Red Book ADM2017-0037_Redacted_Part3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 62 of 171
by the process server that was hired to attempt personal service to Officer Torres
on August 9, 2017. The process server wrote the information on the subpoena
return, a copy was added to the file, (Addendum #14).
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Process Server Ruhl stated that he
attempted personal subpoena service on Michael Torres on August 9, 2017, in
relation to Los Angeles City Attorney’s case #7AR00128 at the two addresses
recorded on the subpoena associated with Officer Torres. The court date for the
subpoena was August 11, 2017. At Rancho Cucamonga,
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
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 63 of 171
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:
[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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 66 of 171
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)
Officer Torres was asked if he received any of the notices they left on his door.
He stated, “No.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 70 of 171
“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).
Officer Torres was asked if he received any phone calls from LACA prior to
August 11, 2017. He stated, “No.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 73 of 171
The investigator presented Officer Torres with a Handwriting Sample Card, LBPD
Form PD3134.001. (Addendum #18)
Officer Torres was presented with two handwritten Traffic Collision reports from
August 2017, LBPD Departmental Report numbers 170047059 and 170047092.
Officer Torres confirmed that they were reports that he had completed in his own
handwriting.
Officer Torres was directed to fill out the handwriting card completely, filling in all
the lines. He was directed to write in his normal block script as he would
normally write in his day to day handwriting.
[audio II: 21m 29s]
Officer Torres began filling out the handwriting card. He was again directed to fill
out the card in his block handwriting as he had filled out his traffic collision
reports.
As Officer Torres filled out the handwriting card, the investigator noted that he
appeared to be writing very slowly and deliberately, not in a normal flow of
handwriting. He pressed very heavily on the paper. He gripped the pen tightly to
the point that his hand and knuckles appeared to be strained. He began
sweating visibly on his face and head. He stopped several times while filling out
the card to stretch his hand. He stopped several times while filling out the card to
wipe sweat off the palm of his hand on his uniform. His hand had a slight tremor
which was not visible prior to being asked to provide the handwriting sample.
[audio II: 29m 23s]
The investigator noted that Officer Torres had made it through the top half of the
front of the handwriting card. He was at the section for writing out, “Art, Bob,
Charles.”
The investigator reminded Officer Torres to write in his normal handwriting flow.
The investigator pointed out to Officer Torres that he appeared to be laboring at
writing.
He was directed to write in uppercase, block writing, like the writing on his police
reports. The reports were again shown to Officer Torres for reference, he was
asked to fill out the card in the same manner. He did not and continued writing in
a manner that was labored and did not have the same flow of writing as was
noted at the beginning of the interview when he filled out his Summary
Explanation of Police Officer Rights. (Addendum #19,31)
[audio II: 30m 19s]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 77 of 171
[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.”
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Assisting Supervising City Attorney
Spencer Hart stated, “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.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 79 of 171
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.
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 80 of 171
During his Internal Affairs Interview, 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.
[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 83 of 171
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: 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.”
[audio II: 18m 50s]
The investigator presented Officer Torres with a Handwriting Sample Card, LBPD
Form PD3134.001. (Addendum #18)
Officer Torres was presented with two handwritten Traffic Collision reports from
August 2017, LBPD Departmental Report numbers 170047059 and 170047092.
Officer Torres confirmed that they were reports that he had completed in his own
handwriting.
Officer Torres was directed to fill out the handwriting card completely, filling in all
the lines. He was directed to write in his normal block script as he would
normally write in his day to day handwriting.
[audio II: 21m 29s]
Officer Torres began filling out the handwriting card. He was again directed to fill
out the card in his block handwriting as he had filled out his traffic collision
reports.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 84 of 171
As Officer Torres filled out the handwriting card, the investigator noted that he
appeared to be writing very slowly and deliberately, not in a normal flow of
handwriting. He pressed very heavily on the paper. He gripped the pen tightly to
the point that his hand and knuckles appeared to be strained. He began
sweating visibly on his face and head. He stopped several times while filling out
the card to stretch his hand. He stopped several times while filling out the card to
wipe sweat off the palm of his hand on his uniform. His hand had a slight tremor
which was not visible prior to being asked to provide the handwriting sample.
[audio II: 29m 23s]
The investigator noted that Officer Torres had made it through the top half of the
front of the handwriting card. He was at the section for writing out, “Art, Bob,
Charles.”
The investigator reminded Officer Torres to write in his normal handwriting flow.
The investigator pointed out to Officer Torres that he appeared to be laboring at
writing.
He was directed to write in uppercase, block writing, like the writing on his police
reports. The reports were again shown to Officer Torres for reference, he was
asked to fill out the card in the same manner. He did not and continued writing in
a manner that was labored and did not have the same flow of writing as was
noted at the beginning of the interview when he filled out his Summary
Explanation of Police Officer Rights. (Addendum #19,31)
[audio II: 30m 19s]
Officer Torres can be heard nervously clicking the pen repeatedly on the
recording. When he resumed writing he was pressing so hard that the sound of
each pen stroke is audible on the recording of the interview.
[audio II: 32m 31s]
The investigator noted that Officer Torres had completed two lines and was at
the word, “Ray” on the handwriting card. He was proceeding very slowly with a
great amount of labor given to each letter. The ink was thick and blotted at the
beginning and end of the pen strokes.
The investigator reminded Officer Torres to complete each word in uppercase
block writing as he had in his police reports. The Traffic Collision Reports were
presented for reference.
[audio II: 39m 32s]
Officer Torres completed the front side of the handwriting card. He was given
instruction to complete the back of the handwriting card.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 86 of 171
STATEMENTS
Relevant to review for this allegation are Addenda Items #9-13.
During her Internal Affairs Interview, City Attorney Grace Lee stated, that
she 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 stated that Assisting Supervising (AS) Los Angeles City
Attorney Spencer Hart, left a voicemail for Officer Torres on August 11, 2017, in
her presence. Officer Torres called City Attorney Lee back in the afternoon later
that same day. That was her first contact with Officer Torres.
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. City Attorney Lee added that the
criminal case was reassigned to another City Attorney from LACA just prior to the
trial, City Attorney Lee was transferred to a new job assignment within LACA
prior to the trial date. There could have been additional contact after the case
was reassigned.
City Attorney Lee explained that she was assisted in conducting research related
to potential contact information for Officer Torres by LAPD Officer Nestor Ayson,
he is assigned to Pacific Division as a liason officer for LACA. At the time of his
research, LACA was unaware that Officer Torres was a police officer.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 88 of 171
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 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 90 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 91 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.
When asked about the Caller ID while she was speaking with Officer Torres on
the phone on August 11, 2017, City Attorney Lee confirmed the statement in the
email complaint from LACA, “Ms. Lee noticed that the number he was calling
from was the same number listed in the police report and that we had called
repeatedly in an effort to reach Torres.” City Attorney Lee stated, “…I looked
down and said, oh this is the same phone number we’ve been trying.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 92 of 171
City Attorney Lee confirmed directly with LAPD Officer Quiroga that the
statements in his report were told to him directly by Officer Torres. She originally
interviewed Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard in July 2017. After her
conversation where Officer Torres brought up the discrepancies, City Attorney
Lee stated that she confirmed those issues again with the individual officers.
Sergeant Hillard reaffirmed that he never saw the motorcycle. Officer Quiroga
confirmed the statements attributed to Officer Torres, his address and the phone
number provided by Officer Torres.
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. She stated that she asked about the voicemail’s and
pointed out that he was calling her back. She stated that she was trying to be
very nice in order to keep Officer Torres cooperative even though their interaction
was not going in that direction. Officer Torres stated, “No, I don’t have voicemail
set up, there is no way anyone can ever leave me a voicemail. City Attorney Lee
told Officer Torres, “Well I personally left some and other people in our office left
some, there was a beep and I left a message, so this might be an issue for you
going forward that people are leaving you voicemails and you have no way of
knowing. I was able to leave one (voicemail) and court affairs was able to leave
one, so you might need to check something out, you may not be checking
your…, people may be leaving you things that you have no idea of knowing
about. He said, ‘No, I don’t have voicemail, so I can’t get any messages’.” City
Attorney Lee stated that the conversation with Officer Torres was a one on one
phone conversation and it was not a recorded call.
City Attorney Lee confirmed that she had left Officer Torres two voicemails on his
confirmed phone number. No one from LACA, including witness coordinators,
ever reported not being able to leave a message or encountering that his
voicemail was not set up. Notations in the case file, conversations with other
LACA employees and conversation with Arnita from LBPD court affairs indicated
that all had successfully left voicemail messages for Officer Torres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 94 of 171
Arrest Report. AS City Attorney Hart attempted to contact Officer Torres on
August 11, 2017, in the presence of City Attorney Lee. AS City Attorney Hart
was not able to reach Officer Torres directly, AS City Attorney Hart left a
message in his voicemail. Later in the afternoon of August 11, 2017, Officer
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 stated directly that Officer Torres did have voicemail set up
on his phone and that he left him a message. AS City Attorney Hart could not
recall if the voicemail prompt was a human voice or if it computerized. Officer
Torres did not call AS City Attorney Hart back related to that message.
Officer Torres eventually called City Attorney Lee later that afternoon. City
Attorney Lee briefed AS City Attorney Hart on the conversation with Officer
Torres. City Attorney Lee was upset by the conversation with Officer Torres. AS
City Attorney Hart referred to his notes and stated, “She noticed that the number
he was calling from was the same number listed in the report, first of all.”
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 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 100 of 171
Officer Torres was asked how his voicemail works when it is full and to explain
what happens when somebody calls him and what they would hear. Officer
Torres stated, “I don’t know what they hear. My understanding is that it just
doesn’t allow you to leave a voicemail.” Officer Torres was asked if there was a
prompt that stated the voicemail box is full. He stated, “I don’t know, I don’t call
my own phone.” Officer Torres was asked if he had ever called anyone else and
tried to leave a message when their voicemail box was full. He stated, “Yes.”
When asked what happened, he stated, “Um, some leave some kind of a
message stating that the mailbox is full.” Officer Torres was asked if would be
normal for a full mailbox to beep and allow a message to be left. He stated, “I do
not know.”
Officer Torres was asked how he knew that his voicemail box was full. He
stated, “Because I, I, um, after she had, I, I get a lot of voicemails from my kid’s
mom. So, I, I save them. So, I don’t erase them, so I have them, so I can keep
track of our conversations we have. So, you can’t leave anymore on there until I
delete them. So that’s how I knew that, that she could not leave me any
messages, because I know that I had not deleted at that time any, any voicemails
to leave any space.” Officer Torres was asked what kind of phone he carries.
He stated, “Uh, android.” Officer Torres was asked if his phone shows missed
calls. He stated, “Uh, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he saw any missed calls
from the L.A. area. He stated, “No.”
[audio I: 47m 01s]
Officer Torres was asked about the phone call he stated that he received from
court affairs and what time that call occurred. He stated, “I don’t know.” Officer
Torres was asked if it occurred while on or off duty. He stated, “I think I was off
duty, I believe.” Officer Torres was asked what shift he was working during that
timeframe. He stated, “Afternoons.” Officer Torres was asked how long after he
received the call from court affairs he called and spoke with City Attorney Lee.
He stated, “Uh, I believe it was right after.”
Officer Torres was asked if when he called City Attorney Lee that he recognized
that there were missed calls from that same number in his call history. He
stated, “I never had any calls from her phone number, no.”
[audio I: 47m 55s]
Officer Torres was asked if he leaves his voicemail box full all the time, and how
he would know on that particular day that the voicemail was full. He stated, “It’s,
it’s normally, it’s normally full.” Officer Torres was asked how long the voicemail
box stayed full during the timeline in question. He stated, “I couldn’t tell you, I
don’t know.” Officer Torres was asked how he knew on that August 11, 2017,
the day he spoke with City Attorney Lee, that his voicemail box was full. He
stated, “On, because, I had, I had, I had checked, because when court affairs
had called me, Cindy was like, ‘She’s been trying to get ahold. So, I did check
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 102 of 171
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.”
[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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 108 of 171
that she believed that her contacts with the Los Angeles City Attorneys office
were at a later date in the case.
Cindy Martinez stated that her phone extension is 87379. She stated that she
knows that she did not use any other phone number or extension to try and call
Officer Torres in this matter.
Cindy Martinez stated that she did not recall Arnita Harper leaving the voicemail
on the morning of August 10, 2017.
Cindy Martinez was not aware of any other conversations that took place
between her, Arnita Harper or anyone else from Court Affairs with Officer Torres
on August 10 or 11, 2017.
Cindy Martinez clarified that the references in the email she wrote on August 14,
2018, to City Attorney San Juan, were not correct. Cindy Martinez stated that
she drew that information from Lt. Poss. She stated that the name Grace Lee
was not familiar in this matter. She said that it was possible that Arnita Harper
had spoken with City Attorney Grace Lee and not San Juan, on August 10 and
11, 2017, while trying to contact Officer Torres. She stated that she used the
name San Juan, because she had gotten that name from Lt. Poss during their
conversation on August 14, 2017, prior to sending the email. She continued
using the name San Juan by mistake.
Cindy Martinez stated that she believed the reference at the end of the email to
speaking with a Detective about Officer Torres prior to this incident was correct.
She stated that she did recall speaking to a detective about Officer Torres. She
could not recall the identity of the detective. She believed the conversation was
about Officer Torres in relation to this case. When asked how a detective would
have had knowledge about this case prior to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Office contacting LBPD on August 10, 2017, she stated that the only way that
would have occurred was if the City Attorney had contacted the specific
detective. She did not have any independent knowledge of such a contact.
Cindy Martinez did not have an explanation for her comments when the timeline
was clarified that the City Attorney’s office did not learn that Officer Torres was a
Long Beach police officer until August 10, 2017.
Cindy Martinez stated that she believed the detective in question was Detective
Molinar or Detective Haas. She believed the conversation about Officer Torres
was with Detective Molinar.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Retired LBPD Detective Daniel Molinar
stated that he did not recall any information in August of 2017, related to this
matter. Officer Molinar did not recall any incidents involving Officer Torres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 109 of 171
Officer Molinar did recall having many conversations in the past with Court Affairs
Clerk Cindy Martinez related to officers failing to appear in court.
During his Internal Affairs Interview on April 2, 2018, Court Affairs Sergeant
Louis Perez stated that he first became aware of the issue between Officer
Torres and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office on August 14, 2017. He
learned of the issue through a phone call from Cindy Martinez. During that
phone call he was made aware of information that he requested Cindy Martinez
document in an email (Addendum #11).
Sergeant Perez did not recall speaking with either Arnita Harper or Cindy
Martinez on August 10th or 11th, 2017 about Officer Torres and the Los Angeles
City Attorney’s Office.
Sergeant Perez was not aware of any conversation between Officer Torres and
Cindy Martinez on August 10th or 11th, 2017.
Sergeant Perez believed that if she had spoken with Officer Torres on August
10th or 11th, Cindy Martinez would have briefed him on that information during
their call on August 14, 2017 and in her subsequent email.
Sergeant Perez did not have a specific recollection of Cindy Martinez briefing him
about Arnita Harper’s voicemail that she left for Officer Torres on August 10,
2017.
Sergeant Perez did not speak with Officer Torres about Supervising City Attorney
Julie San Juan’s contact and conversation with Deputy Chief Beckman’s office
and Lieutenant Poss.
Sergeant Perez only had the information provided by Cindy Martinez on August
14, 2017. Cindy Martinez learned about the information from Arnita Harper.
Sergeant Perez did not have any information from Patrol Administration’s
conversations with City Attorney San Juan, he had not been briefed on those
conversations when he spoke with Officer Torres on August 15, 2017.
Sergeant Perez did not have any conversations with Officer Torres about this
matter other than during their phone call on August 15, 2017. During that
conversation, Officer Torres did not tell Sergeant Perez how he knew to call the
City Attorney’s Office (City Attorney Grace Lee) on August 11, 2017.
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 110 of 171
he did not receive any voicemail messages from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Office from April 2017 to August 11, 2017
STATEMENTS
Relevant to review for this allegation are Addenda Items #9-13.
During her Internal Affairs Interview, City Attorney Grace Lee stated, that
she 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 stated that Assisting Supervising (AS) Los Angeles City
Attorney Spencer Hart, left a voicemail for Officer Torres on August 11, 2017, in
her presence. Officer Torres called City Attorney Lee back in the afternoon later
that same day. That was her first contact with Officer Torres.
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. City Attorney Lee added that the
criminal case was reassigned to another City Attorney from LACA just prior to the
trial, City Attorney Lee was transferred to a new job assignment within LACA
prior to the trial date. There could have been additional contact after the case
was reassigned.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 112 of 171
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 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 113 of 171
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]
Other than delay and failure to contact City Attorney Lee, there were not any
negative effects to 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.
LAPD Officer Ayson ran the vehicle registration and determined that it was
registered to someone with the Torres last name but not Michael Torres. The
process server left must appear subpoenas for the August 11, 2017, at the door
of each address, Officer Torres did not appear for court. The process server is a
contract employee, not city employee.
[audio: 0h 29m 36s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about how she found out that Officer Torres was a
Long Beach Police Officer. City Attorney Lee spoke with the process server after
attempts at personal service on August 9, 2017, based upon that conversation,
on August 10, 2017, she requested that LAPD Officer Ayson conduct a new
Lexis search. Officer Ayson located LBPD personnel officer number. City
Attorney Lee called and confirmed that Michael Torres was a police officer for
LBPD and was put in touch with LBPD court affairs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 115 of 171
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 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 116 of 171
correct phone number, he confirmed the number as the same one listed in the
case file.
When asked about the Caller ID while she was speaking with Officer Torres on
the phone on August 11, 2017, City Attorney Lee confirmed the statement in the
email complaint from LACA, “Ms. Lee noticed that the number he was calling
from was the same number listed in the police report and that we had called
repeatedly in an effort to reach Torres.” City Attorney Lee stated, “…I looked
down and said, oh this is the same phone number we’ve been trying.”
City Attorney Lee confirmed directly with LAPD Officer Quiroga that the
statements in his report were told to him directly by Officer Torres. She originally
interviewed Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard in July 2017. After her
conversation where Officer Torres brought up the discrepancies, City Attorney
Lee stated that she confirmed those issues again with the individual officers.
Sergeant Hillard reaffirmed that he never saw the motorcycle. Officer Quiroga
confirmed the statements attributed to Officer Torres, his address and the phone
number provided by Officer Torres.
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. She stated that she asked about the voicemail’s and
pointed out that he was calling her back. She stated that she was trying to be
very nice in order to keep Officer Torres cooperative even though their interaction
was not going in that direction. Officer Torres stated, “No, I don’t have voicemail
set up, there is no way anyone can ever leave me a voicemail. City Attorney Lee
told Officer Torres, “Well I personally left some and other people in our office left
some, there was a beep and I left a message, so this might be an issue for you
going forward that people are leaving you voicemails and you have no way of
knowing. I was able to leave one (voicemail) and court affairs was able to leave
one, so you might need to check something out, you may not be checking
your…, people may be leaving you things that you have no idea of knowing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 117 of 171
about. He said, ‘No, I don’t have voicemail, so I can’t get any messages’.” City
Attorney Lee stated that the conversation with Officer Torres was a one on one
phone conversation and it was not a recorded call.
City Attorney Lee confirmed that she had left Officer Torres two voicemails on his
confirmed phone number. No one from LACA, including witness coordinators,
ever reported not being able to leave a message or encountering that his
voicemail was not set up. Notations in the case file, conversations with other
LACA employees and conversation with Arnita from LBPD court affairs indicated
that all had successfully left voicemail messages for Officer Torres.
[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.
[audio: 1h 29m 28s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about Officer Torres behavior when he did appear
in court to meet with her for the first time. She stated that he checked into the
court room and she thanked him for coming, his response to her greeting was,
“Whatever.” She confirmed his phone was correct and asked availability.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Assisting Supervising City Attorney
Spencer Hart stated, 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 122 of 171
Sergeant Perez had spoken with Administrator Tom Behrens before and after the
phone call and recalled briefing Behrens after the call with Officer Torres and
informing him that Officer Torres had spoken with the City Attorney’s Office and
resolved the issue. The court affairs issue was resolved for the time being and
Sergeant Perez did not take any further action.
Sergeant Perez explained that the contact he had with Sergeant Crawford took
place on his personal phone, he knew that based on the time of day, Sergeant
Crawford would be busy and may not answer a call from an unknown number.
Sergeant Perez wanted a quick resolution to the issue and felt Sergeant
Crawford would respond to a call from a known number. Sergeant Perez
provided a screenshot of the text exchange (Addendum #13).
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Officer Torres made the following
statements.
[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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 132 of 171
Cindy Martinez did not have any other knowledge or recollection of trying to call
Officer Torres on August 10 or 11, 2017. Cindy Martinez stated that she did not
believe that she called Officer Torres on August 10 or 11, 2017. Cindy Martinez
stated that she may have had conversations with Officer Torres later in August or
September regarding resubpoena or a new subpoena on this case. She added
that on the dates in question, she did not speak with Officer Torres.
Cindy Martinez stated that she did not think that she handled any of the issue
during the time that Arnita Harper was initially speaking with the City Attorney’s
office on August 10 and 11, 2017. She concluded by stating that she did not
recall and added that she believed her involvement was at a later date.
Cindy Martinez was asked if she spoke with anyone from the City Attorney’s
office on August 10 or 11, 2017, and she said that she did not recall. She stated
that she believed that her contacts with the Los Angeles City Attorneys office
were at a later date in the case.
Cindy Martinez stated that her phone extension is 87379. She stated that she
knows that she did not use any other phone number or extension to try and call
Officer Torres in this matter.
Cindy Martinez stated that she did not recall Arnita Harper leaving the voicemail
on the morning of August 10, 2017.
Cindy Martinez was not aware of any other conversations that took place
between her, Arnita Harper or anyone else from Court Affairs with Officer Torres
on August 10 or 11, 2017.
Cindy Martinez clarified that the references in the email she wrote on August 14,
2018, to City Attorney San Juan, were not correct. Cindy Martinez stated that
she drew that information from Lt. Poss. She stated that the name Grace Lee
was not familiar in this matter. She said that it was possible that Arnita Harper
had spoken with City Attorney Grace Lee and not San Juan, on August 10 and
11, 2017, while trying to contact Officer Torres. She stated that she used the
name San Juan, because she had gotten that name from Lt. Poss during their
conversation on August 14, 2017, prior to sending the email. She continued
using the name San Juan by mistake.
Cindy Martinez stated that she believed the reference at the end of the email to
speaking with a Detective about Officer Torres prior to this incident was correct.
She stated that she did recall speaking to a detective about Officer Torres. She
could not recall the identity of the detective. She believed the conversation was
about Officer Torres in relation to this case. When asked how a detective would
have had knowledge about this case prior to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s
Office contacting LBPD on August 10, 2017, she stated that the only way that
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 133 of 171
would have occurred was if the City Attorney had contacted the specific
detective. She did not have any independent knowledge of such a contact.
Cindy Martinez did not have an explanation for her comments when the timeline
was clarified that the City Attorney’s office did not learn that Officer Torres was a
Long Beach police officer until August 10, 2017.
Cindy Martinez stated that she believed the detective in question was Detective
Molinar or Detective Haas. She believed the conversation about Officer Torres
was with Detective Molinar.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Retired LBPD Detective Daniel Molinar
stated that he did not recall any information in August of 2017, related to this
matter. Officer Molinar did not recall any incidents involving Officer Torres.
Officer Molinar did recall having many conversations in the past with Court Affairs
Clerk Cindy Martinez related to officers failing to appear in court.
During his Internal Affairs Interview on April 2, 2018, Court Affairs Sergeant
Louis Perez stated that he first became aware of the issue between Officer
Torres and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office on August 14, 2017. He
learned of the issue through a phone call from Cindy Martinez. During that
phone call he was made aware of information that he requested Cindy Martinez
document in an email (Addendum #11).
Sergeant Perez did not recall speaking with either Arnita Harper or Cindy
Martinez on August 10th or 11th, 2017 about Officer Torres and the Los Angeles
City Attorney’s Office.
Sergeant Perez was not aware of any conversation between Officer Torres and
Cindy Martinez on August 10th or 11th, 2017.
Sergeant Perez believed that if she had spoken with Officer Torres on August
10th or 11th, Cindy Martinez would have briefed him on that information during
their call on August 14, 2017 and in her subsequent email.
Sergeant Perez did not have a specific recollection of Cindy Martinez briefing him
about Arnita Harper’s voicemail that she left for Officer Torres on August 10,
2017.
Sergeant Perez did not speak with Officer Torres about Supervising City Attorney
Julie San Juan’s contact and conversation with Deputy Chief Beckman’s office
and Lieutenant Poss.
Sergeant Perez only had the information provided by Cindy Martinez on August
14, 2017. Cindy Martinez learned about the information from Arnita Harper.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 134 of 171
Sergeant Perez did not have any information from Patrol Administration’s
conversations with City Attorney San Juan, he had not been briefed on those
conversations when he spoke with Officer Torres on August 15, 2017.
Sergeant Perez did not have any conversations with Officer Torres about this
matter other than during their phone call on August 15, 2017. During that
conversation, Officer Torres did not tell Sergeant Perez how he knew to call the
City Attorney’s Office (City Attorney Grace Lee) on August 11, 2017.
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.
STATEMENTS
During her Internal Affairs Interview, City Attorney Grace Lee referred to her
case notes and stated that she asked Officer Torres if he had received any of the
LACA subpoenas mailed or left on his door by the process server, Officer Torres
stated that he had not. City Attorney Lee asked about both the Alta Loma
address and the Fontana address, Officer Torres stated that he could receive
mail at the Fontana address, but would not confirm that it was his residence.
(Officer Torres had provided the Alta Loma address to LAPD for the police report
on March 1, 2017).
[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.
[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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 135 of 171
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 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 136 of 171
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: 0h 40m 49s]
City Attorney Lee stated that at the beginning of their call, she referred to him on
the phone as “Officer Torres.” She explained that she began the call by stating,
“Officer Torres, thank you for calling me back.” He replied, “I’m not Officer Torres
to you, I’m just Michael to you.” His response was gruff and caught City Attorney
Lee off guard. City Attorney Lee’s interpretation was that he made that
statement because he wanted to be a, “jerk.” She felt it was unusual, but went
along with the request.
During their conversation, their first conversation ever, Officer Torres was
uncooperative, not belligerent but very unhappy to be on the phone with her.
When asked if he was professional, she replied that he was not being
professional based upon his tone. When asked about stating that he was being
a “jerk,” she stated that she tried to be polite and told him that LACA was going to
be subpoenaing him for August 14, 2017, Officer Torres replied, “No, not going to
be there.”
City Attorney Lee continued to explain that every statement from Officer Torres
tried to undercut her statement or accuse the LAPD officers of not being truthful.
He threatened to call the defense attorney. Officer Torres said he was going to
tell the defense attorney that this case was wrong because he had information
(related to accuracy of the reports). City Attorney Lee summarized, “I took
everything that he, through the course of the call, I took it all to mean that he
knew what he was doing and he was really trying to be a ‘jerk.”
When asked about the Caller ID while she was speaking with Officer Torres on
the phone on August 11, 2017, City Attorney Lee confirmed the statement in the
email complaint from LACA, “Ms. Lee noticed that the number he was calling
from was the same number listed in the police report and that we had called
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 137 of 171
repeatedly in an effort to reach Torres.” City Attorney Lee stated, “…I looked
down and said, oh this is the same phone number we’ve been trying.”
City Attorney Lee was asked if Officer Torres was trying to conceal his identity as
a police officer when he asked her to refer to him as “Michael” instead of “Officer
Torres.” She replied, that she felt he was trying to represent himself in this
matter as a private citizen rather than a police officer. She said that she knew he
was a police officer, but at no point did he try to tell her that he was not a police
officer.
[audio: 0h 45m 12s]
When asked, City Attorney Lee said that Officer Torres expressed reluctance to
testify. She added, “He said he shouldn’t have to testify because the Sergeant
(LAPD Sgt. Hillard), the first LAPD officer that had stopped, had seen
everything.” He said, “Why do you need me to testify, he saw everything.”
Officer Torres did not explain why he didn’t want to testify other than saying that
he just didn’t think he should have to testify.
City Attorney Lee said she tried to express that they would accommodate his
schedule and understood that based upon his addresses and his employment in
Long Beach that he had a long commute. At the beginning of her attempts to
contact Officer Torres, she only wanted to speak with him and confirm that his
story was consistent with the police report. She had not yet decided if she was
even going to need to use him in the trial and simply wanted to confirm what he
witnessed and check his availability for trial if necessary. She summarized his
response as, “He basically said that he did not want to testify. He just shouldn’t
need to testify. But he did not say specifically why that was.”
[audio: 0h 47m 14s]
City Attorney Lee was asked what Officer Torres told her about the LAPD
Sergeant as a witness. She stated that when she first started speaking with
Officer Torres, he became belligerent and antagonistic, so she asked him to tell
her his version of events. Officer Torres told her what he remembered seeing.
Deputy Lee read him the witness statement attributed to him, Officer Torres
replied, “There were lots of things wrong with that.” City Attorney Lee described
that Officer Torres proceeded to go through and undercut every observation that
was in the statement.
Officer Torres followed by repeating that Sergeant Hillard had seen everything,
he had seen the motorcyclist. Officer Torres continued by saying that he
shouldn’t have to testify because he didn’t see anything that LAPD hadn’t
witnessed. City Attorney Lee was asked about how Officer Torres was
undercutting the witness statement, she confirmed that Officer Torres was
undercutting how his own statements were recorded. She stated that she read
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 138 of 171
him the witness statement in the police report, and he pointed out several items
that he felt were discrepancies.
When asked the order of events, City Attorney Lee stated that she believed that
she first had Officer Torres recount the event, then she read him the witness
statement attributed to him in the police report, and then he pointed out the
discrepancies.
[audio: 0h 50m 48s]
When asked, City Attorney Lee stated that Officer Torres first run through of
events was not exact match to the police report, but it generally matched on the
main points and was about normal for a cold recall of events without reading a
police report and that they were talking on August 11, 2017, about an incident
that occurred on March 1, 2017. Her initial impression was that his unrefreshed
memory of the incident generally matched with the police report. She said his
initial story contained the motorcycle, there was a car going through the
intersection, either they crashed or almost crashed, finally the defendant’s truck
crashed.
City Attorney Lee was asked if, as a prosecutor, there was anything in the first
run through vs. what was documented in the police report that would cause her
problems with Officer Torres being a credible witness. She replied, “I did
question, because, based on the police report it states that there was a light, and
that, Torres had told the police officers that the motorcycle had the green and
that the defendant had run a red light. When he was recounting this, I am not
sure if I remember. I think I was like, do you remember where the light was?
Was it green or whatever? I believe he then was like, I don’t remember, I
assumed the motorcycle had a green light.” City Attorney Lee had a question
with the statement about assuming the light was green for motorcyclist. She was
not sure if Officer Torres just didn’t remember because it had been months since
the incident occurred. She said that she planned on following up on that point.
She wanted to confirm if the defendant had run the red light or if in fact Officer
Torres did not remember.
[audio: 0h 52m 58s]
City Attorney Lee was asked what Officer Torres said regarding the LAPD
Sergeant as a witness. City Attorney Lee said that the first thing Officer Torres
told her was that he shouldn’t have to testify, the sergeant saw everything. She
repeated that they wanted to talk with Officer Torres because Sergeant Hillard
said he did not see it all. At that point, “Torres amped it up a little bit and got
meaner.” City Attorney Lee said that Officer Torres stated that Sergeant Hillard
saw the motorcyclist so therefore he shouldn’t have to testify, if Sergeant Hillard
said otherwise, “I have a problem with that.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 139 of 171
Officer Torres also stated that the first question that Officer Quiroga asked him,
one of the responding LAPD officers, had to do with whether or not a motorcyclist
was there and Officer Torres had not said anything about the motorcyclist to
anyone at that point. Officer Torres asserted that there was no way that Officer
Quiroga would have known about the motorcycle unless Sergeant Hillard had
told him.
City Attorney Lee stated that prior to interviewing Officer Torres, she had
interviewed the LAPD officers. During those interviews their stories were
consistent that Officer Torres had stopped and volunteered a statement.
Sergeant Hillard stated that he had not seen a motorcycle and did not know
about a motorcycle being involved in the collision until after Officer Quiroga told
him about Officer Torres statement.
[audio: 0h 55m 07s]
City Attorney Lee was asked for the specific inaccuracies that Officer Torres
pointed out in the police report. She said that Officer Torres stated that he never
knew the make and model of the vehicle. In the LAPD report, it says he reported
it as a blue GMC Sierra. Officer Torres stated that he never knew color or what
kind of vehicle was involved. Torres said that he did not know if the SUV ran a
red light. Officer Torres said that he did not know if the motorcycle was intending
on continuing straight or if it was going to make the left turn or if the turn was
made to avoid a collision. Officer Torres said he didn’t see the motorcyclist
extend a right hand to fend off the car door with left hand steering to avoid
collision. Officer Torres said he did not know if the motorcycle had crashed or
not after avoiding the defendant’s vehicle.
Officer Torres said he did not identify the defendant as the driver of the vehicle
and no one ever walked him over to identify the person that was detained. LAPD
officers told City Attorney Lee that Torres identified the defendant as the driver to
them as he was being interviewed. Officer Torres in his statement to City
Attorney Lee denied that line in the police report and stated that he never even
knew if the driver was a man or woman.
City Attorney Lee confirmed directly with LAPD Officer Quiroga that the
statements in his report were told to him directly by Officer Torres. She originally
interviewed Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard in July 2017. After her
conversation where Officer Torres brought up the discrepancies, City Attorney
Lee stated that she confirmed those issues again with the individual officers.
Sergeant Hillard reaffirmed that he never saw the motorcycle. Officer Quiroga
confirmed the statements attributed to Officer Torres, his address and the phone
number provided by Officer Torres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 140 of 171
[audio: 0h 59m 00s]
When asked if Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard confirmed that Officer Torres
had identified the defendant during his interview with Officer Quiroga, City
Attorney Lee stated, “I don’t know if Hillard did, but Quiroga did. I am trying to
remember my conversation with Hillard. I think that what Hillard had said was he
told Torres to stay in his car and wait for additional officer to come do the
interview for the DUI investigation and for the traffic collision.” City Attorney Lee
continued, “I think Hillard said, …that Torres said, ‘I saw what happened,’ or
identified himself as having witnessed what happened. Hillard told him to hang
out until someone else speaks to you.”
Officer Quiroga acknowledged to City Attorney Lee that Officer Torres identified
himself as a police officer, but stated that he did not put that info in the police
report. City Attorney Lee said that she asked Officer Quiroga about it after she
learned in August that Officer Torres was a police officer, Officer Quiroga, said
that Officer Torres had told him that he was headed home after his shift at work,
but Officer Quiroga did not put that information in the police report. City Attorney
Lee did not know if there was a conversation between Officer Quiroga and
Officer Torres to leave that information out of the report.
[audio: 1h 00m 08s]
City Attorney Lee was asked if she confirmed that Officer Torres identified the
defendant during his interview with Officer Quiroga or if there was a formal field
show up. City Attorney Lee stated that her understanding was that it happened
during Officer Torres interview and that the conversation with police took place
during the middle of the night. The driver had not left the scene of the collision.
Officer Torres pointed and identified the defendant during the interview. Also,
Sergeant Hillard saw the 2nd half of accident and maintained visual contact with
the driver. Identification of the defendant was not a problem in this case.
LAPD Officer Southard was speaking with defendant during the call, Officer
Quiroga’s interviewed Officer Torres, there were other assisting officers on the
call, but it was unclear to City Attorney Lee if anyone else listened to Officer
Torres’ statement to Officer Quiroga.
There was dash in car video (DICV) from LAPD of the defendant with Officer
Southard, City Attorney Lee had reviewed all that video and stated that there was
no interaction between Officer Torres and Officer Quiroga captured on the video.
The video copy could be obtained via a copy from the case file or through LAPD,
(Addendum #6).
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 141 of 171
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. She stated that she asked about the voicemail’s and
pointed out that he was calling her back. She stated that she was trying to be
very nice in order to keep Officer Torres cooperative even though their interaction
was not going in that direction. Officer Torres stated, “No, I don’t have voicemail
set up, there is no way anyone can ever leave me a voicemail. City Attorney Lee
told Officer Torres, “Well I personally left some and other people in our office left
some, there was a beep and I left a message, so this might be an issue for you
going forward that people are leaving you voicemails and you have no way of
knowing. I was able to leave one (voicemail) and court affairs was able to leave
one, so you might need to check something out, you may not be checking
your…, people may be leaving you things that you have no idea of knowing
about. He said, ‘No, I don’t have voicemail, so I can’t get any messages’.” City
Attorney Lee stated that the conversation with Officer Torres was a one on one
phone conversation and it was not a recorded call.
[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 142 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.
[audio: 1h 12m 00s]
Officer Torres asked over the phone for contact information for the defense
attorney assigned to the case, he said, “What is his name, what is his number, I
am going to call him.” City Attorney Lee told him that the defense attorney was
female, and City Attorney Lee provided the contact information. City Attorney
Lee contacted the defense attorney from the Public Defender’s Office to turn over
Officer Torres’ witness statement as part of discovery. City Attorney Lee asked if
Officer Torres had contacted her, she stated that Officer Torres had not
contacted her.
When asked if the statement in the email complaint was correct when it stated
that Officer Torres asked for a phone number for defense counsel so that he
could advise them that the report was wrong. City Attorney Lee confirmed that
statement was correct. City Attorney Lee stated that Officer Torres said, “Well
who is the defense attorney in this case, I want to speak to the defense attorney,
who is that person?” City Attorney Lee replied that it was the Public Defender.
Officer Torres asked her, “What’s his name, I am going to tell him, I am going to
contact him.” City Attorney Lee replied that it was female attorney, and that her
name was Jaime Bourne. City Attorney Lee provided the number for the Public
Defender’s office at the airport. Officer Torres replied, “I am going to have a
conversation with them. I am going to talk to them about this and I am going to
tell them all this stuff.”
When asked if Officer Torres statements were unusual, City Attorney Lee stated
that it was unusual and that she had never had a police officer ask for defense
attorney information so that they could speak with them about a case. She
stated that she had never had a witness ask to contact the defense attorney.
City Attorney Lee interpreted Officer Torres statements and threats of calling the
Public Defender as an effort to intimidate her.
[audio: 1h 14m 11s]
City Attorney Lee was asked if Officer Torres made any other statements during
their conversation about talking to the defense attorney that revealed his motive.
City Attorney Lee stated, “That he did not want to testify, he wanted to…, the way
I took it was, he didn’t think he had to testify given that someone else saw
everything, if somebody else was now saying that they didn’t see everything, he
was going to call and basically crap on the case.”
City Attorney Lee did not tell Officer Torres at that point that if he did contact the
defense attorney on the case that they would probably call him in as a witness on
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 143 of 171
the case. City Attorney Lee did not say that to him, but that is what she was
thinking as he was making his statements. She stated that she thought, “If you
think this is going to keep you from having to testify, that’s not going to do it
because you are going to end up getting called in and if the defense is going to
try to weaken the case, you’re going to have to testify.” City Attorney Lee
repeated that she did not say that to Officer Torres, but she thought his actions
would be very counterproductive.
[audio: 1h 15m 16s]
City Attorney Lee stated, “He very clearly did not want to testify and so he was
looking for ways to basically say that this, you know, the police work was sloppy
and they (LAPD officers) were being lazy because they weren’t owning up to
what they saw.”
City Attorney Lee stated that she remembered saying that it would have been so
much easier for her if the Sergeant had seen the entire event including the
motorcyclist. It would have been much better for City Attorney Lee, then she
would not have needed to reach out to Officer Torres other than for confirmation
of the report. Sergeant Hillard could have testified to the entire incident.
Sergeant Hillard did not have a motive to say that he did not see half of the
accident.
When asked if Officer Torres ever said anything outwardly indicating that he did
not want to testify, City Attorney Lee stated, “Yeah, he said, ‘Why should I have
to testify, they saw it, I shouldn’t have to testify,’ he said that a number of times.”
When asked if Officer Torres ever alleged impropriety on the part of the City
Attorney or LAPD, she said he called their contact at his work, harassment. In
terms of truthfulness or wrongful prosecution, Officer Torres did not allege that
the LAPD officers were making up the entire story and that the defendant should
not be prosecuted, he did say that statements made by Officer Quiroga and
Sergeant Hillard were not true. She did not believe that he used the word lying.
[audio: 1h 17m 51s]
When asked for her interpretation regarding the previous statements from Officer
Torres about Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard, City Attorney Lee said that
she felt that Torres actions were motivated by trying to get out of testifying. She
did not feel that his complainants about the police work were righteous, she did
feel that he was accusing the LAPD officers of being lazy, but that his efforts
were motivated by trying to get out of testifying.
City Attorney Lee was not aware of any complaints filed against the LACA or
LAPD in this matter by Officer Torres or anyone else. After this one contact with
Officer Torres, City Attorney Lee made an effort to avoid future contact if
possible. She directed all subpoenas to LBPD court affairs. She confirmed
acknowledgement on subpoenas with court affairs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 144 of 171
[audio: 1h 20m 36s]
Once City Attorney Lee met Officer Torres in court, she tried to establish his
schedule and he was a “Jerk,” he was very uncooperative.
Officer Torres did not appear in court for the trial and the City Attorney’s Office
did not feel that they could use him as a witness, because he was actively trying
to “tank” the case. City Attorney Lee recommended that Attorney Narayan not
use Officer Torres as a witness.
City Attorney Lee added that when she turned over discovery to the Public
Defender, she was shocked by the statements and actions of Officer Torres
documented in the City Attorney’s interview notes. City Attorney Lee was not
aware if Attorney Narayan and the Public Defender had additional conversations
about Officer Torres. City Attorney Lee was not certain if Officer Torres was
subpoenaed for the trial.
[audio: 1h 29m 28s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about Officer Torres behavior when he did appear
in court to meet with her for the first time. She stated that he checked into the
court room and she thanked him for coming, his response to her greeting was,
“Whatever.” She confirmed his phone was correct and asked availability. City
Attorney Lee expressed that she knew he lived far away and she told him he
would be on call going forward and that they would like to inconvenience him as
little as possible. Officer Torres’ response was, “It depends.” When asked if
morning or afternoon or certain days of the week were better, he only replied, “It
depends”. Officer Torres continued, “If you want to know, send me a subpoena.”
Officer Torres refused to discuss anything about his schedule with City Attorney
Lee.
Officer Torres would not confirm anything, he continued with his statement, “If
you want to know, send me a subpoena.”
City Attorney Lee took Officer Torres statements as him continuing to be rude.
She thanked him and then went to get AS City Attorney Spencer Hart who chose
to come talk to Officer Torres. AS City Attorney Hart tried to introduce himself,
they had very awkward conversation. City Attorney Lee was a witness to AS City
Attorney Hart trying to shake hands with Torres. At first, he would not return the
handshake, but after an awkward pause, Officer Torres shook hands reluctantly.
When City Attorney Lee turned away they had not shaken hands. AS City
Attorney Hart later told her that eventually, Officer Torres took his hand.
[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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 145 of 171
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.
[audio: 1h 38m 22s]
City Attorney Lee was asked if Officer Torres behavior adversely affected the
case? City Attorney Lee stated that she was not sure, regarding her ability to do
her job. City Attorney Lee stated that she would have called Officer Torres as a
witness at trial based upon his statements in the police report, but after her
interview with him and his antagonistic behavior, she decided not to use him as a
witness for fear that he would damage the case. When asked if Officer Torres’
behavior delayed the prosecution, City Attorney Lee said that it did not. City
Attorney Lee stated that she cried after the phone call with Officer Torres (August
11, 2017).
When asked if any of Officer Torres’ actions adversely affected the case, City
Attorney Lee said that she was not sure because she was not the prosecutor at
trial. When asked if Officer Torres actions adversely affected her ability to do her
job, City Attorney Lee stated, “Yes, after my phone call with him, I basically cried
for half an hour. I had never had anyone treat me that way before.” (Lee broke
down again crying during the interview).
[audio: 1h 42m 34s]
City Attorney Lee was asked about AS City Attorney Hart’s characterization of
Officer Torres behavior as disgraceful, she stated, “I agree, I mean, I’ve dealt
with a lot of, I mean it’s been, you know LAX officers and LAPD officers, in the
cases that I handled when I was over at Airport and I’ve, I’ve just always
assumed that if you have a police officer they’d behave better than the public.
I’ve dealt with uncooperative witnesses before and people who did not want to
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 146 of 171
testify, people who are reluctant to testify, and I always felt like I did my best in
trying to get them to cooperate. If they didn’t, then they didn’t but, he (Officer
Torres) was the worst witness that I have interacted with in terms of both
prosecution and I’ve spoken to a few defense witnesses. I mean he was, it was
the worst witness experience I’ve had. So, it was both the worst officer
experience and the worst witness experience that I’ve had.”
During his Internal Affairs Interview, LAPD Sergeant Hillard stated that he
testified at trial in this matter. Based upon his testimony and his review of the
reports prior to the court case, Sergeant Hillard believed them to be a true and
accurate reflection of the events that occurred during the collision and arrest.
Sergeant Hillard stated that there were not any problems in court related to the
accuracy of the reports or truthful testimony by LAPD officers. The defendant
was found guilty at trial.
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 (Sergeant Hillard) had seen all of the incident and that he (Sergeant
Hillard) 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.
Sergeant Hillard stated that he was shocked when he was told by the City
Attorney that Officer Torres had called him a liar. He was taken by surprise
based upon Officer Torres behavior at the scene, Torres had been very patient
and helpful. When Sergeant Hillard learned that Officer Torres had called him a
liar and that Officer Torres was reluctant to testify, he was disappointed in Officer
Torres. Sergeant Hillard considered attempting to contact the Long Beach Police
Department or Officer Torres to find out why Officer Torres was calling him a liar.
Sergeant Hillard decided to keep the matter to himself and let it drop, he decided
not to pursue the issue. Sergeant Hillard was not aware of any statements by
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 148 of 171
of the events. Ms. Lee read to him the witness statement that he had given that
was memorialized in the police report and attributed to him.”
AS City Attorney Hart continued with recounting City Attorney Lee’s statement to
him, “According to the report, Torres told the LAPD officer that the suspect had
run a red light and the motorcyclist had managed to avoid a collision with the
suspect only by steering with one hand and actually pressing against the
suspect’s door with his other hand. Torres also confirmed that the person the
report had detained was the suspect. But on the phone call with Ms. Lee, he
(Officer Torres) said the report was riddled with inaccuracies and now claimed he
didn’t know if the suspect had run a red light of if the motorcyclist had crashed or
not and was now saying that he never clearly saw the person the police had
detained and wasn’t even sure if the person was man or a woman.”
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 he met did meet Officer Torres in person on
October 30 or 31, 2017. The appearance was the trial, Officer Torres was
subpoenaed for the first day of trial. AS City Attorney Hart said that it was
doubtful that they would have called Officer Torres as a witness because he had
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 149 of 171
gone on record contradicting his earlier statements and he would have created
more problems for the trial than it was worth. However, they did not know the
twists and turns the trial would take, they wanted to leave the option open to call
Officer Torres if needed. They wanted Officer Torres there so that the court
could order Officer Torres back to court and to be on-call if needed, despite all
the problems he had created.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that he came to meet with Officer Torres in the
courtroom. They met in Department W90 on the 9th floor, the bench officer was
Judge Sadler. Officer Torres refused to make eye contact with AS City Attorney
Hart. He was sitting in the audience when AS City Attorney Hart approached
him. AS City Attorney Hart told Officer Torres that he had made the case quite
difficult for their office and that they still potentially needed him as a witness. AS
City Attorney Hart stated that he (Hart) was angry and that he wanted to be able
to look Officer Torres in the eye and let him know that he had created
unnecessary problems for them. AS City Attorney Hart had to ask Officer Torres
to look him in the eyes. AS City Attorney Hart put out his hand to shake Officer
Torres hand, reluctantly after some hesitation, Officer Torres shook hands.
Officer Torres still would not look AS City Attorney Hart in the eye. AS City
Attorney Hart repeated that Officer Torres had caused City Attorney Lee
significant grief.
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.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that LAPD Sergeant Hillard must have appeared
and testified in this matter. Sergeant Hillard never expressed any reluctance to
appear and testify. Sergeant Hillard was cooperative, communicated with
Deputy Lee prior to trial. AS City Attorney Hart, Supervising City Attorney Julie
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 150 of 171
San Juan, and City Attorney Lee were part of a conference call with Sergeant
Hillard and then separately LAPD Officer Quiroga prior to trial. AS City Attorney
Hart recalled speaking with Sergeant Hillard in order to double check some of the
details of the report that Officer Torres was casting in to doubt. Sergeant Hillard
reiterated the details that the report attributed to him. Sergeant Hillard confirmed
that what the report said he knew was accurate.
AS City Attorney Hart confirmed that Sergeant Hillard in all the instances where
Officer Torres alleged inaccuracies in relation to statements by or about Sergeant
Hillard, the report was accurate, and the statements made during the incident
and recorded in the report were correct. The purpose of the conference call was
to confirm with the LAPD officers that the information contained in the reports
was correct. Sergeant Hillard gave them confidence that the report was
accurate.
AS City Attorney Hart confirmed that Officer Quiroga was interviewed and his
accounting of the reports and actions at the incident were accurately recorded in
the reports. In instances where Officer Torres made contrary statements to the
Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Officer Quiroga gave them confidence that
Officer Torres was not accurate, but that the original report was accurate.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that he did not find any motivation for Sergeant
Hillard or Officer Quiroga to lie about the facts of the case. AS City Attorney Hart
stated that he did not find any motivation for Sergeant Hillard to lie about not
seeing the motorcycle, and added, “There would not be any reason for that.” AS
City Attorney Hart had not learned anything during the course of the case that
would cause him to question or doubt the integrity or truthfulness of Sergeant
Hillard or Officer Quiroga. There were not any Brady or Pitchess issues. AS City
Attorney Hart stated that neither officer is listed in a Brady file to his knowledge.
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.
AS City Attorney Hart described Officer Torres requesting contact information for
the defense attorney. AS City Attorney Hart did not believe that Officer Torres
ever contacted the defense attorney. AS City Attorney Hart interpreted that
request as an indirect threat, that if they pressed him to be involved, then he
would further sabotage the case. AS City Attorney Hart stated that the requests
for defense information as well as Officer Torres overall resistance caused his
office to have to do extra work.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 151 of 171
AS City Attorney Hart was asked how often he has had a witness ask for defense
information or threaten to call the defense attorney regarding truthfulness of
police officers in their reports, he stated, “I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered
that.” AS City Attorney Hart added that on occasion Domestic Violence victims
make those types of requests and pointed out that those types of victims are
known for recanting and changing testimony. He concluded, “Outside of that, it
just doesn’t happen.”
AS City Attorney Hart was asked if it was unusual for a police officer witness to a
traffic collision to want to talk to a defense attorney, he stated, “It’s unheard of.”
AS City Attorney Hart was asked if Officer Torres actions and statements
triggered notifications to the defense in the case. AS City Attorney Hart stated
that the things that Officer Torres said as a potential witness had to be disclosed
to the defense. AS City Attorney Hart stated that his actions jeopardized a
successful prosecution. AS City Attorney Hart stated that it made it more difficult
to prosecute the case. AS City Attorney Hart did not recall having any
conversations with defense, City Attorney Lee did have conversations with
defense counsel.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that City Attorney Lee had reported to him that the
Public Defender had expressed both shock and disbelief at Officer Torres’
behavior in this matter.
AS City Attorney Hart did not believe that Officer Torres had a legitimate
complaint to take to the defense attorney. He stated, “No, no, it was
gamesmanship to avoid having to be involved.” His efforts were directed at
getting out of appearing in court.
AS City Attorney Hart was asked about his email complaint to LBPD, that Officer
Torres’ behavior was disgraceful and that he attempted to sabotage the case.
AS City Attorney Hart stated that he stood by those assertions. AS City Attorney
Hart was asked if he had ever made similar accusation about other police
officers, he stated, “No I have not, and I’d be very careful to do that. I very much
respect police officers and what they do and would be really reluctant to say
something like that to an officer or in any way harm an officer’s career.”
In follow up, AS City Attorney Hart was asked about Officer Torres’ statement to
City Attorney Lee about being harassed at work and if LBPD had been contacted
prior to that phone call, he stated that he believed that the contact had been
attempted several times by City Attorney Lee, but added that City Attorney Lee
would be the best source of information on that topic.
In follow up, AS City Attorney Hart was asked about the conference calls
including himself, Supervising Attorney Julie San Juan and City Attorney Lee with
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 152 of 171
Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard, in particular if that type of conference call
was common, he stated that it was not common. It was unusual to have to
question the accuracy of details based upon another officer or witnesses new
statement. It was also unusual for both supervisors in the office to be involved in
the conference call.
During his Internal Affairs Interview, Officer Torres stated the following
information.
[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 153 of 171
[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.
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee on August 11, 2017, during
their phone conversation, that Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard were not
truthful in their statements about the case. Officer Torres replied, “I, I said that, I
told that the, the account of the incident in the report was not the same as what I,
I recalled. I didn’t refer ‘em to them as names because I don’t know who they
were. I didn’t know who they were.”
[audio I: 10m 46s]
The question was repeated. Officer Torres was asked if he told her that the
Sergeant and the Officer in the case were not truthful in their statements. Officer
Torres stated, “Yes, I told them that the report was not what I recalled.”
The investigator clarified, the question was asked if Officer Torres told City
Attorney Lee that they were not being truthful, and Officer Torres responded,
“Yes.”
Attorney Trott interjected with a statement, “Just so we’re sure, there’s a big
difference. When two people have different recollections doesn’t mean
somebody’s not being untruthful.”
Officer Torres stated, “No, I didn’t say that they weren’t being truthful, I just said
that, that it’s not what, what I recalled as, as happened.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 155 of 171
asked if the vehicle involved in the collision was blue, he stated that he did not
know, but recalled that it was dark in color.
[audio I: 28m 32s]
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he did not know if the
SUV ran the red light. Officer Torres stated, “I, I, I told her that, that the
motorcycle had a green light and the SUV came through the, the SUV would
have ran the red light.” The question was repeated, and Officer Torres stated, “I
did not tell her that I did not know, the vehicle did run a red light.” “My statement
is that the vehicle did run a red light.”
Officer Torres was asked if the information from the police report, attributed to
him, was correct that the vehicle that crashed ran the red light north bound on
Sepulveda at 77th St. He stated, “That’s fair to say, yes.”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he did not know if the
motorcycle was intending on continuing straight on 77th or making the left turn.
He stated, “That’s correct, I did not know what his intentions were.” Officer
Torres was asked if he told her that he did not know if the turn was made to avoid
the collision. He stated, “Um, I told her that the turn was made as a result of
avoiding the collision.”
A portion of the report was read,
“Witness Torres stated the motorcycle conducted the turn and the blue
GMC Sierra ran the red light. The motorcycle made a hasty maneuver
and the GMC Sierra possible struck the side of the motorcycle.”
Officer Torres was asked if he made that statement. He said, “Um, in those
words? That’s, that’s not my words, no.” Officer Torres was asked if the report
was accurate in the documentation of what he relayed to the police officer at the
scene. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked what was inaccurate about the report. He stated, “So
do you want me to start from the beginning of what I saw then, what’s not in the
report?” Officer Torres was asked to explain.
He stated, “Um, when I told, I told the officer that I was coming off I believe it’s, I
didn’t know the streets numbers. So it would be 77th, um, I told him the
motorcycle was about 3 car lengths ahead of me, entered the intersection, had
not yet made it’s turn when this vehicle ran the red light in the intersection at the
same time. The motorcycle then, it appeared, jerked its wheels to the right, I
mean left, sorry, left. At the same time, the, the driver, I don’t know if male or
female, extended their right leg and right arm out towards the vehicle, at which
time, I could not tell if they touched or not, um, it appeared to me, that they, that
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 156 of 171
they, he did push off the vehicle, and then he made his, his, his left turn and went
north bound Sepulveda, out of sight. The other vehicle then crashed into the wall
at the gas station after veering to the right. Um, when, when I pulled over, the
LAPD Sergeant was already there on scene and he asked me where the
motorcycle went. I pointed down the street and said he went that way down
Sepulveda, I don’t know where he went. He then put his hand out and told me
stay right there. He approached the car, the driver’s side door, he opens the
driver’s side door. The driver either falls or stumbles, um gets out of the vehicle,
and appears to want to try to walk towards the back of their vehicle. The LAPD
Sergeant then uses both of his hands against this driver’s arms and is physically
holding him up against the side of this car. The driver is still trying to walk to the
back of the car, the LAPD Sergeant, you could see, takes one hand off, radios for
back-up and he is still continuing to hold this driver against this car until his back-
up arrives. When they arrive on scene, I, the unit parks their car between me
and this, the SUV. The front passenger gets out to come talk to me and then the
other officers go and deal with the driver, I don’t know what happened after that.”
[audio I: 35m 20s]
Officer Torres said that he did tell City Attorney Lee that he didn’t know if the
motorcycle was continuing straight on 77th or if it was going to make the left turn.
He stated, “I think that’s, that’s might have been what I told her. I am not familiar
with the area. I, I don’t, I, I honestly thought we only had one lane, now I see that
it’s two turn bays.”
Officer Torres stated that he did not tell City Attorney Lee that he did not see the
motorcyclist extend a right hand to fend off the car door while they were using
their left hand steering to avoid the collision.
In the police report,
“Wit-Torres stated the subject on the motorcycle had one hand physically
on the Defts vehicle driver door and used his left hand to steer the
motorcycle to the left away from the Defts vehicle.”
Officer Torres was asked if that was an accurate statement documented in the
report. Officer Torres stated, “I told her that the driver of the motorcycle had his
hand extended out, I don’t know if they actually physically touched. From my
angle, it, it looks like that, that they possibly did, I never heard a collision. So I
don’t know if they actually made contact.”
Officer Torres was asked if he gave City Attorney Lee reason to believe that he
did not see the motorcyclist use their hand to fend off the car in order to avoid the
collision, he stated, “No.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 157 of 171
Officer Torres was asked if he ever told City Attorney Lee that he did not know if
the motorcycle had crashed or not after avoiding the defendant’s vehicle. He
stated, “No.”
In the police report,
“The motorcycle was able to avoid falling and continued northbound on
Sepulveda Blvd.”
Officer Torres was asked if that was an accurate statement, he stated, “Yeah, I
believe its accurate. He didn’t, he, he just made his turn and kept going.”
Officer Torres was asked if he ever told City Attorney Lee that he did not identify
the defendant as the driver of the vehicle and no one ever walked him over to
identify the person that was detained. He stated, “Yes, I told her that.”
In the police report,
“Wit-Torres stated that the person we were talking to (the Deft) was the
driver of the vehicle.”
Officer Torres was asked if that was an accurate statement. He stated, “No, it’s
not.” Officer Torres was asked how it was inaccurate, he stated, “I never
identified the driver and nobody asked me to identify the driver.”
Officer Torres was asked if he ever told City Attorney Lee that he never knew if
the driver was a man or a woman. He stated, “Yes.”
[audio I: 38m 29s]
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee at the beginning of his
conversation with her that he was not needed to testify because the Sergeant
had seen everything. Officer Torres stated, “I don’t recall telling her that.”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee anything like he was not
going to be needed to testify or that he did not want to testify. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that, “I shouldn’t have to
testify because the Sergeant, the first LAPD officer that had stopped, had seen
everything, why do you need me to testify, he saw everything.” Officer Torres
stated, “I, I do recall asking her if, uh, why the LAPD Sergeant’s statement wasn’t
in, in there, as far as he saw everything. Um, never questioned as to why I was,
they were, she wanted me to come testify.”
Officer Torres was directed back to the quote attributed to him by City Attorney
Lee, and asked if he made that statement to her, he stated, “I don’t believe I did.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037
May 23, 2018
Page 158 of 171
Officer Torres was asked if his answer was yes or no. He stated, “I am going to
say no right now, because I don’t know.”
[audio I: 39m 51s]
Officer Torres was asked if he became upset when she told him that he was the
only witness to the motorcyclist piece of the collision and that the LAPD Sergeant
never saw the motorcycle. Officer Torres stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he had any reaction when she told him that he was
the only witness to motorcyclist and that the LAPD Sergeant never saw the
motorcycle. He stated, “I, I told her that the LAPD Sergeant did see the
motorcyclist.” Officer Torres was asked how he knew the LAPD Sergeant saw
the motorcyclist. He stated, “Because when I exited my vehicle, he asked me,
‘Where did the motorcycle go?’”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that statements made by
Sergeant Hillard and Officer Quiroga were not true. He stated, “I, I said that the
accounts in the report is not accurate.”
Officer Torres was asked if he had read the arrest and traffic collision reports.
He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if other than what had been
discussed so far in the interview, if the reports were an accurate reflection of
what Officer Torres told the police. He stated, “It’s not accurate, no.”
Officer Torres was asked to recount what he told the LAPD officer. He stated, “I
told him the same thing I told you.”
Officer Torres was asked if he was aware of any motive for the involved LAPD
officers to fabricate or lie about the incident. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was
asked if there was any reason the LAPD officers would attribute statements to
him that he did not make. He stated, “No idea.”
[audio I: 43m 07s]
Officer Torres was asked about his phone call to City Attorney Lee on August 11,
2017, specifically if the call took place about 1500 hours. He stated, “Um, I don’t
recall the time.” Officer Torres thought it might have been in the afternoon.
Officer Torres was asked if during that phone interview he told City Attorney Lee
that he had not received any of the voicemails from LACA. He stated, “Yes.”
Officer Torres was asked if during the conversation he told City Attorney Lee that
he was calling back because they were threatening him at work. He stated, “No.”
Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he was being harassed
at work. He stated, “No, I don’t think, I don’t recall that, no.” Officer Torres was
asked if he made any statements to that effect in explaining why he was calling
her back. He stated, “No, I told her that I received a call from my court affairs to