• False Statements in a Police Report (118.1 P.C.)  

The defendant (a deputy sheriff) and his partner responded to an assistance call for the felony stop of a black BMW. One occupant of the BMW had confronted another person, announced gang affiliation and brandished a gun. Upon observing the suspect vehicle, the defendant attempted to initiate a stop. The driver of the BMW sped into a city park parking lot, jumped a curb, sped across grass playing fields and came to a stop in a cul-de-sac. One occupant bailed from the passenger side of the vehicle. The defendant pursued this subject in the patrol car. Other deputies remained with the BMW.  

According to the defendant’s filed police report, the following occurred: 

He followed the subject who had bailed. After a brief time, the subject stopped, turned around and began walking back toward the patrol car. The defendant braked to avoid hitting the subject. While walking, the subject bumped into the patrol car driver’s door. He remained standing and followed commands to be taken into custody. 

Note: A gun battle occurred between the other deputies at the scene of the stop and the remaining BMW occupants. Two deputies were wounded and the remaining two occupants were shot and killed. The defendant reported that he had heard 10 to 15 shots while taking custody of the fleeing subject. 

The fleeing subject claimed that he was “run down” by the patrol car. 

Follow-up investigation located a video feed from a residence across from the scene of contact with the fleeing subject. The video clearly showed the fleeing subject, while running, was struck by the moving patrol unit. He was thrown to the ground, rolled several times, and was lying motionless when he was taken into custody. This video evidence directly contradicted the version of events in the defendant’s report.  

The defendant was charged with 118.1 P.C., filing a false police report, and 149 P.C., assault under color of authority. 

Section 118.1 P.C. states that “Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.” 

In a prosecution based on a false filing, “an omission or misstatement of fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider it important in evaluating the information reported against the purpose for which it is required” (Id. at p. 406; People v. Rubio (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 927). Material is defined as “important, essential or pertinent to the matter under discussion” (Webster’s New World Dictionary (3d college ed. 1988, p. 834). The false statement must be important to the matter under discussion and materiality is an issue of fact for the jury. 

“In his police report, the deputy (Kim) stated that (the suspect) Martinez walked closer to our patrol vehicle and collided with the front passenger door” and “After S/Martinez collided with the driver side door, he was still standing.” The surveillance video, however, depicted the patrol car’s door hitting Martinez with sufficient force to propel him forward and then to the ground. “Thus, Deputy Kim’s statement that Martinez was still standing after the impact was false.”   

“A rational fact finder could deem the defendant’s statement that the fleeing Martinez walked into defendant’s patrol car and remained standing after contact was an important part of the police report, and not a trivial detail.” (People v. Korbin (1995) 11 Cal.4th 416) 

The “defendant argues that his fear during the incident could have altered his perception, such that his statement about his interaction with Martinez was not knowingly false.” He also contends that his oral admissions about being involved in a traffic collision demonstrate that he innocently or mistakenly made a false statement and thus did not act with the requisite criminal intent. The DCA ruled the “defendant was just on the other side of the driver’s door of his patrol car when it impacted Martinez, close enough to have a clear view of the event as depicted in the video...It is thus reasonable to infer that he observed Martinez being knocked to the ground and that, at the time he authored his supplemental report, he knew that his description of Martinez walking toward the patrol car, colliding with the door and having the ability to remain standing following the collision was false.” 

The ruling also notes that “The video evidence demonstrates that (the) defendant’s patrol car came to a stop only after striking Martinez, and not immediately upon Martinez purportedly ‘attempt[ing] to give up’...“Moreover, although the clips do not include audio, the sequence of events depicted in the video, which show that Martinez was already lying on the ground when the other deputy exited the patrol car, supports an inference that this deputy did not ‘order’ Martinez to lay on the ground.”  

Note: The other deputy who filed a supplemental report restating the same facts as the defendant’s report was also charged with a violation of 118.1 P.C. 

The case was remanded back to the Superior Court for resumption of criminal proceedings. 

The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics is meant to survive beyond an officer or deputy’s having to recite it at Basic Academy graduation. I have taught in the Basic Police Academy at the Santa Rosa Public Safety Training Center for 45 years. Regretfully, not all former students followed the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Six former students have been convicted of felonies and served time in prison. Not the ideal habitat for a former peace officer. 

This case will move forward in the criminal justice system where a final disposition will come about. The defendant has filed a petition for a misdemeanor disposition under 17(a) P.C. Even if the charge is reduced to a misdemeanor and the defendant pleads out, he may not be much use to his agency anymore. He may likely be added to the Brady List and his credibility in future court testimony will be severely impacted.  He could be subject to investigation by the Peace Officer Standards and Accountability Board for decertification and revocation of his ability to be a peace officer (1029 P.C.). Serious misconduct includes dishonesty in the investigation or reporting of a criminal offense or acts that are inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to uphold the law (POST Commission Regulation 1005). 

Bad consequences for an arrest and report that could have been easily handled in a tactical, professional and ethical manner. 

Since the enactment of SB 2, 187 former California peace officers have had their certifications suspended pending investigation, or revoked. Their names are also added to the National Decertification Index (NDI), a national database that tracks decertified officers across state lines. 

Stay Safe! 

RH