration of evidence critical to the investigation.
Legal Implications
Failure to Arrest Under Probable Cause California Penal Code § 849(b) grants officers the authority to arrest an individual involved in a crime if probable cause exists. In this instance, the Driver’s:
Admission of hitting the Victim during a 911 call (excited utterance, California Evidence Code § 1240),
Witness statements confirming the hit-and-run,
Actions of fleeing the scene, provided ample justification for immediate arrest. The failure to do so constitutes a dereliction of duty and raises concerns about procedural integrity.
Suppression of Evidence Under California Penal Code § 135, the suppression or failure to report material evidence constitutes a criminal offense. In this case:
Eyewitness testimony and body cam footage clearly identified the Driver’s culpability.
The delay in taking decisive action allowed the Driver the opportunity to alter or destroy evidence, such as tampering with the vehicle or other physical materials connected to the collision.
Violation of Victim’s Due Process Rights The officers’ failure to detain the Driver and preserve the scene violates the Victim’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The failure to secure evidence and act on probable cause deprived the Victim of equal protection and fair treatment under the law, further compounding the prejudice faced in this matter.
Neglect of Public Duty The officers' inaction contradicts the fundamental principles of public safety and law enforcement. By neglecting to enforce the law as mandated, they failed in their duty to protect the public and ensure accountability for serious criminal offenses such as felony hit-and-run.
Consequences of the Officers’ Inaction
Compromised Investigation: The decision to allow the Driver to leave the scene hindered the collection and preservation of critical evidence, including the condition of the vehicle and the Driver’s immediate statements and demeanor. By permitting the Driver to depart without securing the scene, the officers may have violated California Penal Code § 135 (Concealment or Suppression of Recorded Evidence) and Penal Code § 148 (Tampering with Evidence). These actions potentially obstructed the proper administration of justice by impeding the gathering of essential evidence necessary for a thorough investigation.
Potential Collusion or Bias: The officers’ decision not to arrest raises concerns of procedural bias, implying a potential violation of California Government Code § 815.6, which imposes liability on public entities for failure to perform mandatory duties. Additionally, this decision may constitute Obstruction of Justice under California Penal Code § 132, as it could be seen as an intentional act to impede the investigation and prosecution of the Driver. Such bias undermines the integrity of law enforcement procedures and may reflect underlying misconduct or collusion intended to skew the legal process.
Reputational Damage: The failure to act reflects poorly on the law enforcement agency and undermines public trust in the criminal justice system. By not adhering to established protocols and ethical standards, the officers may have breached California Penal Code § 835 (Misconduct in Public Office), which addresses the misuse of public authority for personal gain or to the detriment of public trust. Such misconduct not only damages the agency’s reputation but also erodes community confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of law enforcement, potentially leading to broader implications for accountability and transparency within the criminal justice system.
Requested Remedies
The failure to arrest and report the Driver’s violations necessitates:
Judicial Review: An independent review of the officers’ conduct under Penal Code § 135 and § 849(b) to determine accountability.
Suppression Hearing: Motion to exclude any evidence fabricated or altered by the Driver post-incident due to the delay caused by the officers' inaction.
Sanctions or Disciplinary Measures: Imposition of administrative sanctions against the officers for failing to fulfill their duties as mandated by law.
An unknown passerby while driving down 5th street, observes the victim alone on the sidewalk. No vehicle or person is providing aid; hit-and-run confirmed.
An unknown passerby calls 911, reports to the 911 operator that they had observed the scene of a hit-and-run a few minutes prior, the call is adamant that there was no vehicle in sight, and no persons offering assistance at the time when they passed the scene of the crime, the called expressed absolute certainty by describing that there was “no van” and no one providing assistance provided by the Driver.
