Red Book ADM2017-0037_Redacted_Part2
July 30, 2018
Page 2
On June 8, 2017, a subpoena was mailed to Officer Torres at the Alta Loma
(Parents) address. It was returned to Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
with a note written on it, “Return to sender, does not live here.” (Addendum
#16)
Officer Torres denied that he received the subpoena or wrote the note, he
denied any knowledge of the subpoena. The handwriting was compared to
numerous examples of Officer Torres writing. It is distinct and appears to
be very consistent with his writing. LASD handwriting analysis determined
that there was a strong likelihood that Officer Torres wrote the message on
the questioned document. Officer Torres appeared to intentionally alter his
writing when asked to provide a sample during his internal affairs interview.
On August 9, 2017, City Attorney Lee dispatched a process server to both
the Fontana (Officer Torres Home) and Alta Loma (Parents) address. He
did not make contact, but left subpoenas attached to the door at each
address with notes to contact City Attorney Lee. Officer Torres denied
receipt or knowledge of the subpoena service attempts.
HOME ADDRESS AND EMPLOYER
3. On July 19, 2017, LAPD Court Liaison Officer Ayson assisted City Attorney
Lee with research attempting to locate contact information for Officer
Torres. During the July 19, 2017, research, Officer Ayson located an
additional address of Fontana. They did not know this was
his actual home address and Officer Torres did not respond to subpoenas
sent or delivered to this address.
On August 10, 2017, Officer Ayson located a phone number for LBPD
personnel in data connected to Officer Torres personal information. LBPD
personnel referred the City Attorney’s office to LBPD court affairs to
facilitate contact with Officer Torres.
ATTEMPTED CONTACT THROUGH COURT AFFAIRS
4. On August 10, 2017, Los Angeles City Attorney’s office contacted LBPD
Court Affairs Clerk Arnita Harper confirmed that the City Attorney had the
correct contact phone for Officer Torres. Arnita Harper called and left a
voicemail for Officer Torres. He did not call Arnita Harper back and did not
call the City Attorney back that day.
Phone records, emails, and interviews document that Arnita Harper was the
only representative of LBPD court affairs that attempted contact or left a
voicemail with Officer Torres on August 10 or 11, 2017. Officer Torres
denied receiving the voicemail from Arnita Harper. Officer Torres stated
July 30, 2018
Page 3
that he found out that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office was trying to
reach him during a phone call where he spoke directly with Court Affairs
Clerk Cindy Martinez. He referenced that it was the same day he spoke
with City Attorney Lee, (August 11, 2017). He said he spoke with Cindy
Martinez in the morning and learned that the City Attorney’s office was trying
to reach him. Cindy Martinez did not speak with Officer Torres on August
10 or 11, 2017.
Officer Torres was not truthful in this statement. He could not acknowledge
receipt of the voicemail from Arnita Harper from August 10, 2017, or the
voicemail from City Attorney Hart on the morning of August 11, 2017. He
maintained that throughout the timeframe of April through August of 2017,
as the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office was trying to reach him, he did
not receive voicemails. In his Internal Affairs interview, he stated that his
voicemail box was full. In his interview with City Attorney Grace Lee, he
stated that he did not have voicemail activated on his phone line and that
voicemails could not be left for him on his phone.
CITY ATTORNEY HART VOICEMAIL
5. On the morning of August 11, 2017, Assisting Supervising City Attorney
Spencer Hart was briefed on the case and the difficulty reaching Officer
Torres as a witness. City Attorney Grace Lee informed him that she had
learned that Officer Torres was a police officer in Long Beach.
City Attorney Hart called and left a voicemail in City Attorney Lee’s
presence, he stated that they had learned that Officer Torres was a Long
Beach Police Officer, that they did not want to involve his chain of
command, that they had a hard time understanding his failure to contact
their office, that it was critical that he contact them regarding the case, and
that they would work with his schedule.
During his internal affairs interview, Officer Torres denied receipt or
knowledge of this voicemail.
TORRES CALLS CITY ATTORNEY LEE
6. On the afternoon of August 11, 2017, Officer Torres called City Attorney
Lee. This was their first and only phone contact during the case.
City Attorney Lee made contemporaneous notes of the interview and
provided copies of her interview summary and an internal memo to her
supervisors. (Addendum #7,8)
Officer Torres told her that he had not received any of the subpoenas or
voicemails to that point in the case.
July 30, 2018
Page 4
Officer Torres made statements containing information from City Attorney
Hart’s voicemail. She asked Officer Torres how he had the information and
he did not answer her question. He insisted that he did not have voicemail
on his phone and messages could not be left on his phone line.
According to City Attorney Lee, Officer Torres was hostile, rude, and
belligerent during their phone interview on August 11, 2017.
Officer Torres told her that he was not needed for the court case and that
LAPD Sergeant Hillard saw everything and could handle all the court
testimony. City Attorney Lee told Officer Torres that Sergeant Hillard did
not see everything and that he was needed. Officer Torres became hostile.
Officer Torres then began to undercut the statements attributed to him in
the police reports.
During the phone interview for the court case, Officer Torres told City
Attorney Grace Lee that information contained in LAPD reports was not
accurate and that Sergeant Hillard and Officer Quiroga were not truthful.
Officer Torres demanded the name and phone number for the defense
attorney, City Attorney Lee provided the information. (At the time, the
defense attorney was a Public Defender, the defendant later employed a
private attorney, then returned to the Public Defender at trial.) Officer
Torres told her that he was going to call the defense attorney and tell them
that the reports were not correct and that the LAPD officers were not truthful.
Officer Torres did not follow through with contacting the defense attorney.
He admitted that he did tell the City Attorney Lee that he was going contact
the defense and that he intended on contacting the defense, but never had
an opportunity.
Officer Torres was in court on October 11, 2017, the defense attorney was
present in court. There is a Public Defender’s office in the court house.
Officer Torres stated that the defense attorney was not present in court and
could not explain why he did not take any proactive measures to contact the
defense attorney after insisting that the police report and police officers
were not accurate. Officer Torres was asked why he did not contact the
Defense Attorney on October 11, 2017 while in court. Officer Torres stated
the Defendant and the defense attorney were not in court. (See Addendum
#20 court transcript) The defendant was convicted in this matter.
City Attorney Lee stated that she did not believe the Defense or Defendant
were present in court when Officer Torres was brought before Judge Sadler.
July 30, 2018
Page 5
City Attorney Hart did not recall if the Defense or Defendant were present
in court during his interaction with Officer Torres.
City Attorney Lee provided disclosure to the defense on Officer Torres
statements. She did not believe he was sincere in his allegation, but rather
that his statements about LAPD officers and their reports were an attempt
to avoid court appearances and sabotage the case.
The disclosure of Officer Torres statements shocked the defense. Officer
Torres was not used to testify in the trial because of his statements.
City Attorney Grace Lee, Assistant Supervising City Attorney Spencer Hart,
and Supervising City Attorney Julie San Juan later conducted interviews
with the LAPD officer witnesses on the case in response to Officer Torres
allegations. They found the LAPD officers to be honest and truthful and
Officer Torres allegations to be unfounded.
SERGEANT PEREZ VOICEMAIL
7. On August 15, 2017, Sgt. Perez called Officer Torres at about 1608 hours
and left a voicemail on Officer Torres phone. At about 1614 hours Officer
Torres called him back and referenced receiving the voicemail. Officer
Torres acknowledged that he had spoken with the City Attorney’s office the
week prior.
During his internal affairs interview, Officer Torres did not recall the
voicemail or return phone call and did not have an explanation as to how he
received voicemail.
CITY ATTORNEY COMPLAINT
8. On August 14, 2017, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office called and spoke
with Patrol Administration Lieutenant Poss. They communicated their
complaint about Officer Torres’ conduct in People V. Simen 7AR00128.
On August 16, 2017, Assistant Supervising City Attorney Hart wrote an
email to Lieutenant Poss, outlining the conduct of Officer Torres: His failure
to respond to phone calls and voicemails, his failure to respond to
subpoenas, his rude behavior on the phone with City Attorney Lee, his
efforts to sabotage the criminal case to avoid appearing in court. City
Attorney Hart characterized Officer Torres’ behavior as disgraceful.
TORRES COURT APPEARANCE
9. On October 11, 2017, Officer Torres appeared in court for a pretrial meeting
and spoke with City Attorney Lee, he would not confirm his availability or
contact information. This was their first and only in person meeting. He
July 30, 2018
Page 6
was defiant and uncooperative. In relation to his availability stated, “If you
want to know, subpoena me.” City Attorney Lee requested that her boss,
City Attorney Hart respond to the court room.
City Attorney Hart stated that when he introduced himself, Officer Torres
initially refused to shake hands and then after hesitation, took his hand.
Officer Torres would not look him in the eye. Officer Torres had caused
significant grief for City Attorney Lee.
Officer Torres was brought before the court, Judge Sadler, by City Attorneys
Lee and Hart. The court ordered Officer Torres to confirm that he was under
subpoena and that his phone number was correct because he had been so
difficult to reach. The judge put Officer Torres on 3-4 hour call rather than
24 hour call for a “Be there” at City Attorney Lee’s request to accommodate
his schedule. When asked by the Judge if he could appear on 3-4 hour
notice, Officer Torres replied that he, “would try.” The Judge told him that
was not good enough, he could agree to be in court within 3-4 hour notice
or he would have to appear each day. Officer Torres then agreed.
A copy of the court transcript was obtained and attached to the file, the
transcripts support City Attorney Lee and AS City Attorney Harts’ accounts
of the incident. It does not support Officer Torres account. (Addendum
#20)
Officer Torres’ behavior disrupted City Attorney Lee’s peace of mind and
confidence in the case. She decided not to call Officer Torres at trial based
upon his behavior and statements. City Attorney Lee stated that Officer
Torres was her worst witness ever, civilian or police officer.
RIVERSIDE FAMILY COURT CASE
10. Relevant in establishing a pattern of behavior, information was included
regarding Riverside Family Court Case #RID1603614.
This case involved a paternity dispute over a child. Officer Torres is the
father. is the mother.
In September and October 2016, San Bernardino County Sheriff’’s
Department attempted subpoena service three times on Officer Torres at
his home in Fontana. They noted, “Unable to contact after numerous
attempts, Deft. evading service.” on their report. Officer Torres denied any
knowledge of attempted service.
In September 2016, a friend of attempted
subpoena service at Officer Torres’ home in Fontana. Lights were on inside
July 30, 2018
Page 7
the home; however, there was no response at the door. Officer Torres
denied any knowledge of attempted service.
In September 2016, East Division Sergeant T. Olson, contacted Internal
Affairs Sergeant D. Scaccia. was at the EPSS
and attempting to serve a subpoena on Officer Torres. Officer Torres
refused to be served at work.
In October 2016, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department attempted
subpoena service three times on Officer Torres at the EPSS, they noted
that it was hard to locate Officer Torres and they were unable to serve the
subpoena.
On October 3, 2016, Sergeant Scaccia facilitated subpoena service on
Officer Torres while he was on duty at the direction of Internal Affairs
Lieutenant O’Dowd. Officer Torres was described as defiant. He stated,
“Are you willing to testify to this? That’s per Trott.”
On June 1, 2017, Nelli Flores, Personnel Assistant in City Human
Resources, contacted Gladys Malagamalii in Personnel and informed her
that Riverside County Child Support Services requested that Officer Torres
son be added to his insurance plan immediately. Officer Torres denied
enrolling the child based upon advice from his attorney.
On October 30, 2017, a second order from Riverside County Child Support
Services was issued to City Human Resources and the child was added to
Officer Torres insurance plan.
HANDWRITING ANALYSIS
11. On March 20, 2018, during his internal affairs interview, Officer Torres
provided a handwriting sample. (Addendum #18)
Officer Torres completed the card very slowly and exhibited unusual
behavior (documented in the interview summary) that led investigators to
believe that Officer Torres was intentionally insubordinate and deceptive in
his completion of handwriting sample.
On March 29, 2018 Sergeant Ellis requested a forensic exam of the
Subpoena returned to LA City Attorney’s Officer with a handwritten note,
“Return to sender does not live here.” (Addendum #16) Also provided
were handwriting examples from Officer Torres. (Addendum #19)
July 30, 2018
Page 8
On May 3, 2018, the lab returned a report along with all original documents
provided for the examination.
The report concluded that, “There is substantial evidence which indicates
that the questioned hand printing was probably produced by the writer of
the “Michael Torres” exemplars. Although this is not a conclusive
identification, there are sufficient similarities to establish a strong likelihood
that the writer of the exemplars wrote the questioned hand printing.”
(Addendum #17)
Forensic Examiner Lertyaovarit explained that he did not use the LBPD
handwriting card, sample provided by Officer Torres during his interview on
March 20, 2018. (Addendum #18) He indicated that the writing appeared
inconsistent with the other examples. He noted the heavy pen strokes, ink
blots, comparison with other examples and several other indicators. He
stated that it was not a natural example of Officer Torres handwriting.
The LASD handwriting examiner was unable to use the document for
analysis because of irregularities in the handwriting sample.
FORMALIZED COMPLAINT CASE FORM – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037
July 19, 2018
PAGE 2
• LBPD Manual Section 3.2 – General Responsibilities – Employee
ALLEGATION #3
The Administration alleges that on March 20, 2018, while on duty, Officer Michael
Torres # 6252 was untruthful with Internal Affairs investigators when he told them he did
not receive any subpoenas that were mailed/delivered to him at
Alta Loma CA. or Fontana Ca. by the Los Angeles City
Attorney’s Office in regards to Case No. 7AR00128.
• CS Article VII 84 (1) – Violation of any rule
• CS Article VII 84 (6) – Dishonesty
• LBPD Manual Section 3.1 – Professional Conduct and Responsibilities
• LBPD Manual Section 3.3 - Truthfulness
ALLEGATION #4
The Administration alleges that on March 20, 2018, while on duty, Officer Michael
Torres # 6252 was untruthful with Internal Affairs investigators when he told them he did
not write, nor did he know who wrote “RETURN TO SENDER DOES NOT LIVE HERE”
on a subpoena issued to him by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, which had been
mailed to Alta Loma CA.
• CS Article VII 84 (1) – Violation of any rule
• CS Article VII 84 (6) – Dishonesty
• LBPD Manual Section 3.1 – Professional Conduct and Responsibilities
• LBPD Manual Section 3.3 – Truthfulness
ALLEGATION #5
The Administration alleges that between April 2017 and August 2017 Officer Michael
Torres # 6252 failed to cooperate with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office by not
returning several voice mail messages that were left on his cell phone by the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s Office in regards to his being a witness in Case No. 7AR00128
• CS Article VII 84 (1) – Violation of any rule
• CS Article VII 84 (4) – Inexcusable neglect of duty
• LBPD Manual Section 3.1 – Professional Conduct and Responsibilities
• LBPD Manual Section 3.2 – General Responsibilities – Employee
ALLEGATION #6
The Administration alleges that on March 20, 2018, while on duty, Officer Michael
Torres # 6252 was untruthful with Internal Affairs investigators when he told them he did
not receive any voicemail messages from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office from
April 2017 to August 11, 2017
FORMALIZED COMPLAINT CASE FORM – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037
July 19, 2018
PAGE 3
• CS Article VII 84 (1) – Violation of any rule
• CS Article VII 84 (6) – Dishonesty
• LBPD Manual Section 3.1 – Professional Conduct and Responsibilities
• LBPD Manual Section 3.3 – Truthfulness
ALLEGATION #7
The Administration alleges that on August 11, 2017, during a phone call, and on
October 11, 2017, during a court appearance, Officer Michael Torres # 6252, was
discourteous and unprofessional during his conversations with Los Angeles Deputy City
Attorney, Grace Lee.
• CS Article VII 84 (1) – Violation of any rule
• CS Article VII 84 (10) - Discourteous, Disruptive Conduct
• CS Article VII 84 (15) – Other Failure of Good Behavior
• LBPD Manual Section 3.1 – Professional Conduct and Responsibilities
• LBPD Manual Section 3.2 – General Responsibilities – Employee
City of Long Beach
Working Together to Serve Memorandum
Date: May 23, 2018
To: Lloyd Cox, Commander, Internal Affairs Division
From: Chad Ellis, Sergeant, Internal Affairs Division
Subject: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
COMPLAINANT: The Administration
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: August 10, 2017
EMPLOYEES INVOLVED: PO-FTO Michael Torres #6252
EMPLOYEE’S SUPERVISOR: Sergeant Eric Fritz # 6139
EMPLOYEE’S LIEUTENANT: Lieutenant Megan Zabel #5974
BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2017, the Long Beach Police Department, Patrol Administration
Office, received communication from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
(LACA) related to the behavior of Officer Michael Torres. LACA stated that
Officer Torres was a witness in case People v. Simen, #7AR00128. Officer
Torres witnessed a driving under the influence traffic collision while off-duty in the
City of Los Angeles on March 1, 2017. Officer Torres provided a witness
statement to Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers at the scene of the
incident.
LACA had a very difficult time in locating Officer Torres. LACA made numerous
attempts at serving a subpoena on Officer Torres. A subpoena mailed to Officer
Torres on June 8, 2017, for a June 26, 2017, court date was returned on July 9,
2017, with a note “RETURN TO SENDER DOES NOT LIVE HERE.”
LACA did not learn that Officer Torres was a police officer until August 10, 2017.
LACA stated in their complaint that Officer Torres’ behavior in this matter was
disgraceful and alleged that he attempted to sabotage the criminal case to avoid
testifying as a witness. Officer Torres’ actions included demanding contact
information for the defense attorney. Officer Torres stated that he was going to
alert the defense that the police reports were not accurate and that LAPD officers
were not being truthful.
ALLEGATION #1
The Administration alleges that between April 2017 and August 2017 Officer
Michael Torres # 6252, failed to respond to multiple separate subpoenas that
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 5 of 171
file contains a witness contact list recording relevant information regarding
attempted contacts.
In relation to the July 25, 2017, court date referenced in the written complaint,
City Attorney Lee stated that she received the case file on July 17 or 18, 2017.
City Attorney Lee received the file from the previously assigned prosecutor, City
Attorney Carolyn Phillips. When she turned over the file, City Attorney Phillips
noticed that they had not made contact with Officer Torres. City Attorney Phillips
called Officer Torres in City Attorney Lee’s presence, there was not an answer,
City Attorney Phillips left a voice mail message.
City Attorney Lee then enlisted LAPD Officer Ayson on July 19, 2017, to help
with locating Officer Torres. At this point, it was still unknown that Officer Torres
was a police officer. Through a Lexis search, an additional (909) phone number
with an address in Fontana, Ca. City Attorney Lee left a voicemail at the first
phone number on July 19, 2017, and also spoke with someone at the newly
discovered number who said that it was not Officer Torres phone number. City
Attorney Lee stated there was a voicemail enabled on the original number, which
accepted her message. She said there was not a voice identifier from Officer
Torres.
[audio: 0h 20m 18s]
On July 20, 2017, “Must Appear” subpoenas were mailed to the Alta Loma and
Fontana addresses as well as a commercial address (later determined to be
4800 Los Coyotes Diagonal, old East Police Sub-Station) in Long Beach for the
July 25, 2017, court date. The additional addresses were located through a
search by LAPD Officer Ayson. The return was not, “Confidential LBPD.” City
Attorney Lee also noted from her file that there was a July 26, 2017, court date;
and on call subpoena was mailed on July 17, 2017, for that court date. In
addition, they attempted a phone call on July 17, 2017, there was no answer,
they left a voice mail. July 25, 2017, was a pretrial date, Officer Torres did not
appear. Up to this point in the case, no contact had been made with Officer
Torres.
City Attorney Lee wanted to interview him as a witness after no contact with him.
They needed him as the person who saw the motorcycle rider, he was the only
one who actually saw the motorcycle rider. City Attorney Lee believed that the
witness testimony from Officer Torres would have improved the strength of the
case because according the witness statement from him in the police report, he
had witnessed some very poor driving prior to the collision. City Attorney Lee
believed that Officer Torres testimony could have resulted in additional charges
against the defendant.
[audio: 0h 24m 32s]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 7 of 171
assisted in contacting and serving subpoenas on Officer Torres. See LBPD
internal emails, (Addendum #11).
During their conversations on August 10, 2017, Arnita told City Attorney Lee that
she left a voice mail for Officer Torres, but he had not yet called back to LBPD
court affairs. On the morning of August 11, 2017, neither City Attorney Lee nor
Arnita had heard back from Officer Torres.
Later in the morning of August 11, 2017, City Attorney Lee spoke with AS City
Attorney Hart, Hart left another voice mail for Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee
asked AS City Attorney Hart to make the call to insulate against a negative
personality conflict and convey that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
needed to speak with Officer Torres, City Attorney Lee had left several messages
as this point in the timeline. City Attorney Lee listened as AS City Attorney Hart
left the voice mail and explained the critical need to speak with Officer Torres and
that they had learned he was a police officer from LBPD. AS City Attorney Hart
said that they did not want to involve Officer Torres’ chain of command and
offered to work with him if he had a difficult schedule. AS City Attorney Hart
expressed that he a had hard time understanding Officer Torres’ failure to
contact their office. August 11, 2017, was a be there court date, Officer Torres
did not appear. The subpoena was for a pretrial meeting. The court was not
informed of his failure to appear, the court did not take action.
When asked, City Attorney Lee confirmed that up to the morning of August 11,
2017, there had not been any negative interaction between Officer Torres and
LACA. She stated that to this point he had not ever responded to any attempts
to reach him.
[audio: 0h 34m 55s]
On the afternoon of August 11, 2017, Officer Torres called City Attorney Lee
back. It was around 1500 when City Attorney Lee spoke with Officer Torres.
Officer Torres said he was calling back because the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Office was making threats toward him. Officer Torres stated that he did not have
voicemail, it was not set up on his phone and messages couldn’t be left. Officer
Torres stated the only way he knew that he needed to call was because he was
being threatened by LACA. Officer Torres did not confirm how he knew to call
back. City Attorney Lee stated that, “I asked him if he received any of our
voicemails that our office had left for him. He stated that he did not have
voicemail and no messages could be left for him. I told him that our witness
coordinators had left him numerous voicemail messages and that I or other
attorneys in the office had also left messages for him. He stated that he had not
received any of them. I asked Mr. Torres what led him to call me back, he stated
it was because we were harassing him at work and making threats.” City
Attorney Lee continued, “At some point in the conversation I remember saying to
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 8 of 171
him, well I spoke to someone in court affairs and they had the same phone
number. They left you a voicemail, is that why you called us back?” City
Attorney Lee stated that she did not believe that he confirmed that he got a
voicemail from court affairs or from Spencer (AS City Attorney Hart) or anybody.
City Attorney Lee pointed out that when Officer Torres stated that he was being
harassed or threatened, he never disclosed the source of the allegation. City
Attorney Lee believed that those allegations originated from the voicemails left by
LACA and court affairs, but she did not know for certain how he had received
information to contact LACA. City Attorney Lee pointed out that it was possible
that Arnita had called Officer Torres back and he answered his phone.
[audio: 0h 37m 12s]
When asked about Officer Torres’ reference to threats and harassment, City
Attorney Lee stated that AS City Attorney Hart mentioned in his voicemail
message on Officer Torres’ phone that they (LACA) had just learned he was a
police officer for LBPD and mentioned that they did not want to involve his work.
They were willing to make accommodations if his work schedule was an issue.
No threats were made or intended. City Attorney Lee pointed out that she did not
know Officer Torres was a police officer until it was discovered by LAPD Officer
Ayson on August 10, 2017. City Attorney Lee had not attempted contact with
Officer Torres since learning that information.
When City Attorney Lee was asked, she stated that Officer Torres specifically
said he did not have voicemail set up on his phone. City Attorney Lee stated that
Officer Torres specifically said that he had not received any of the voicemail
messages. City Attorney Lee stated that Officer Torres specifically said he had
not received any of the subpoenas.
[audio: 0h 38m 58s]
Based upon context of conversation with City Attorney Lee, she believed Officer
Torres had received some type of contact via work. Officer Torres told City
Attorney Lee that she was “You’re harassing me at work now.” City Attorney Lee
believed that Torres phone was up on caller identification (Caller ID) and was the
same number called by LACA (Caller ID information is confirmed later at 43:55 in
the interview recording) during all of their previous attempts to communicate with
Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee confirmed with Officer Torres that they had his
correct phone number, he confirmed the number as the same one listed in the
case file.
City Attorney Lee told Officer Torres that they had attempted to send him
subpoenas at the Alta Loma and Fontana addresses. Officer Torres refused to
confirm if either location was his home address. She attempted to confirm his
correct address for mailing of subpoenas. He told her she could send mail to
Fontana, Ca. He stated, “Yeah, you can send the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 9 of 171
subpoenas there.” City Attorney Lee asked Officer Torres if that was his home
address, he replied, “I’m not going to say that.”
[audio: 1h 03m 14s]
City Attorney Lee stated that she believed from her notes, not the case file which
would be more accurate, a total of 11 subpoenas were sent or delivered to
Officer Torres addresses during the course of the case. Of those 11, possibly 1
was sent to 4800 Los Coyotes Diagonal (old EPSS) in relation to the July 25,
2017, court date. In addition to the 11 subpoenas that she counted from her
notes, City Attorney Lee stated that there were those that were sent to LBPD
court affairs that were served to Officer Torres at work.
City Attorney Lee confirmed that Officer Torres stated that the Fontana address
was a good mailing address but would not confirm where he lived. Officer Torres
did not explain why. City Attorney Lee asked Officer Torres if he was certain he
would receive a subpoena mailed to the Fontana address, she was concerned
that he was not receiving the subpoenas at Fontana to this point, Officer Torres
said, “Just send them there.”
City Attorney Lee was asked if Officer Torres ever expressed doubt as to her
identity or legitimacy as a City Attorney as the reason for he would provide
identify his address. City Attorney Lee stated, “No.” She added that every phone
call from LACA included the information that they are calling from the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s Office. She stated that he had made rude comments,
but none that expressed doubt about her identity. This conversation occurred
after he had been contacted through LBPD court affairs.
[audio: 1h 06m 37s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about the topic of voicemail not working on Officer
Torres’ phone. She stated that she expressed to him that they had been trying to
reach him. Officer Torres said that he had not received any of their subpoenas
when she asked him.
[audio: 1h 09m 36s]
On August 14, 2017, there was a court date, an on-call subpoena was sent out
on July 26, 2017, Officer Torres did not respond. City Attorney Lee told Officer
Torres over the phone that they had sent him an on-call subpoena and told him
over the phone that she wanted him to appear in court on August 14, 2017,
Officer Torres said, “No, I won’t be there.” She said Officer Torres was under no
legal obligation to appear and she did not believe she had the legal authority to
order him to appear over the phone, but she specifically told him a subpoena had
been sent to his address to be on call and that she wanted him to appear.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 10 of 171
Officer Torres told City Attorney Lee that he never gave his phone number to the
LAPD officers for their report, he could not understand why they had his phone
number.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Sergeant Hillard stated that he has been
a Los Angeles Police Officer for over twenty years. He is currently assigned to
the Wilshire Division. On March 1, 2017, he was present at a traffic collision and
driving under the influence (DUI) arrest near 7550 S. Sepulveda Bl. Los Angeles
at approximately 0150 hours, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Report
#17-14-07337. During that call, he came in contact with a witness to the event,
off-duty Long Beach Police Officer, Michael Torres.
Officer Torres approached Sergeant Hillard as he was contacting the DUI driver.
Officer Torres identified himself to Sergeant Hillard as a police officer and told
him that he had seen everything that occurred. When assisting LAPD officers
arrived, Sergeant Hillard told them that he had a police officer witness who had
seen the incident and directed the LAPD officers to interview Officer Torres.
Sergeant Hillard did not have any contact with Officer Torres after the March 1,
2017, at the scene of the incident. Sergeant Hillard was advised by the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s office that Officer Torres had called him a liar. Sergeant
Hillard was told that Officer Torres was not being cooperative with the
prosecution and was reluctant to testify. Officer Torres had told the City Attorney
that he had seen all of the incident and that he was lying about not seeing the
motorcyclist. Officer Torres insisted that Sergeant Hillard had seen everything
needed for the case, and that Sergeant Hillard could testify to the same thing that
Officer Torres had seen.
Sergeant Hillard did not have any knowledge as to why Officer Torres was
reluctant to appear in court. Officer Torres did not make any statements during
the incident about not wanting to be a witness for court. Officer Torres was very
helpful at the scene. Sergeant Hillard did not have any theories or observations
as to why Officer Torres was reluctant to appear in court. Sergeant Hillard came
away from this case with the belief that Long Beach Police Officers were not
required to appear in court upon receipt of a subpoena. He believed that there
must not have been any consequences if Officer Torres did not appear.
Sergeant Hillard did not have any knowledge of Officer Torres attempting to
contact the defense attorney in the matter.
During his Internal Affiars Interview, Assisting Supervising (AS) City
Attorney Hart stated that he has been employed by the Los Angeles City
Attorney’s Office since 1997. During the course of Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Case #7AR00128, People V. Simen, Mr. Hart became aware that there was a
problem with Officer Torres in his role as a witness when the prosecutor
assigned to the case, Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee, brought the issue to his
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 12 of 171
Attorney Lee is a relatively new and young attorney. She was shaken and upset;
she was frustrated with Officer Torres’ attitude when she came to him for
consultation. AS City Attorney Hart confirmed that City Attorney Lee reported
that Officer Torres refused to appear on August 14, 2017. AS City Attorney Hart
stated that Officer Torres did not think he was needed. AS City Attorney Hart
repeated that Officer Torres claimed now that he didn’t actually see the suspect
and that he didn’t actually see the things that he had told the police officers who
took the original report.
AS City Attorney Hart added that Officer Torres had asked City Attorney Lee for
the name and number of defense counsel. He said that he would advise defense
counsel that the police report was wrong. He reiterated that he should not have
to testify because the LAPD sergeant had seen everything and that if the
sergeant said otherwise, the sergeant was not being truthful.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that it was necessary to make Officer Torres go
before the judge to confirm his contact information and phone number. AS City
Attorney Hart was present when Officer Torres spoke with the judge. AS City
Attorney Hart stated that it was unusual to have to make a police officer witness
provide his information before the court. He stated that he would not ever expect
to have to do that with a police officer witness. AS City Attorney Hart stated that
normally a police officer witness is taken at their word and they provide contact
information for the file and that is sufficient. To go on record and ask the court to
confirm contact information was extraordinary. AS City Attorney Hart could not
recall ever having to bring a police officer witness before the court in his career
in order to obtain accurate contact information.
AS City Attorney Hart recalled that the court had to emphasize to Officer Torres
the importance that he was willing to be on-call. AS City Attorney Hart did not
recall the exact details, but remembered that it was not a simple matter of the
court telling Officer Torres and receiving compliance, the court had to stress the
point. Up to that point, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office had not received a
confirmation from Officer Torres on his contact information.
When asked if he had any theory or knowledge as to why Officer Torres behaved
the way that he did in this matter, AS City Attorney Hart stated that he could only
guess, AS City Attorney Hart stated that he thought that at some point Officer
Torres mentioned child care as an issue but was not sure. He thought that
Officer Torres did not want to bother with this case. AS City Attorney Hart
agreed that Officer Torres just did not want to come to court.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, LAPD Officer Nestor Ayson stated he is
a court liaison officer for LAPD and works at the Los Angeles Airport Courthouse.
Officer Ayson worked with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Officer on People v.
Simen #7AR00128. Officer Ayson assisted Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee in
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 15 of 171
CT Alvarez stated that they did not locate anyone at the residence matching
Officer Torres’ description.
CT Alvarez stated that her normal practice when attempting service is to ring the
doorbell. In this particular instance, she noted that she heard the doorbell inside
home, so she did not knock on the door. She did not hear or see anyone inside.
CT Alvarez noted that the three recorded dates, September 22, 2016, September
28, 2016 and October 6, 2016, were the dates that she attempted service on
Officer Torres. Included in her notations on dates for service were that a Silver
Ford Truck with paper license plates was located in the driveway on two
occasions.
CT Alvarez explained that all computer typed information noted on the form was
information provided by the plaintiff in the matter. Any handwritten notes were
recorded by CT Alvarez.
LASD process servers were contacted during the investigation regarding
their report (Addendum #24), related to subpoena service in Riverside Court
case #RID1603614. They attempted to serve Officer Torres during his work
hours at the East Police Substation on three occasions. They were not able to
locate or serve Officer Torres.
Internal Affairs Sergeant Dominick Scaccia filed a memorandum
(Addendum #24). “On October 3, 2016, I facilitated subpoena service on Officer
Michael Torres #6252 in relation to Riverside Court Case #RID1603614, in the
Internal Affairs office, at the direction of Lieutenant Patrick O’Dowd. Sergeant
Vincenzo Marchese was present when Officer Torres was served.
Officer Torres behavior was best described as defiant. I greeted him as he
entered the office. When I advised he was being served, he immediately stated,
‘Are you willing to testify to this? That’s per Trott.’ Officer Torres then accepted
service of the subpoena and left without further incident. Proof of service was
later provided to Ms.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Officer Michael Torres stated that on
March 1, 2017, he was off-duty in the area of 77th St. and Sepulveda Blvd. in the
City of Los Angeles when he witnessed a traffic collision. He briefly described
the traffic collision; the reporting agency was the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD).
Officer Torres stated that he had a brief interaction with a LAPD Sergeant
(Hillard) at the scene when he pulled over.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 16 of 171
Additional LAPD officers responded to the incident. Officer Torres provided a
witness statement to one of the LAPD officers. Officer Torres did not know the
name of the officer to whom he spoke. Based upon reports and interviews,
LAPD Officer Quiroga conducted the witness interview with Officer Torres.
Officer Torres described other officers at the scene, and believed there were
three in total, Officer Torres described the officer that interviewed him as a
shorter male white. Officer Torres witness statement was a one on one
interview.
[audio I: 5m 23s]
Officer Torres was asked what caused him to stop and provide a witness
statement at 0150 hours in the morning. He stated that it appeared that other
vehicles in the area did not care about the collision. He wanted to make sure
that the person who crashed was okay. Once he pulled over, he saw that
Sergeant Hillard was already present.
Officer Torres was asked about his willingness and ability to participate in the
court case as a witness. He stated that he was willing to go to court. He stated,
“I got a subpoena, I know I have to go and show up on that date and time. There
was a conversation between me and the ‘DA’ regarding this case, she read me
this report and I had disagreed with facts in the report at which time she wanted
me to go along with what was just written in the report. I told her that I would not
do that, I would testify to what I actually had saw that’s not listed in the report.”
Officer Torres was asked if at some point he expressed a reluctance to testify in
court and told City Attorney Lee that the LAPD officers had seen everything and
that they could testify to the facts of the case. Officer Torres denied that he
made that statement.
[audio I: 7m 42s]
Officer Torres was asked when he first became aware that the Los Angeles City
Attorney’s Office (LACA) was trying to reach him regarding this incident, People
v. Simen 7AR00128. “I received a call from Cindy in court affairs, I don’t know
the date, but she had told me that there was a ‘DA’ that was trying to get ahold of
me regarding a traffic collision that I had witnessed. She told me that the ‘DA’
had asked if she could put me on their court calendar for the case. She told
them that they could not since it was not a work-related incident, it was off duty.
And that she, she told me that the ‘DA’ had been trying to get ahold of me, and I
told her that I had not heard from the ‘DA’ prior to this conversation. So she gave
me the ‘DA’s’ phone number and I called her shortly after our conversation.
Officer Torres confirmed that he called LACA back the same day as he alleged
that he spoke with Cindy in court affairs. Officer Torres was asked if by referring
to ‘DA’ if he actually meant City Attorney, he clarified that he spoke with Grace
Lee, and was informed that she worked for LACA.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 19 of 171
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he would not appear in
court on August 14, 2017 during their conversation on August 11, 2017. He
stated, “No, I don’t recall telling her that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if he said,
“No, I won’t be there.” He stated, “No, I don’t remember saying that, no.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was familiar with LBPD policy about subpoenas
and appearances. He stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was asked about Riverside Court Case #RID1603614, a family
court case. Officer Torres was familiar with the case and understood what the
investigator was talking about. The case was related to
and a child they have in common. Officer Torres stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was asked to provide a brief summary of what the case was about.
Attorney Trott interjected, “Can I ask what this is about? What are the allegations
here?”
The investigator stated that the issue was relevant to pattern of behavior.
Attorney Trott asked, “So we are not looking at another I.A. case?’
The investigator stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked to give a brief summary
of what the case involved and his explanation did not need to include all the
details.”
Officer Torres asked to speak with Attorney Trott in private.
[Break]
Break at 1830 hours, during the break Officer Torres was given an opportunity to
consult with Attorney Trott, when they concluded with their consultation in
private, all parties were given time to attend to their personal needs.
The interview resumed at 1840 hours. Present were Attorney Trott, Officer
Torres, Sergeant Mendoza and Sergeant Ellis.
Officer Torres was again asked to focus his attention on Riverside Court Case,
#RID1603614. Officer Torres acknowledged that he was able to consult with
Attorney Trott. Officer Torres was asked to provide a general summary of the
case. He stated, “It’s a child custody, where a female that I had a relationship
with got pregnant and had a child.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was aware that the San Bernardino Sheriff’s
Department attempted service multiple times at his home address of
Fontana, in September and October of 2016. (Addendum #24)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 20 of 171
Officer Torres was asked if he received any of the notices they left on his door.
He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was told that the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department employee
that attempted subpoena service on all three occasions noted that he was
evading service. Officer Torres was asked if he had any explanation or
knowledge as to why they would make that statement. He stated, “No idea,
never knew that.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was notified in this same matter, #RID1603614,
that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department attempted service multiple times at
3800 Willow St., the East Police Substation in October of 2016. He stated, “I was
never aware of LA Sheriff’s, no.” (Addendum #24)
Officer Torres was asked if he ever received a subpoena from the Los Angeles
Sheriff’s Department regarding the Riverside court case. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was told that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s noted on their attempts of
service that he was hard to locate at the police station. He was asked if he had
any explanation as to why the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department would note that
on their attempts at service. He stated, “I, I never knew.”
Officer Torres was asked about the September and October 2016 timeframe and
if a friend of attempted to serve him a subpoena at
Fontana. He stated, “No.” He was asked if anyone ever tried to
serve a subpoena at that location. He stated, “No.”
[audio II: 03m 03s]
Officer Torres was asked if was aware of or attempted
service at the location on the Riverside case. He stated,
“No.” When asked if she was aware of that address, he stated, “I don’t believe
so, no.”
Officer Torres was reminded that in October 2016 he was served a subpoena in
Internal Affairs by Sergeant Scaccia. During that service, he asked Sergeant
Scaccia, “Are you willing to testify to this? That’s per Trott.” Officer Torres was
asked if he said that to Sergeant Scaccia. He stated, “I said, I told him that
you’re testifying as the proof of service on this case, per Trott, yes.” The
question was rephrased, “Is that an accurate reflection of what you told him?”
Officer Torres stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was told that his statement seemed to reflect that he did not want
to be served with the subpoena. He was asked if that was a fair assessment.
He stated, “No, it’s not a fair.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 23 of 171
[audio II: 10m 13s]
Officer Torres was asked if it was correct that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
office was not able to make contact with him prior to August 11, 2017. He asked,
“That’s the date that I talked to them on the phone, correct?” The investigator
stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres stated, “Yes, that’s correct.
Officer Torres was asked if he had any contact or communication with the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s office prior to that date. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was involved in any other criminal cases where he
was having subpoenas mailed to him at either address during the timeframe of
April to August 2017. He stated, “No. I don’t believe so, No.” He asked for
clarification and the question was repeated. He stated, “No, no, no, no criminal
cases, no.”
Officer Torres was asked if had any other subpoenas that were being mailed to
him during that timeline at either address. He stated, “I don’t believe so, I believe
that the Riverside case was already handled, so I would say no.”
[audio II: 11m 22s]
On August 15, 2017, at about 1608 hours Sergeant Louis Perez left a voicemail
on Officer Torres cell phone. Officer Torres called back and acknowledged that
he had received the voicemail at about 1614 hours, according to phone records,
(Addendum #13).
Officer Torres was asked to explain. He asked, “On which date?” The
investigator told him, “August 15, 2017.” He stated, “I, if he left me a message,
then I, then, then, I called him back, then I was able to get a message from him
on that day.”
Officer Torres was reminded that he stated that he did not receive any other
voicemails around that timeline (including all those from LACA). He stated, “Like
I said, without going in the phone, I can’t, I can’t tell you for sure. But I did have a
conversation with, with Perez, yes.”
The investigator reconfirmed that Officer Torres was not willing to provide phone
records. Officer Torres confirmed that he was not willing to provide the records.
Officer Torres was asked if he received any phone calls or voice messages or
mailed subpoenas prior to his contact with LACA contacting him through court
affairs as he had described, prior to August 11, 2017. He asked, “Uh, can you
repeat that again?” The investigator repeated the question. He stated, “I just got
the phone call from Cindy (Cindy Martinez, Court Affairs), on the 11th, which is
the same day I talked to Lee (City Attorney Lee).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 27 of 171
SEE Addendum #14 – Following is summary from Addendum #14 related to
Allegation #2. Subpoenas sent to Officer Torres on case #7AR00128.
Date Issued: 07/20/2017– for Court Date 07/25/2017– BE THERE
Address – Fontana, CA
Process server delivered on 08/09/2017– for Court Date 08/11/2017– BE THERE
Address – Fontana, CA
STATEMENTS
During her Internal Affairs Interview, Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee
stated, that when she was assigned the case, it was determined that it was likely
to go to trial. She received the case file and began the process of report review
and contacting witnesses for trial preparation.
City Attorney Lee received the case file on or about July 25, 2017. At that point
there had been several attempts to contact Officer Torres. At that point, the City
Attorney did not know that Officer Torres was a Police Officer, the attempts to
contact him were based upon his personal information included in the LAPD
police reports.
City Attorney Lee stated that she received the case from Los Angeles City
Attorney (LACA) City Attorney Carolyn Phillips. City Attorney Phillips office had
done the case preparation and then assigned it to City Attorney Lee for trial. At
the time City Attorney Lee was briefed on the file, witness coordinators had made
several attempts to contact Officer Torres via voicemail and subpoena. During
the brief, City Attorney Phillips noted that she had no response from Officer
Torres; City Attorney Phillips called Officer Torres in her presence, there was no
answer. City Attorney Phillips left a voicemail while City Attorney Lee was in her
presence. City Attorney Lee did not believe that City Attorney Phillips had ever
spoken with Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee did not believe that any other
LACA City Attorney had been assigned the case before or after City Attorney
Phillips passed her the case.
City Attorney Lee discussed potential witnesses to interactions with Officer
Torres. In addition to Spencer Hart and Carolyn Phillips, City Attorney Lee was
asked about witness coordinators from LACA. She stated that she did not
believe that any witness coordinators spoke with Officer Torres. She based that
opinion upon her research of the criminal case and associated file, it did not
appear that Officer Torres had ever responded to any of the attempted
communications and subpoenas from LACA.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 30 of 171
4800 Los Coyotes Diagonal, old East Police Sub-Station) in Long Beach for the
July 25, 2017, court date. The additional addresses were located through a
search by LAPD Officer Ayson. The return was not, “Confidential LBPD.” City
Attorney Lee also noted from her file that there was a July 26, 2017, court date;
and on call subpoena was mailed on July 17, 2017, for that court date. In
addition, they attempted a phone call on July 17, 2017, there was no answer,
they left a voice mail. July 25, 2017, was a pretrial date, Officer Torres did not
appear. Up to this point in the case, no contact had been made with Officer
Torres.
City Attorney Lee wanted to interview him as a witness after no contact with him.
They needed him as the person who saw the motorcycle rider, he was the only
one who actually saw the motorcycle rider. City Attorney Lee believed that the
witness testimony from Officer Torres would have improved the strength of the
case because according the witness statement from him in the police report, he
had witnessed some very poor driving prior to the collision. City Attorney Lee
believed that Officer Torres testimony could have resulted in additional charges
against the defendant.
[audio: 0h 24m 32s]
Once interviewed, Officer Torres stated he was off-duty and driving home from
work. He saw a near collision occur between a motorcycle and a vehicle, then
the vehicle crashed into a fixed object. Officer Torres saw that the motorcycle
rider did not stop and left the area. Officer Torres stopped and volunteered info
to both Sergeant Hillard and then later Officer Quiroga when he was interviewed
for the traffic collision and arrest reports. Officer Torres was the only person who
saw the motorcycle rider and could provide testimony on that piece of the
incident.
Other than delay and failure to contact City Attorney Lee, there were not any
negative effects to the case. These subpoenas were for a pretrial meeting. City
Attorney Lee did not believe court was aware and court did not take any negative
action against Torres on that date.
An in-person process server attempted to serve subpoenas on August 7, 2017,
regarding an August 11, 2017, court date. The LACA’s office made this decision
based upon the lack of response to the previous multiple attempts to contact
Officer Torres by mail and telephone. City Attorney Lee worked with AS City
Attorney Hart to engage a process server to make in person attempts on August
9, 2017. The process server knocked but did not get a response at either the
Alta Loma or Fontana addresses. The process server reported that there may
have been a person home at one of the addresses, but no one came to the door.
There was a car at one address, the process server took the license plate of the
vehicle and provided it to Lee, she was not sure if that information was in the file.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 32 of 171
When asked, City Attorney Lee confirmed that up to the morning of August 11,
2017, there had not been any negative interaction between Officer Torres and
LACA. She stated that to this point he had not ever responded to any attempts
to reach him.
[audio: 0h 34m 55s]
On the afternoon of August 11, 2017, Officer Torres called City Attorney Lee
back. It was around 1500 when City Attorney Lee spoke with Officer Torres.
Officer Torres said he was calling back because the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Office was making threats toward him. Officer Torres stated that he did not have
voicemail, it was not set up on his phone and messages couldn’t be left. Officer
Torres stated the only way he knew that he needed to call was because he was
being threatened by LACA. Officer Torres did not confirm how he knew to call
back. City Attorney Lee stated that, “I asked him if he received any of our
voicemails that our office had left for him. He stated that he did not have
voicemail and no messages could be left for him. I told him that our witness
coordinators had left him numerous voicemail messages and that I or other
attorneys in the office had also left messages for him. He stated that he had not
received any of them. I asked Mr. Torres what led him to call me back, he stated
it was because we were harassing him at work and making threats.” City
Attorney Lee continued, “At some point in the conversation I remember saying to
him, well I spoke to someone in court affairs and they had the same phone
number. They left you a voicemail, is that why you called us back?” City
Attorney Lee stated that she did not believe that he confirmed that he got a
voicemail from court affairs or from Spencer (AS City Attorney Hart) or anybody.
City Attorney Lee pointed out that when Officer Torres stated that he was being
harassed or threatened, he never disclosed the source of the allegation. City
Attorney Lee believed that those allegations originated from the voicemails left by
LACA and court affairs, but she did not know for certain how he had received
information to contact LACA. City Attorney Lee pointed out that it was possible
that Arnita had called Officer Torres back and he answered his phone.
[audio: 0h 37m 12s]
When asked about Officer Torres’ reference to threats and harassment, City
Attorney Lee stated that AS City Attorney Hart mentioned in his voicemail
message on Officer Torres’ phone that they (LACA) had just learned he was a
police officer for LBPD and mentioned that they did not want to involve his work.
They were willing to make accommodations if his work schedule was an issue.
No threats were made or intended. City Attorney Lee pointed out that she did not
know Officer Torres was a police officer until it was discovered by LAPD Officer
Ayson on August 10, 2017. City Attorney Lee had not attempted contact with
Officer Torres since learning that information.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 33 of 171
When City Attorney Lee was asked, she stated that Officer Torres specifically
said he did not have voicemail set up on his phone. City Attorney Lee stated that
Officer Torres specifically said that he had not received any of the voicemail
messages. City Attorney Lee stated that Officer Torres specifically said he had
not received any of the subpoenas.
[audio: 0h 38m 58s]
Based upon context of conversation with City Attorney Lee, she believed Officer
Torres had received some type of contact via work. Officer Torres told City
Attorney Lee that she was “You’re harassing me at work now.” City Attorney Lee
believed that Torres phone was up on caller identification (Caller ID) and was the
same number called by LACA (Caller ID information is confirmed later at 43:55 in
the interview recording) during all of their previous attempts to communicate with
Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee confirmed with Officer Torres that they had his
correct phone number, he confirmed the number as the same one listed in the
case file.
City Attorney Lee told Officer Torres that they had attempted to send him
subpoenas at the Alta Loma and Fontana addresses. Officer Torres refused to
confirm if either location was his home address. She attempted to confirm his
correct address for mailing of subpoenas. He told her she could send mail to
Fontana, Ca. He stated, “Yeah, you can send the
subpoenas there.” City Attorney Lee asked Officer Torres if that was his home
address, he replied, “I’m not going to say that.”
[audio: 1h 03m 14s]
City Attorney Lee stated that she believed from her notes, not the case file which
would be more accurate, a total of 11 subpoenas were sent or delivered to
Officer Torres addresses during the course of the case. Of those 11, possibly 1
was sent to 4800 Los Coyotes Diagonal (old EPSS) in relation to the July 25,
2017, court date. In addition to the 11 subpoenas that she counted from her
notes, City Attorney Lee stated that there were those that were sent to LBPD
court affairs that were served to Officer Torres at work.
City Attorney Lee confirmed that Officer Torres stated that the Fontana address
was a good mailing address but would not confirm where he lived. Officer Torres
did not explain why. City Attorney Lee asked Officer Torres if he was certain he
would receive a subpoena mailed to the Fontana address, she was concerned
that he was not receiving the subpoenas at Fontana to this point, Officer Torres
said, “Just send them there.”
City Attorney Lee was asked if Officer Torres ever expressed doubt as to her
identity or legitimacy as a City Attorney as the reason for he would provide
identify his address. City Attorney Lee stated, “No.” She added that every phone
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 34 of 171
call from LACA included the information that they are calling from the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s Office. She stated that he had made rude comments,
but none that expressed doubt about her identity. This conversation occurred
after he had been contacted through LBPD court affairs.
[audio: 1h 06m 37s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about the topic of voicemail not working on Officer
Torres’ phone. She stated that she expressed to him that they had been trying to
reach him. Officer Torres said that he had not received any of their subpoenas
when she asked him.
[audio: 1h 09m 36s]
On August 14, 2017, there was a court date, an on-call subpoena was sent out
on July 26, 2017, Officer Torres did not respond. City Attorney Lee told Officer
Torres over the phone that they had sent him an on-call subpoena and told him
over the phone that she wanted him to appear in court on August 14, 2017,
Officer Torres said, “No, I won’t be there.” She said Officer Torres was under no
legal obligation to appear and she did not believe she had the legal authority to
order him to appear over the phone, but she specifically told him a subpoena had
been sent to his address to be on call and that she wanted him to appear.
Officer Torres told City Attorney Lee that he never gave his phone number to the
LAPD officers for their report, he could not understand why they had his phone
number.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Sergeant Hillard stated that he has been
a Los Angeles Police Officer for over twenty years. He is currently assigned to
the Wilshire Division. On March 1, 2017, he was present at a traffic collision and
driving under the influence (DUI) arrest near 7550 S. Sepulveda Bl. Los Angeles
at approximately 0150 hours, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Report
#17-14-07337. During that call, he came in contact with a witness to the event,
off-duty Long Beach Police Officer, Michael Torres.
Officer Torres approached Sergeant Hillard as he was contacting the DUI driver.
Officer Torres identified himself to Sergeant Hillard as a police officer and told
him that he had seen everything that occurred. When assisting LAPD officers
arrived, Sergeant Hillard told them that he had a police officer witness who had
seen the incident and directed the LAPD officers to interview Officer Torres.
Sergeant Hillard did not have any contact with Officer Torres after the March 1,
2017, at the scene of the incident. Sergeant Hillard was advised by the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s office that Officer Torres had called him a liar. Sergeant
Hillard was told that Officer Torres was not being cooperative with the
prosecution and was reluctant to testify. Officer Torres had told the City Attorney
that he had seen all of the incident and that he was lying about not seeing the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 36 of 171
Torres called back and spoke to City Attorney Lee. AS City Attorney Hart
confirmed that City Attorney Lee’s account of AS City Attorney Hart’s message
was correct. AS City Attorney Hart stated in his message that this case involved
a DUI with a defendant who had prior DUI’s and that they did not want to involve
Officer Torres’ chain of command. His lack of response as a police officer was
baffling and that his office just wanted to talk with Officer Torres regarding what
he had witnessed. If Officer Torres had any issues regarding his availability, he
would work with him.
AS City Attorney Hart continued, “Ms. Lee told me further that Torres claimed
that he had not received any of the subpoenas that we had mailed or hand
delivered and refused to confirm which address was the correct address for his
residence. He also claimed that he had not received any of the voicemail
messages left for him and that he didn’t even have voicemail set up on his
phone. He said that the reason he called Ms. Lee back was because we were
‘harassing’ him at work and making ‘threats.’ He stated that he would not be
appearing in August 14, which was then the next court date.”
AS City Attorney Hart confirmed and independently recalled that the statements
he attributed to City Attorney Lee were a true and accurate reflection of the
conversation with City Attorney Lee. AS City Attorney Hart added that City
Attorney Lee is a relatively new and young attorney. She was shaken and upset;
she was frustrated with Officer Torres’ attitude when she came to him for
consultation. AS City Attorney Hart confirmed that City Attorney Lee reported
that Officer Torres refused to appear on August 14, 2017. AS City Attorney Hart
stated that Officer Torres did not think he was needed. AS City Attorney Hart
repeated that Officer Torres claimed now that he didn’t actually see the suspect
and that he didn’t actually see the things that he had told the police officers who
took the original report.
AS City Attorney Hart added that Officer Torres had asked City Attorney Lee for
the name and number of defense counsel. He said that he would advise defense
counsel that the police report was wrong. He reiterated that he should not have
to testify because the LAPD sergeant had seen everything and that if the
sergeant said otherwise, the sergeant was not being truthful.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that it was necessary to make Officer Torres go
before the judge to confirm his contact information and phone number. AS City
Attorney Hart was present when Officer Torres spoke with the judge. AS City
Attorney Hart stated that it was unusual to have to make a police officer witness
provide his information before the court. He stated that he would not ever expect
to have to do that with a police officer witness. AS City Attorney Hart stated that
normally a police officer witness is taken at their word and they provide contact
information for the file and that is sufficient. To go on record and ask the court to
confirm contact information was extraordinary. AS City Attorney Hart could not
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 39 of 171
noted a car in the driveway, CA. License Plate Ruhl did not note any
signs that anyone was home or attempting to avoid service. At
Fontana, CA there was no answer at the door. A copy of the subpoena
was attached to the door with a hand-written note to contact City Attorney Lee.
Ruhl did not note any signs that anyone was home or attempting to avoid
service.
During her Internal Affiars Interview, Darlene Alvarez stated she is a Civil
Technician (CT) for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBSD).
CT Alvarez stated that in September and October of 2016 she attempted service
in case #RID1603614 at Fontana, CA. for Michael Torres.
When asked about the SBSD Summons and Subpoena form (Addendum #24)
that she filled out in regard to the attempted service, she stated that she filled out
the form and that the notations were accurate. When asked about her
handwritten notes, “Unable to contact defendant after numerous attempts,
defendant evading service.” CT Alvarez stated that she had made three
attempts for service, left business cards, saw that his described vehicle was in
the driveway, and Officer Torres never contacted them or responded to their
attempts to reach him.
CT Alvarez stated that they did not locate anyone at the residence matching
Officer Torres’ description.
CT Alvarez stated that her normal practice when attempting service is to ring the
doorbell. In this particular instance, she noted that she heard the doorbell inside
home, so she did not knock on the door. She did not hear or see anyone inside.
CT Alvarez noted that the three recorded dates, September 22, 2016, September
28, 2016 and October 6, 2016, were the dates that she attempted service on
Officer Torres. Included in her notations on dates for service were that a Silver
Ford Truck with paper license plates was located in the driveway on two
occasions.
CT Alvarez explained that all computer typed information noted on the form was
information provided by the plaintiff in the matter. Any handwritten notes were
recorded by CT Alvarez.
LASD process servers were contacted during the investigation regarding
their report (Addendum #24), related to subpoena service in Riverside Court
case #RID1603614. They attempted to serve Officer Torres during his work
hours at the East Police Substation on three occasions. They were not able to
locate or serve Officer Torres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 40 of 171
Internal Affairs Sergeant Dominick Scaccia filed a memorandum
(Addendum #24). “On October 3, 2016, I facilitated subpoena service on Officer
Michael Torres #6252 in relation to Riverside Court Case #RID1603614, in the
Internal Affairs office, at the direction of Lieutenant Patrick O’Dowd. Sergeant
Vincenzo Marchese was present when Officer Torres was served.
Officer Torres behavior was best described as defiant. I greeted him as he
entered the office. When I advised he was being served, he immediately stated,
‘Are you willing to testify to this? That’s per Trott.’ Officer Torres then accepted
service of the subpoena and left without further incident. Proof of service was
later provided to Ms.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Officer Michael Torres stated that on
March 1, 2017, he was off-duty in the area of 77th St. and Sepulveda Blvd. in the
City of Los Angeles when he witnessed a traffic collision. He briefly described
the traffic collision; the reporting agency was the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD).
Officer Torres stated that he had a brief interaction with a LAPD Sergeant
(Hillard) at the scene when he pulled over.
Additional LAPD officers responded to the incident. Officer Torres provided a
witness statement to one of the LAPD officers. Officer Torres did not know the
name of the officer to whom he spoke. Based upon reports and interviews,
LAPD Officer Quiroga conducted the witness interview with Officer Torres.
Officer Torres described other officers at the scene, and believed there were
three in total, Officer Torres described the officer that interviewed him as a
shorter male white. Officer Torres witness statement was a one on one
interview.
[audio I: 5m 23s]
Officer Torres was asked what caused him to stop and provide a witness
statement at 0150 hours in the morning. He stated that it appeared that other
vehicles in the area did not care about the collision. He wanted to make sure
that the person who crashed was okay. Once he pulled over, he saw that
Sergeant Hillard was already present.
Officer Torres was asked about his willingness and ability to participate in the
court case as a witness. He stated that he was willing to go to court. He stated,
“I got a subpoena, I know I have to go and show up on that date and time. There
was a conversation between me and the ‘DA’ regarding this case, she read me
this report and I had disagreed with facts in the report at which time she wanted
me to go along with what was just written in the report. I told her that I would not
do that, I would testify to what I actually had saw that’s not listed in the report.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 41 of 171
Officer Torres was asked if at some point he expressed a reluctance to testify in
court and told City Attorney Lee that the LAPD officers had seen everything and
that they could testify to the facts of the case. Officer Torres denied that he
made that statement.
[audio I: 7m 42s]
Officer Torres was asked when he first became aware that the Los Angeles City
Attorney’s Office (LACA) was trying to reach him regarding this incident, People
v. Simen 7AR00128. “I received a call from Cindy in court affairs, I don’t know
the date, but she had told me that there was a ‘DA’ that was trying to get ahold of
me regarding a traffic collision that I had witnessed. She told me that the ‘DA’
had asked if she could put me on their court calendar for the case. She told
them that they could not since it was not a work-related incident, it was off duty.
And that she, she told me that the ‘DA’ had been trying to get ahold of me, and I
told her that I had not heard from the ‘DA’ prior to this conversation. So she gave
me the ‘DA’s’ phone number and I called her shortly after our conversation.
Officer Torres confirmed that he called LACA back the same day as he alleged
that he spoke with Cindy in court affairs. Officer Torres was asked if by referring
to ‘DA’ if he actually meant City Attorney, he clarified that he spoke with Grace
Lee, and was informed that she worked for LACA.
[audio I: 8m 58s]
Officer Torres was asked if he thought it was correct that he called City Attorney
Grace Lee back on August 11, 2017. He stated, “Again, I don’t know when our
conversation, I have the court affairs number.” When asked if that date sounded
about right, he stated, “It could be.”
Officer Torres stated that during his conversation with City Attorney Lee he told
her that he had not received any of the voicemails that her office had left on his
phone during the previous attempts to contact him. Officer Torres stated that he
did not receive any of the voicemails that LACA had left for him between April
2017 and August 11, 2017.
Officer Torres was informed that it appeared that from the investigation that his
phone conversation with City Attorney Lee took place on August 11, 2017.
Officer Torres stated that on August 11, 2017, during their phone conversation,
he told City Attorney Lee that he had not received any subpoenas from LACA on
the case to that point.
Officer Torres stated that he did not receive any subpoenas regarding the case
during the timeframe of April 2017 to August 11, 2017.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 43 of 171
in the City of Rancho was my address. I told her, I told her that
was not my, my address, that it was my parents address and that the city was
actually Rancho Cucamonga, not the City of Rancho. Um, she didn’t, she didn’t
ask me what my, what my address was, and I gave her my address.”
Officer Torres was asked if he refused to confirm for her what his home address
was for the mailing of subpoenas. He stated, “No.”
[audio I: 52m 35s]
Officer Torres was asked if he told her that she could mail subpoenas
He stated, “Yes I did.” Officer Torres was asked if when City Attorney Lee
asked if it was his home address he stated, “I am not going to say that.” He
stated, “No, I never said that.”
Officer Torres was asked about City Attorney Lee expressing concern about him
not receiving subpoenas up to that point. He was asked if he told City Attorney
Lee in reference to the address, “Just send them there.” He
stated, “Yes, I told her send, send future subpoenas, yes.”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he had not received
any of the subpoenas sent to him prior to August 11, 2017. He stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he would not appear in
court on August 14, 2017 during their conversation on August 11, 2017. He
stated, “No, I don’t recall telling her that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if he said,
“No, I won’t be there.” He stated, “No, I don’t remember saying that, no.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was familiar with LBPD policy about subpoenas
and appearances. He stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was asked about Riverside Court Case #RID1603614, a family
court case. Officer Torres was familiar with the case and understood what the
investigator was talking about. The case was related to
and a child they have in common. Officer Torres stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was asked to provide a brief summary of what the case was about.
Attorney Trott interjected, “Can I ask what this is about? What are the allegations
here?”
The investigator stated that the issue was relevant to pattern of behavior.
Attorney Trott asked, “So we are not looking at another I.A. case?’
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 44 of 171
The investigator stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked to give a brief summary
of what the case involved and his explanation did not need to include all the
details.”
Officer Torres asked to speak with Attorney Trott in private.
[Break]
Break at 1830 hours, during the break Officer Torres was given an opportunity to
consult with Attorney Trott, when they concluded with their consultation in
private, all parties were given time to attend to their personal needs.
The interview resumed at 1840 hours. Present were Attorney Trott, Officer
Torres, Sergeant Mendoza and Sergeant Ellis.
Officer Torres was again asked to focus his attention on Riverside Court Case,
#RID1603614. Officer Torres acknowledged that he was able to consult with
Attorney Trott. Officer Torres was asked to provide a general summary of the
case. He stated, “It’s a child custody, where a female that I had a relationship
with got pregnant and had a child.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was aware that the San Bernardino Sheriff’s
Department attempted service multiple times at his home address of
Fontana, in September and October of 2016. (Addendum #24)
Officer Torres was asked if he received any of the notices they left on his door.
He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was told that the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department employee
that attempted subpoena service on all three occasions noted that he was
evading service. Officer Torres was asked if he had any explanation or
knowledge as to why they would make that statement. He stated, “No idea,
never knew that.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was notified in this same matter, #RID1603614,
that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department attempted service multiple times at
3800 Willow St., the East Police Substation in October of 2016. He stated, “I was
never aware of LA Sheriff’s, no.” (Addendum #24)
Officer Torres was asked if he ever received a subpoena from the Los Angeles
Sheriff’s Department regarding the Riverside court case. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was told that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s noted on their attempts of
service that he was hard to locate at the police station. He was asked if he had
any explanation as to why the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department would note that
on their attempts at service. He stated, “I, I never knew.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 45 of 171
Officer Torres was asked about the September and October 2016 timeframe and
if a friend of attempted to serve him a subpoena at
Fontana. He stated, “No.” He was asked if anyone ever tried to
serve a subpoena at that location. He stated, “No.”
[audio II: 03m 03s]
Officer Torres was asked if was aware of or attempted
service at the location on the Riverside case. He stated,
“No.” When asked if she was aware of that address, he stated, “I don’t believe
so, no.”
Officer Torres was reminded that in October 2016 he was served a subpoena in
Internal Affairs by Sergeant Scaccia. During that service, he asked Sergeant
Scaccia, “Are you willing to testify to this? That’s per Trott.” Officer Torres was
asked if he said that to Sergeant Scaccia. He stated, “I said, I told him that
you’re testifying as the proof of service on this case, per Trott, yes.” The
question was rephrased, “Is that an accurate reflection of what you told him?”
Officer Torres stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was told that his statement seemed to reflect that he did not want
to be served with the subpoena. He was asked if that was a fair assessment.
He stated, “No, it’s not a fair.”
Officer Torres was asked what his attitude was about being served. He stated, “I
was a little confused as to why I was being ordered into Internal Affairs on a non-
work-related issue.”
Officer Torres was asked what his motive was in asking Sergeant Scaccia, “Are
you willing to testify to this?” He stated, “I was asking if he, if I needed him to be
available in court, because I would need to probably get an attorney that, he
would, he would be the one that signed this proof of service that he gave, he
gave the paperwork.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was upset when he was given that paperwork by
Sergeant Scaccia. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was trying to be defiant to Sergeant Scaccia. He
stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was attempting to avoid being served at all in this
matter, the Riverside case. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked about September and October 2016 if
Fontana, was his address. He stated, “Yes.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 47 of 171
Officer Torres was asked if he was receiving voicemails on his phone during that
timeline. He stated, “I did not get any new ones, I don’t believe, no.”
Officer Torres was asked if anyone during the timeline of April to August 2017,
left messages on that phone number. He stated, “Not that I recall, no.”
Officer Torres was asked again if he received any new voice messages on his
phone between April and the end of August 2017. He stated, “Without checking I
couldn’t tell you yes or no.”
Officer Torres was asked if he had the ability to check for that information. He
stated, “Yeah, I could go into the phone.”
Officer Torres was asked if there were any new voice messages that he heard or
received between April and August 2017. He stated, “I don’t believe so, no.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was willing to provide phone records from that
timeline in relation to his voicemails. Attorney Trott answered, “Nope. I said yes
last time, no the time before. It’s time to say no.”
Officer Torres was asked again if he was willing to provide phone records. He
stated, “I’m going to go, no.”
[audio II: 10m 13s]
Officer Torres was asked if it was correct that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
office was not able to make contact with him prior to August 11, 2017. He asked,
“That’s the date that I talked to them on the phone, correct?” The investigator
stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres stated, “Yes, that’s correct.
Officer Torres was asked if he had any contact or communication with the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s office prior to that date. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was involved in any other criminal cases where he
was having subpoenas mailed to him at either address during the timeframe of
April to August 2017. He stated, “No. I don’t believe so, No.” He asked for
clarification and the question was repeated. He stated, “No, no, no, no criminal
cases, no.”
Officer Torres was asked if had any other subpoenas that were being mailed to
him during that timeline at either address. He stated, “I don’t believe so, I believe
that the Riverside case was already handled, so I would say no.”
[audio II: 11m 22s]
On August 15, 2017, at about 1608 hours Sergeant Louis Perez left a voicemail
on Officer Torres cell phone. Officer Torres called back and acknowledged that
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 48 of 171
he had received the voicemail at about 1614 hours, according to phone records,
(Addendum #13).
Officer Torres was asked to explain. He asked, “On which date?” The
investigator told him, “August 15, 2017.” He stated, “I, if he left me a message,
then I, then, then, I called him back, then I was able to get a message from him
on that day.”
Officer Torres was reminded that he stated that he did not receive any other
voicemails around that timeline (including all those from LACA). He stated, “Like
I said, without going in the phone, I can’t, I can’t tell you for sure. But I did have a
conversation with, with Perez, yes.”
The investigator reconfirmed that Officer Torres was not willing to provide phone
records. Officer Torres confirmed that he was not willing to provide the records.
Officer Torres was asked if he received any phone calls or voice messages or
mailed subpoenas prior to his contact with LACA contacting him through court
affairs as he had described, prior to August 11, 2017. He asked, “Uh, can you
repeat that again?” The investigator repeated the question. He stated, “I just got
the phone call from Cindy (Cindy Martinez, Court Affairs), on the 11th, which is
the same day I talked to Lee (City Attorney Lee).
Officer Torres was asked if he received any phone calls from LACA prior to
August 11, 2017. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he received any phone messages from LACA prior to
August 11, 2017. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he received any mailed subpoenas from LACA prior
to August 11, 2017. He stated, “No.”
[audio II: 13m 29s]
Officer Torres was asked to explain his understanding of the legal requirements
of a person upon receiving a subpoena. He stated, “Well, when you get a
subpoena, you are supposed to follow the directions on the subpoena and
appear as it tells you to appear.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was aware that failure to obey the subpoena is
punishable as contempt of court under penal code sections 1331 and 1331.5.
He stated, “Yes.”
On April 17, 2017, a subpoena was sent for a May 11, 2017, court date. It was
mailed to Alta Loma, CA. the address Officer Torres
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 54 of 171
In relation to the July 25, 2017, court date referenced in the written complaint,
City Attorney Lee stated that she received the case file on July 17 or 18, 2017.
City Attorney Lee received the file from the previously assigned prosecutor, City
Attorney Carolyn Phillips. When she turned over the file, City Attorney Phillips
noticed that they had not made contact with Officer Torres. City Attorney Phillips
called Officer Torres in City Attorney Lee’s presence, there was not an answer,
City Attorney Phillips left a voice mail message.
City Attorney Lee then enlisted LAPD Officer Ayson on July 19, 2017, to help
with locating Officer Torres. At this point, it was still unknown that Officer Torres
was a police officer. Through a Lexis search, an additional (909) phone number
with an address in Fontana, Ca. City Attorney Lee left a voicemail at the first
phone number on July 19, 2017, and also spoke with someone at the newly
discovered number who said that it was not Officer Torres phone number. City
Attorney Lee stated there was a voicemail enabled on the original number, which
accepted her message. She said there was not a voice identifier from Officer
Torres.
[audio: 0h 20m 18s]
On July 20, 2017, “Must Appear” subpoenas were mailed to the Alta Loma and
Fontana addresses as well as a commercial address (later determined to be
4800 Los Coyotes Diagonal, old East Police Sub-Station) in Long Beach for the
July 25, 2017, court date. The additional addresses were located through a
search by LAPD Officer Ayson. The return was not, “Confidential LBPD.” City
Attorney Lee also noted from her file that there was a July 26, 2017, court date;
and on call subpoena was mailed on July 17, 2017, for that court date. In
addition, they attempted a phone call on July 17, 2017, there was no answer,
they left a voice mail. July 25, 2017, was a pretrial date, Officer Torres did not
appear. Up to this point in the case, no contact had been made with Officer
Torres.
City Attorney Lee wanted to interview him as a witness after no contact with him.
They needed him as the person who saw the motorcycle rider, he was the only
one who actually saw the motorcycle rider. City Attorney Lee believed that the
witness testimony from Officer Torres would have improved the strength of the
case because according the witness statement from him in the police report, he
had witnessed some very poor driving prior to the collision. City Attorney Lee
believed that Officer Torres testimony could have resulted in additional charges
against the defendant.
[audio: 0h 24m 32s]
Once interviewed, Officer Torres stated he was off-duty and driving home from
work. He saw a near collision occur between a motorcycle and a vehicle, then
the vehicle crashed into a fixed object. Officer Torres saw that the motorcycle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 56 of 171
During their conversations on August 10, 2017, Arnita told City Attorney Lee that
she left a voice mail for Officer Torres, but he had not yet called back to LBPD
court affairs. On the morning of August 11, 2017, neither City Attorney Lee nor
Arnita had heard back from Officer Torres.
Later in the morning of August 11, 2017, City Attorney Lee spoke with AS City
Attorney Hart, Hart left another voice mail for Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee
asked AS City Attorney Hart to make the call to insulate against a negative
personality conflict and convey that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office
needed to speak with Officer Torres, City Attorney Lee had left several messages
as this point in the timeline. City Attorney Lee listened as AS City Attorney Hart
left the voice mail and explained the critical need to speak with Officer Torres and
that they had learned he was a police officer from LBPD. AS City Attorney Hart
said that they did not want to involve Officer Torres’ chain of command and
offered to work with him if he had a difficult schedule. AS City Attorney Hart
expressed that he had hard time understanding Officer Torres’ failure to contact
their office. August 11, 2017, was a be there court date, Officer Torres did not
appear. The subpoena was for a pretrial meeting. The court was not informed of
his failure to appear, the court did not take action.
When asked, City Attorney Lee confirmed that up to the morning of August 11,
2017, there had not been any negative interaction between Officer Torres and
LACA. She stated that to this point he had not ever responded to any attempts
to reach him.
[audio: 0h 34m 55s]
On the afternoon of August 11, 2017, Officer Torres called City Attorney Lee
back. It was around 1500 when City Attorney Lee spoke with Officer Torres.
Officer Torres said he was calling back because the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Office was making threats toward him. Officer Torres stated that he did not have
voicemail, it was not set up on his phone and messages couldn’t be left. Officer
Torres stated the only way he knew that he needed to call was because he was
being threatened by LACA. Officer Torres did not confirm how he knew to call
back. City Attorney Lee stated that, “I asked him if he received any of our
voicemails that our office had left for him. He stated that he did not have
voicemail and no messages could be left for him. I told him that our witness
coordinators had left him numerous voicemail messages and that I or other
attorneys in the office had also left messages for him. He stated that he had not
received any of them. I asked Mr. Torres what led him to call me back, he stated
it was because we were harassing him at work and making threats.” City
Attorney Lee continued, “At some point in the conversation I remember saying to
him, well I spoke to someone in court affairs and they had the same phone
number. They left you a voicemail, is that why you called us back?” City
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 57 of 171
Attorney Lee stated that she did not believe that he confirmed that he gotten a
voicemail from court affairs or from Spencer (AS City Attorney Hart) or anybody.
City Attorney Lee pointed out that when Officer Torres stated that he was being
harassed or threatened, he never disclosed the source of the allegation. City
Attorney Lee believed that those allegations originated from the voicemails left by
LACA and court affairs, but she did not know for certain how he had received
information to contact LACA. City Attorney Lee pointed out that it was possible
that Arnita had called Officer Torres back and he answered his phone.
[audio: 0h 37m 12s]
When asked about Officer Torres’ reference to threats and harassment, City
Attorney Lee stated that AS City Attorney Hart mentioned in his voicemail
message on Officer Torres’ phone that they (LACA) had just learned he was a
police officer for LBPD and mentioned that they did not want to involve his work.
They were willing to make accommodations if his work schedule was an issue.
No threats were made or intended. City Attorney Lee pointed out that she did not
know Officer Torres was a police officer until it was discovered by LAPD Officer
Ayson on August 10, 2017. City Attorney Lee had not attempted contact with
Officer Torres since learning that information.
When City Attorney Lee was asked, she stated that Officer Torres specifically
said he did not have voicemail set up on his phone. City Attorney Lee stated that
Officer Torres specifically said that he had not received any of the voicemail
messages. City Attorney Lee stated that Officer Torres specifically said he had
not received any of the subpoenas.
[audio: 0h 38m 58s]
Based upon context of conversation with City Attorney Lee, she believed Officer
Torres had received some type of contact via work. Officer Torres told City
Attorney Lee that she was “You’re harassing me at work now.” City Attorney Lee
believed that Torres phone was up on caller identification (Caller ID) and was the
same number called by LACA (Caller ID information is confirmed later at 43:55 in
the interview recording) during all of their previous attempts to communicate with
Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee confirmed with Officer Torres that they had his
correct phone number, he confirmed the number as the same one listed in the
case file.
City Attorney Lee told Officer Torres that they had attempted to send him
subpoenas at the Alta Loma and Fontana addresses. Officer Torres refused to
confirm if either location was his home address. She attempted to confirm his
correct address for mailing of subpoenas. He told her she could send mail to
Fontana, Ca. He stated, “Yeah, you can send the
subpoenas there.” City Attorney Lee asked Officer Torres if that was his home
address, he replied, “I’m not going to say that.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 58 of 171
[audio: 1h 03m 14s]
City Attorney Lee stated that she believed from her notes, not the case file which
would be more accurate, a total of 11 subpoenas were sent or delivered to
Officer Torres addresses during the course of the case. Of those 11, possibly 1
was sent to 4800 Los Coyotes Diagonal (old EPSS) in relation to the July 25,
2017, court date. In addition to the 11 subpoenas that she counted from her
notes, City Attorney Lee stated that there were those that were sent to LBPD
court affairs that were served to Officer Torres at work.
City Attorney Lee confirmed that Officer Torres stated that the Fontana address
was a good mailing address but would not confirm where he lived. Officer Torres
did not explain why. City Attorney Lee asked Officer Torres if he was certain he
would receive a subpoena mailed to the Fontana address, she was concerned
that he was not receiving the subpoenas at Fontana to this point, Officer Torres
said, “Just send them there.”
City Attorney Lee was asked if Officer Torres ever expressed doubt as to her
identity or legitimacy as a City Attorney as the reason for he would provide
identify his address. City Attorney Lee stated, “No.” She added that every phone
call from LACA included the information that they are calling from the Los
Angeles City Attorney’s Office. She stated that he had made rude comments,
but none that expressed doubt about her identity. This conversation occurred
after he had been contacted through LBPD court affairs.
[audio: 1h 06m 37s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about the topic of voicemail not working on Officer
Torres’ phone. She stated that she expressed to him that they had been trying to
reach him. Officer Torres said that he had not received any of their subpoenas
when she asked him.
[audio: 1h 09m 36s]
On August 14, 2017, there was a court date, an on-call subpoena was sent out
on July 26, 2017, Officer Torres did not respond. City Attorney Lee told Officer
Torres over the phone that they had sent him an on-call subpoena and told him
over the phone that she wanted him to appear in court on August 14, 2017,
Officer Torres said, “No, I won’t be there.” She said Officer Torres was under no
legal obligation to appear and she did not believe she had the legal authority to
order him to appear over the phone, but she specifically told him a subpoena had
been sent to his address to be on call and that she wanted him to appear.
Officer Torres told City Attorney Lee that he never gave his phone number to the
LAPD officers for their report, he could not understand why they had his phone
number.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 59 of 171
[audio: 1h 33m 19s]
City Attorney Lee felt the need to bring Officer Torres in front of the Judge to
confirm the subpoena and confirm his phone number was correct because
Officer Torres had been so difficult to reach. The Judge even offered Officer
Torres on 3-4-hour call rather than 24-hour call at Deputy Lee’s request. Officer
Torres told the Judge that he would try to appear with the 3-4-hour notice which
caused the Judge to reply that was not good enough and he had to confirm that
he could be on 3-4-hour call or he would have to appear each day. Officer
Torres then agreed. [Addendum #20]
City Attorney Lee said that she had never had a police officer behave in that way.
The Judge did not understand the problems with Officer Torres or that Officer
Torres was a police officer. The Judge was confused as to why the City Attorney
would want to include a witness phone number in the court record.
City Attorney Lee said the behavior disrupted her peace of mind and confidence
in the case. She had not ever encountered a police officer that refused to
provide contact information. City Attorney Lee decided not to call Torres based
upon his behavior and statements. City Attorney Lee stated that Officer Torres’
behavior was not a cause of delay.
During his Internal Affiars Interview, Assisting Supervising (AS) City
Attorney Hart stated that he has been employed by the Los Angeles City
Attorney’s Office since 1997. During the course of Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Case #7AR00128, People V. Simen, Mr. Hart became aware that there was a
problem with Officer Torres in his role as a witness when the prosecutor
assigned to the case, Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee, brought the issue to his
attention. City Attorney Lee told AS City Attorney Hart that she was having
problems in contacting Officer Torres. AS Hart did not know the exact date that
Deputy Lee approached him, but when presented with August 11, 2017, as the
date that City Attorney Lee recorded approaching AS City Attorney Hart in her
notes, AS City Attorney Hart believed that was the correct date. Prior to City
Attorney Lee bringing the issue to AS City Attorney Hart, he was not involved in
the details of the case. City Attorney Lee was a direct report to AS City Attorney
Hart.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that City Attorney Lee came to him initially
expressing difficulty in reaching Officer Torres, she had enlisted the assistance of
an LAPD liason officer, Nestor Ayson, in locating additional contact information
for Officer Torres and during that search, had discovered that Officer Torres was
a police officer for the City of Long Beach.