Loading...
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