The URL can be used to link to this page

Red Book ADM2017-0037_Redacted_Part4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 161 of 171 Lee in reference to the address, “Just send them there.” He stated, “Yes, I told her send, send future subpoenas, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he had not received any of the subpoenas sent to him prior to August 11, 2017. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he would not appear in court on August 14, 2017 during their conversation on August 11, 2017. He stated, “No, I don’t recall telling her that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if he said, “No, I won’t be there.” He stated, “No, I don’t remember saying that, no.” [audio I: 53m 48s] Officer Torres was asked if during his conversation with City Attorney Lee he asked her for the Defense Attorney contact information for the person arrested at the scene of the traffic collision. He stated, “Yes I did.” When asked why, he stated, “Because I wanted to speak with them and let them know that the police report that was written was not accurate.” Officer Torres stated that City Attorney Lee did provide him with the Public Defender’s information. He stated, “Uh, just the first name and then she stopped and would not give him anything else.” Officer Torres was asked if she provided him with the name of the attorney and the phone number for the Public Defender’s office at the Los Angeles Airport Courthouse. He stated, “No, she told me that she would be typing up our conversation and that she would, that she had to personally give her a copy anyways, so that she would be in contact with her anyways regarding that.” Officer Torres was asked if he followed up or contacted the Public Defender’s office. He stated, “No, never saw them.” Officer Torres was asked if he contacted any defense attorney for the defendant in this matter. He stated, “No.” When asked why he did not follow up, he stated, “I thought I was going to be able to see them when I went to court, and when I showed up, um, they were not there.” Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he was going to speak with defense attorney about the LAPD officers, “I’m going to have a conversation with them, I’m going to talk to them about this, and I am going to tell them all this stuff.” He stated, “Um, I did tell her that I was going to talk with the defense attorney and let them know that, that my recollection of what happened was not the same as what was written in the report.” Officer Torres was asked if the quote attributed to him by City Attorney Lee was accurate. He stated, “That’s fair to say.” [audio I: 56m 04s] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 162 of 171 Officer Torres was asked if he alleged that Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard were not truthful in their reports or their statements. He stated, “I never said that they were untruthful, I just said that, that its not what I, I told them.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever made any allegations about truthfulness against Officer Quiroga or Sergeant Hillard. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he alleged that the report was wrong and that he was going to notify the defense attorney. He stated, “I, I told them the report was inaccurate and that I would like to talk to the defense attorney about it, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he was trying to intimidate City Attorney Lee into taking him off the case. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he was trying to sabotage the case. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked what in this case needed to be brought to the attention of the defense attorney. He stated, “I believed that the defense attorney should have been told that my recollection was not what, what was written, was written in the report. That I, I never ID’d the driver or anything like that.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever spoke with the defense attorney or Public Defender. He stated, “I never did.” Officer Torres was asked if he did appear in court later. He stated, “Yes, I did.” Officer Torres was asked why he did not speak with the Public Defender or defense attorney. He stated, “They weren’t there.” Officer Torres was asked if he took any proactive steps to locate or notify defense counsel. He stated, “No, I was under the impression I would be subpoenaed, and I would have a chance at a later time.” Officer Torres was asked if he had an obligation to let somebody know if he believed the statements in the report were false. He stated, “She told me that she was going to be writing up a statement and giving a copy to let them know, so I figured that would have been done.” Officer Torres was asked if he took any steps to notify the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office if he felt the LAPD and LACA actions in this matter were improper. Attorney Trott objected and stated that Officer Torres was not making that allegation. [audio I: 58m 43s] Officer Torres was asked if he believed the LAPD officers reports and statements in this matter were improper. He stated, “Just inaccurate.” Officer Torres was asked if there was any impropriety by LAPD officers proceeding forward with a criminal case against the defendant. He stated, “I don’t think they were doing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 163 of 171 anything wrong. I just think that there was information that just wasn’t written in the report that should have been.” Officer Torres was asked what his goal was in speaking with the Public Defender. He stated, “I was going to explain to them just the same thing I explained to you guys, the series of events.” Officer Torres was asked if any of his statements or behavior was motivated by not wanting to participate in the criminal case. He stated, “No.” He was asked if it was because he did not want to show up to testify. He stated, “No.” [audio I: 59m 57s] Officer Torres was asked if he notified anyone from LAPD that the police report was incorrect or inaccurate. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he notified anyone at LBPD that there was a problem in this case. He stated, “Uh, no.” Officer Torres was asked to assess or characterize the police report, specifically if it was a false police report. He stated, “I wouldn’t say it’s, it’s, it’s just inaccurate.” Officer Torres was asked if someone was being prosecuted on a case where statements in the police report were inaccurate, if he had any obligation as a police officer to take proactive steps to fix the problem or make someone aware. He stated, I would believe that someone needs to be told about it, and my understanding was that Lee was going to notify the defense like she told me she was.” Officer Torres was asked if he felt like he had any additional obligation to make any other notifications. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he felt LACA was doing anything improper in this matter by proceeding in a criminal case where he knew the statements in the report were inaccurate. He stated, “I, I never saw this report from our conversation, she gave me a brief, a brief um, account of what occurred, and I was telling her this was what I saw, and it wasn’t the same as what was lining up.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Lee told him that LAPD attributed witness statements to him that were not correct in the police report. He stated, “Just inaccurate, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he thought that he did not need to do anything other than have a conversation with City Attorney Lee. He stated, “I, I was going to talk with the defense, but when she told me that she was going to, she had to type any, uh, uh, memo or something like that, that she, that she’s obligated to talk to, to send to the defense that I thought that that was covered.” Officer Torres was asked if he was attempting to avoid appearing in court by his actions and his statements. He stated, “No.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 164 of 171 [audio I: 1h 02m 48s] Officer Torres was asked if he ever told City Attorney Lee, “Why should I have to testify, they saw it, I shouldn’t have to testify.” He stated, “No, I don’t believe I told her that, no.” Officer Torres was asked why he wanted to seek out the information for the defense attorney. He stated, “I just wanted to let them know that from, that what I saw was different from what was written.” Officer Torres was asked if he was familiar with LBPD policy about subpoenas and appearances. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he was familiar with LBPD policy regarding having contact with defense attorneys. He stated, “No, I am not.” Officer Torres was asked if he testified in this matter. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he made any appearances in this matter. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres stated he appeared for what he thought was a prelim, but when he arrived City Attorney Lee told him that they were not going to appear with the case that day. She just wanted him to be in court so that the judge could order him back each day for the next two weeks. Officer Torres did not give any testimony in the case. [audio I: 1h 04m 39s] Officer Torres was asked if LACA ever told him why he did not testify in the case. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he spoke with City Attorney Lee’s supervisor when he appeared in court. He stated, “I, no I don’t believe I talked to the supervisor, no. Officer Torres was asked if he talked with another male City Attorney by the name of Spencer Hart. He stated, “I had a conversation with a male, but I don’t know that person’s name, they never identified themselves or told me who they were.” Officer Torres was asked if he knew that the male he spoke with was the Assisting Supervising City Attorney of that office. He stated, “If it’s the same person I talked to, no.” Officer Torres was asked if he introduced himself and told him who he was. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he would have told the male subject that there were problems with the police report if he would have known that the male subject was City Attorney Lee’s supervisor. He stated, “Yes.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 166 of 171 days of the week were better to appear. He stated, “No that’s not what I told her.” [audio I: 1h 09m 36s] Officer Torres was asked what he told her, “I told her it depends because I have child care issues. She wanted me to give me my schedule for the next two weeks and I explained to her that I’ve got child care issues so I can’t go day to day because I don’t know who’s going to watch my kid day to day for me. Um, she wanted me to give her specifics dates and I told her I just couldn’t do that but, I told her if the judge tells me come back on this day, I’ll make it work for my schedule.” Officer Torres was asked if he refused to discuss his schedule with City Attorney Lee and again stated, “If you want to know send me a subpoena,” he stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Lee went and got her supervisor, Assisting Supervising City Attorney Hart to come speak with him, he replied, “No, she never got anybody.” Officer Torres was asked again if City Attorney Lee left to go get anyone to come speak with him. He stated, “She never left to go get anybody. No. I can tell you what, what happened if that’s what you are trying to ask?” Officer Torres was asked to continue. “Um, after, after my conversation with her, with my childcare, she walked, she walked back to her, her uh, her table. Um, I was in the audience. And I sat down in the back row, far left seat, um, while I was just on my phone, just biding time. An unknown man comes from the back. I don’t know who this guy is, never seen him. He walks up to her, has a brief conversation with her, she points back towards me, he comes and walks back towards me. He stands to my left, there’s an aisle to the left. Um, never introduces himself. Never tells me his name. I am still on my phone, because I don’t know who this guy is, so I don’t, I am just not paying attention to him. Um, he tells me, um, ‘You know we’re gonna subpoena you back and you will show up.’ I said, okay, whatever date the judge tells me I’ll come back. He then tells me again, he’s all, ‘You understand you’re gonna be coming back here and you will show up.’ I told him, okay, whatever the judge, whatever date the judge tells me, I’m, I’m gonna be back, it’s not a problem. He asked me, ‘Well what’s your schedule for the next two weeks so I can, uh, tell Grace?’” [audio I: 1h 11m 53s] Officer Torres continued, “I told him, I, I, I told her I had childcare. I can’t give you my schedule. He then walks around to the front of me squats down a little bit and tells me to look him in his eyes when he talks to me, as if I was like, his kid. Again, never introduced himself, never told me who he is. I have no idea who this guy is. I, I told him that he needs to walk away from me and sit back over by EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 167 of 171 the table by where Lee’s area was, just leave me alone. Because, again, I don’t know who he is. He then walked off and he didn’t say anything to her. He sat away from her a good fifteen feet and never said a word to her the whole time I was in court.” [audio I: 1h 12m 38s] - [Addendum #20] Officer Torres continued. “Eventually, the judge called me up and asked me what, what my schedule was. I told him, I, I had some childcare stuff and he’s all, ‘You know I can order you to come back every day?’ I told him I understood. He said, but he didn’t think it was fair to order me everyday so that he would put me on ‘on-call status’ for, I believe he said for the next fourteen days. Um, and then, I was excused. And I notified court affairs after I left that I would be ‘on-call’ for this case. Officer Torres was asked what he thought was going to occur during the next fourteen days in reference to the judge’s statement. He said, “I, I would imagine they would have had their, had their court appearances, or got the case handled some way.” Officer Torres was asked if that could include a trial or some other proceeding, he stated, “Correct.” Officer Torres was asked about when he planned on having a discussion with the public defender. He stated, “When I would be subpoenaed back to court and they would be there so I could find out who they were.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever sought out the public defender during that appearance (October 11, 2017). He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if there was anything preventing him from seeking out defense counsel. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if there was a rationale or reason why he did not seek out defense counsel. He stated, “Just didn’t think about doing it. I was just told that, I wasn’t, they weren’t going to do anything today. The other attorney wasn’t going to be there. They just wanted to have the judge, uh, tell me what days I was gonna have to be on the calendar for.” [audio I: 1h 14m 20s] Officer Torres was asked about his conversation with Assisting Supervising City Attorney Hart. Hart stated that when he approached Officer Torres, Officer Torres refused to look at him while he introduced himself and spoke with him. When asked if Hart’s statement was true, Officer Torres stated, “I, I never looked up. If that, if it’s the same person, I never looked up at him. If in, the same time he never introduced himself to me.” Officer Torres was asked if he had anyone else approach him on that day and introduce themselves or speak with him in any way. He stated, “No.” Officer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 168 of 171 Torres was asked if there was any reason to doubt that the person talking to him was part of the City Attorney’s Office. He stated, “Um, yeah, I didn’t know who he was. I didn’t know where he was from.” Officer Torres was asked again if there was any doubt in his mind that the person who approached him was part of the City Attorney’s Office. He stated, “I never knew he was.” Officer Torres was reminded that he had discussed his availability and his court appearance with Hart. He stated, “To me that doesn’t mean he’s, he’s part. To me, I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t know who he, I knew he knew her, caused she talked to him. But I didn’t know what his role or title was.” Officer Torres was asked who he thought the unknown person was that approached him and started talking to him about his court appearance and availability to appear back in court, he stated, “I, I just thought it was, it was someone who, who, who worked in her office, but I didn’t know his, his title. It could have been a secretary or something, I don’t know, what his, who they were.” [audio I: 1h 16m 06s] Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Hart asked him to look at him while they spoke. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he refused to shake City Attorney Hart’s hand when it was extended to him. He stated, “He never offered me his hand.” Officer Torres was asked to confirm that they never shook hands. He stated, “Not that I, no.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Hart told him that he had made their case very difficult for them and had caused unnecessary problems for the LA City Attorney’s Office. He replied, “This is his statement?” The investigator confirmed the allegation. Officer Torres stated, “No, he never told me that.” Officer Torres was asked if he received a voicemail from City Attorney Hart on August 11, 2017. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever said anything to City Attorney Lee about the City Attorney’s Office threatening him or harassing him at work. He stated, “No.” City Attorney Hart stated that he left a voicemail for Officer Torres on August 11, 2017, explaining the critical need to speak with Officer Torres and that they had learned that he was a police officer from Long Beach Police Department. They did not want to involve his (Torres’) chain of command and offered to work with him if he had a difficult schedule. They had a hard time understanding his failure to contact their office. Officer Torres was asked if he received that voicemail from City Attorney Hart. He stated, “No.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 169 of 171 Officer Torres was asked to recall his earlier statement that he was not uncooperative with City Attorney Lee. He was asked to describe his behavior and demeanor with City Attorney Lee and throughout this proceeding. He stated, “I, I felt I was cooperative. I answered all their questions and when I got the subpoenas, I showed up like I was supposed to.” Officer Torres was asked about his court appearance, and if he was in uniform or civilian clothes. He stated, “Civilian.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorneys Hart and Lee had him appear before Judge Saddler in order to confirm his availability and contact information. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if that was because he would not confirm his information or availability for them. He stated, “I, I.” [audio I: 1h 18m 53s] Attorney Trott interjected with a question, “Do you know why they had you there?” Officer Torres answered, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if, up to that point, he had given them any confirmation of his personal contact information. He asked, “Did I ever give them confirmation on it?” The question was clarified, “Did you tell them where you live and give them your phone number?” Officer Torres answered, “Yes, when I spoke with Lee.” Officer Torres confirmed again that he had provided that information to City Attorney Lee. Officer Torres was asked if he had confirmed for City Attorney Hart or Lee his availability to appear in court. He stated, “What’s the question again?” The question was repeated. He stated, “Hart is the Judge?” He was reminded that Hart was a City Attorney and Lee was a City Attorney. He stated, “I am not understanding the question.” The question was rephrased, “They asked you to confirm your availability for court, had you given it to them at that point or did they have to have you stand in front of the Judge to confirm your availability?” He stated, “I, I told them that I couldn’t give them specific dates because of child care.” The question was restated, “Is it fair to say that you had not confirmed your availability until they got you in front of the Judge?” He stated, “Yes.” [audio I: 1h 19m 36s] [Addendum #20] Officer Torres was asked to recall when City Attorney Lee requested that the Judge move his on call status from 24 hour notice of “Be there” to 3-4 hour notice EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 170 of 171 to better accommodate his schedule. Specifically he was asked, “Did the Judge ask you if you could respond to court within 3-4 hours?” He stated, “I don’t recall him asking me that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if in response to that question from the Judge, if he told the Judge that he would try to appear.” He stated, “I don’t remember saying that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if the Judge told him that was not good enough and he would have to confirm that he would be on 3-4 hour call or he would have to appear each day. He stated, “The Judge told me it was not good enough when I, when I told him that I had, I had child care, that I didn’t know my day to day. That’s when he made the comment that’s not good enough.” Officer Torres was asked if he eventually agreed to being on 3-4 hour call. He stated, “I agreed to whatever the Judge told us to be on, told me to be on.” Officer Torres was asked if he did not remember what he was agreeing to. He stated, “I don’t remember if it was a 3-4, I just remember it, walking out of there it was an ‘On-call’ status. He reversed the ‘Be-there’ that Lee wanted me to be on. He said it was not fair, that he would put me on an ‘On-call’. Officer Torres was asked if he was stating that the Judge did not hold him to a 3- 4 hour call status, meaning that he had to be able to respond to court within 3-4 hours of notification. He stated, “Well, my understanding to be ‘On-call,’ if he calls me, I’ve got to show up. I didn’t know I had a timeframe. I would assume they would call me and tell me a time to be there. I did let them know that I do have a drive, so it wouldn’t, it’s not like I can get there in thirty minutes.” [audio I: 1h 22m 29s] Officer Torres was asked if he had ever been placed before the court and ordered to provide contact and availability information because he would not provide it to the prosecution on a case either prior to or after this matter. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if there was a reason why it had to happen in this case. He stated, “No.” [audio II: 53m 27s] Attorney Trott asked Officer Torres, “You said that, one of the things that you said Mike was that she told you that this guy’s got five priors?” Officer Torres answered, “This would have been his fifth, fifth DUI and they wanted a felony conviction.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE # ADM2017-0037 May 23, 2018 Page 171 of 171 Attorney Trott asked Officer Torres, “Did she seem like she really wanted this guy?” Officer Torres answered, “Yes.” Attorney Trott asked, “Was she upset when you told your version, or when you answered her questions and they weren’t exactly like what she was asking you, did she seem upset?” Officer Torres answered, “Yes.” Attorney Trott asked, “When she wasn’t getting from you what she wanted?” Officer Torres answered, “Yes.” Attorney Trott asked, “Did she ever ask you to come down and come to her office and sit and talk with her and meet face to face and go over the report?” Officer Torres answered, “No.” (Statements from City Attorney Lee, City Attorney Hart, Subpoenas sent for pretrial conference and related phone calls to Officer Torres contradict this idea.) City Attorney Lee made several attempts prior to the call on August 11, 2017 to arrange a meeting with Officer Torres. City of Long Beach Working Together to Serve Memorandum Date: August 16, 2017 To: Steve Lauricella, Commander, Internal Affairs Division From: Chad Ellis, Sergeant, Internal Affairs Division Subject: INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 1. On August 16, 2017, Los Angeles City – Pacific Branch, Assistant Supervising Attorney Spencer Hart emailed Lt. Poss in the Long Beach Police Department Patrol Bureau office to inform him of Long Beach Police Officer Michael Torres’ “disgraceful” behavior in connection with a driving-under-the- influence trial in which Officer Torres is a witness. 2. Lt. Poss forwarded the email to Deputy Chief of Patrol Michael Beckman, who requested that an Internal Affairs investigation be opened. 3. On August 17, 2017, Long Beach Internal Affairs Lieutenant Patrick O’Dowd received an email from Lt. Poss containing contact information for Supervising City Attorney Julie San Juan, Assistant Supervising City Attorney Spencer Hart, and Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee (Complaint Email). 4. On August 17, 2017, Lt. O’Dowd was copied on an email from Long Beach Police Department Court Affairs Administrator Cindy Martinez to Long Beach Police Sergeant Louis Perez indicating that she had received a cover letter and subpoena (Addendum #11) from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office. 5. On August 17, 2017, Lt. O’Dowd had a conference telephone call with Julie San Juan, Spencer Hart, and Grace Lee from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office. He apologized for the behavior of Officer Torres. They expressed their concern that the case in which Officer Torres is a witness in a third-offense D.U.I. case and Officer Torres’ behavior has already damaged the case. Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee, who is handling the case, turned over the content of her conversation with Officer Torres to the defense attorney, who expressed disbelief that an officer would behave in such a manner. Lee said she doubts she will call Officer Torres as a witness due to his recent statements about the police report being false. Supervising City Attorney Julie San Juan said she contacted the officer(s) who took the police report and questioned him regarding the veracity of his statements. The officer assured San Juan that everything he wrote in the report was absolutely correct. He remembers Officer Torres telling him exactly what he recorded in the report. Julie San Juan said there are several witness coordinators and Los Angeles Police Department Sergeants who have knowledge of the situation based on INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 August 16, 2017 Page 2 their involvement with the case. They expressed disbelief with Officer Torres’ behavior. San Juan said people are talking about the incident and it is not reflecting well on the Long Beach Police Department. 6. On December 5, 2017, Sergeant Ellis and Brown interviewed LA Deputy City Attorney Grace Lee. The interview lasted approximately 2 hours. The recording and a summary of the interview is attached to the case. She characterized Officer Torres behavior as hostile and unprofessional. Officer Torres disputed the accuracy of the LAPD reports and alleged that the Officers and Sergeant on scene were not telling the truth. There was no motive for the three officers to lie and it appeared that Officer Torres was attempting to avoid appearing in court. Officer Torres requested contact information for the Defense Attorney and threatened to alert the attorney that the LAPD officers were untruthful. Officer Torres did not follow through with his threats, but his actions triggered disclosures to the defense of his allegations and conference calls with Los Angeles City Attorney’s office and the LAPD personnel to determine the veracity of Officer Torres allegations. The city attorney’s office determined that the LAPD were accurate, and Officer Torres’ was attempting to avoid court. City Attorney Lee provided copies of available documents including contemporaneous notes on her interview with Officer Torres and an internal memo. (Addendum #7,8) 7. On January 4, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed Sergeant Hillard over the phone. He stated he did not witness the motorcyclist seen by Officer Torres during the incident. He learned from the LA City Attorney that Officer Torres had called him a liar during this incident. Sergeant Hillard was disappointed in Officer Torres’ behavior in this matter. Sergeant Hillard testified in court on this matter and stated his testimony was truthful and the reports on the incident were accurate. The defendant was found guilty at trial. 8. On January 4, 2018, Sergeant Ellis added Lexis Search information regarding Michael Torres. Added two handwriting samples from Officer Torres (LBPD DR 17-47059 and 17-47092 from August 2017. These samples may prove relevant in relation to handwriting on the subpoena returned to the LA City Attorney’s office. 9. On January 10, 2018, Sergeant Ellis and Sergeant Marchese interviewed Assistant Supervising Los Angeles City Attorney Spencer Hart at his office in the LAX Courthouse, 11701 S. La Cienega Bl. Los Angeles, Ca. Assistant Supervisor Hart stated that he stood by his written statements that Officer Torres behavior was disgraceful and that he attempted to sabotage a criminal case in an effort to avoid having to appear in court to testify. Assistant Supervisor Hart provided copies of relevant documents contained in the case file People V. Simen, including copies of subpoenas, one of which has handwriting believed to be that of Officer Torres stating, “Return to Sender, INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 August 16, 2017 Page 3 Does Not Live Here.” (Addendum #16) Also provided were the Court Docket (Addendum #20), City Attorney Case Logs and the City Attorney Witness Status Sheet. (Addendum #9) Sergeant Ellis researched and attached relevant Penal Code Sections 1331 and 1331.5 as well as LBPD Manual Sections related to court appearances. (Addendum #29,30) 10. On January 25, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed LAPD Court Liaison Officer Ayson. He did not have any contact with Officer Torres. He provided research to help locate Officer Torres for Deputy Lee. Officer Ayson ran the Ca. license plate that was recorded in the driveway of the Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma) address. Officer Ayson located the phone number during his research which led Deputy Lee to the discovery that Officer Torres was a Long Beach police officer. 11. On February 6, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed LAPD Officer Quiroga. He was the arresting officer and filed the arrest report at the scene of the collision. Officer Quiroga interviewed Officer Torres as a citizen witness at the scene. Officer Quiroga confirmed the information in his arrest reports and the statements he attributed Officer Torres. He confirmed the information and statements as true and accurate which LA City Attorney Lee pointed out as elements Officer Torres alleged were lies by the LAPD Officers and Sergeant in their reports. 12. On February 6, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed LAPD Officer Southard. He took custody of the suspect from Sergeant Hillard at the scene. Officer Southard acknowledged that he made an error on his report in recording Officer Torres phone number, he received the phone information from Officer Quiroga who obtained it directly from Officer Torres along with his address. Officer Southard did not hear the interview between Officer Quiroga and Officer Torres. 13. On February 7, 2018, Sergeant Ellis received AWID, time card and unit history information for Officer Torres on February 28, 2018, the information reflects that Officer Torres’ end of shift was 22:30 hours on that night. Officer Torres was on scene of the traffic collision approximately three and a half hours later at approximately 01:55 hours on March 1, 2017, in the City of Los Angeles (Addendum #25, 27, 28). 14. On February 7 & 8, 2018, Sergeant Ellis located email in Officer Torres’ Personnel file related to a dependent child court order, dated June 1, 2017. Also, the investigator received emails and court documents from Nelli Flores, Personnel Assistant, City of Long Beach Employee Benefits. On June 1, 2017, the police department received notification from employee benefits that INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 August 16, 2017 Page 4 a court order from Riverside Superior Court was issued to add to Officer Torres’ benefit plan. On June 8, 2017, Officer Torres responded that he would not be adding the child to his benefit plan and that his attorney was disputing the issue in court. On October 30, 2017 another court order was issued by Riverside Superior Court and was added to Officer Torres benefit plan (Addendum #24). In addition, Sergeant Scaccia provided a memorandum, emails and court documents from the same court case, Riverside County # RID1603614. Sergeant Scaccia served subpoena in this case upon Officer Torres. He avoided service in his personal life and a Los Angeles County Sheriff process server approached court affairs in October 2016, to assist with service to avoid conflict. Officer Torres was defiant when served by Sergeant Scaccia. Internal Affairs Lieutenant O’Dowd directed Sergeant Scaccia to assist with the service (Addendum #24). 15. On February 8, 2018, Sergeant Ellis spoke with Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies Maravilla and Terry stationed at the Long Beach Courthouse regarding attempted service of case # RID1603614. They were not able to locate Officer Torres for service after 3 attempts (Addendum #24). Neither Maravilla or Terry ever had contact with Officer Torres. Officer Torres was served by LBPD I.A. Sgt Scaccia in this matter on 10/03/16. 16. On February 9, 2017, Sergeant Ellis received information from San Bernadino County Sheriff’s Department on attempted service of case # RID1603614. The information was provided by SBSD IA Sgt. Brumm-Landen. On the Summons and Petition form, the server documented, “Unable to contact deft. after numerous attempts. Deft. Evading Service.” (Addendum #24) 17. On February 9, 2017, Sergeant Ellis received dash in car video from LAPD Pacific Division. The video was captured from the patrol car on March 1, 2017. The recording does not capture audio or video related to Officer Torres interview with Officer Quiroga. The video is activated inside the patrol car to capture the backseat during transport of the suspect. (Addendum #6). 18. On February 13, 2018, Sergeant Ellis contacted Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Court Services, they did not have any records of attempted subpoena service related to case #RID1603614. The clerk stated that they would not attempt service outside of Riverside County. Officer Torres work and home addresses are in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties. 19. On February 13, 2018, Sergeant Ellis spoke with process server Phil Ruhl over the phone, the call was recorded and attached to the file. 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 INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 August 16, 2017 Page 7 Officer Torres provided a handwriting card during the interview for submission to the LASD Lab for handwriting analysis related to the questioned subpoena. (Addendum #16,18) Officer Torres completed the card very slowly and exhibited unusual behavior (documented in the interview summary) that led investigators to believe that Officer Torres was intentionally insubordinate and deceptive in his completion of handwriting sample. The LASD handwriting examiner was unable to use the sample document for analysis because of irregularities in the handwriting sample. 29. On March 28, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed Arnita Harper for a second time. Harper confirmed that the phone records (Addendum #12), were accurate, she left a voicemail for Officer Torres on the morning of August 10, 2017. She did not believe that Cindy Martinez spoke with Officer Torres on August 11, 2017. 30. On March 28, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed Cindy Martinez for a second time. Martinez confirmed that she did not speak with Officer Torres on August 11, 2017. Martinez believed that she may have spoken with Retired Officer Molinar or Officer Haas about Officer Torres prior to August 10 or 11, 2017. Court Affairs records for August and July 2017, (Addendum #21), no supporting information was located. Neither Detective handled cases with Officer Torres as a witness during that time. Also attached was a copy of Officer Torres compliance history related to court affairs. (Addendum #22) 31. On March 28, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed Retired Officer Molinar regarding this matter. Molinar did not recall speaking with Cindy Martinez about Officer Torres around August of 2017. 32. On April 2, 2018, Sergeant Ellis interviewed Sergeant Perez for a second time. Sergeant Perez confirmed events surrounding August 10 and 11, 2017. He did not speak with anyone about Officer Torres on those dates. He did not learn of incident until August 14, 2017, when he received the email from Cindy Martinez. Sergeant Perez was not aware of any conversation between Officer Torres and Cindy Martinez on August 10th or 11th, 2017. 33. On April 11, 2018, Sergeant Ellis spoke with Attorney Trott to request phone records from Officer Torres on August 10 and 11, 2017, specifically, a record showing that he had a conversation with Cindy Martinez from court affairs informing him that LACA was attempting to reach him. Officer Torres stated in his interview that is how he knew to call City Attorney Grace Lee on August 11, 2017. No record of the call exists in the city system. Witness interviews do not support the claims of Officer Torres. Attorney Trott stated that he would confer with Officer Torres and reply back. INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 August 16, 2017 Page 8 34. On April 11, 2018, Sergeant Ellis received transcripts from Dept. WE 31, 7AR00128, on October 11, 2017, (Addendum #20). Officer Torres is a witness and is ordered by the court to be on call and provide his correct phone number to LACA. The transcripts support the information provided by City Attorney Lee during her interview. 35. On March 29, 2018 Sergeant Ellis requested a forensic exam of the Subpoena returned to LA City Attorney’s Officer with a handwritten note, “Return to sender does not live here.” (Addendum #16) Also provided were handwriting examples from Officer Torres. (Addendum #18,19) On May 3, 2018, the lab returned a report along with all original documents provided for the examination. The report concluded that, “There is substantial evidence which indicates that the questioned hand printing was probably produced by the writer of the “Michael Torres” exemplars. Although this is not a conclusive identification, there are sufficient similarities to establish a strong likelihood that the writer of the exemplars wrote the questioned hand printing.” (Addendum #17) Forensic Examiner Lertyaovarit explained that this is a “Qualified Identification.” Referring to the handwriting terminology document, (Addendum #17) “The handwriting evidence that indicates that the questioned and exemplar writings were likely to have been produced by the same individual. The similarities are significant. There are, however, deficiencies, variations or features which cannot be reconciled, although the examiner considers it unlikely that they indicate another writer.” He explained that he was not able to make an “Identification,” which indicates the highest level of confidence, due to the small sample of writing on the questioned document (Subpoena). He indicated that there were significant indicators on the questioned document, even with the small sample. Forensic Examiner Lertyaovarit explained that he did not use the LBPD handwriting card, sample provided by Officer Torres during his interview on March 20, 2018. (Addendum #18) He indicated that the writing appeared inconsistent with the other examples. He noted the heavy pen strokes, ink blots, comparison with other examples and several other indicators. He stated that it was not a natural example of Officer Torres handwriting. 36. On May 26, 2018, the case was submitted for review, corrections and allegations. 37. On July 16, 2018, Lieutenant Ellis spoke with LA City Attorney Lee. Lee stated that to the best of her recollection, defense attorneys were not present INVESTIGATOR NOTES - INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE #ADM2017-0037 August 16, 2017 Page 9 in court on October 11, 2017, during her interaction with Officer Torres. It may be the case that the court transcripts reflection that the defendant and his counsel were present for the case but not actually physically in court at the time Officer Torres went before Judge Sadler. 38. On July 17, 2018, Lieutenant Ellis spoke with LA City Attorney Spencer Hart. He stated that he did not recall if defense attorneys were present in court on October 11, 2017, during his interaction with Officer Torres. 39. On July 26, 2018, LA City Attorney Spencer Hart sent the relevant phone records from their office demonstrating the attempts to reach Officer Torres by phone, leaving voicemails. (Addendum #20) City of Long Beach Working Together to Serve Memorandum Date: April 9, 2018 To: Lloyd Cox, Commander, Internal Affairs Division From: Chad Ellis, Sergeant, Internal Affairs Division Subject: INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 Person Interviewed: Officer Michael Torres #6252 Status: Accused Relationship/Role: Off-Duty Witness Officer On March 20, 2018 at approximately 1706 hours, Sergeant Chad Ellis and Sergeant Mendoza interviewed Officer Michael Torres in the Internal Affairs office. Prior to the interview, Officer Torres was advised of the nature of the investigation and was given the opportunity to have a representative present. Attorney Trott was present as a representative. Officer Torres read and signed the Police Officers Bill of Rights. Sergeant Chad Ellis read Officer Torres the Accused Officer Admonition. The interview was recorded with Officer Torres’s knowledge and the following is a summary of the interview. Officer Torres stated that on March 1, 2017, he was off-duty in the area of 77th St. and Sepulveda Blvd. in the City of Los Angeles when he witnessed a traffic collision. He briefly described the traffic collision; the reporting agency was the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He stated that he observed a motorcycle, in front of him, go through an intersection on a solid green light. A dark colored vehicle came from the right side and ran a red light into the same intersection as the motorcycle. The motorcycle had to make a hard-left turn and the rider used both right leg and arm to push off the vehicle during the left turn and then continued out of sight on Sepulveda. The vehicle that almost hit the motorcycle, veered off to the right into the gas station parking lot nearby and struck a block wall. Officer Torres knew that the gas station was a Chevron station but did not know that the address was 7550 S. Sepulveda. The collision occurred about 0150 hours in the morning. Officer Torres stated that he had a brief interaction with a LAPD Sergeant (Hillard) at the scene when he pulled over. He saw Sergeant Hillard arrive on scene. Sergeant Hillard came from the left, he believed Southbound on Sepulveda. Sergeant Hillard witnessed the incident. Sergeant Hillard asked Officer Torres where the motorcycle rider went, Officer Torres told him that he continued driving down Sepulveda Blvd. INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 2 Sergeant Hillard put his hand out in a gesture for Officer Torres to stop and wait where he was. Sergeant Hillard approached the vehicle involved in the collision while Officer Torres waited at his truck. Officer Torres’ truck was stopped along the east curb of Sepulveda north of the intersection with 76th/77th St., adjacent to the Chevron gas station. Additional LAPD officers responded to the incident. Officer Torres provided a witness statement to one of the LAPD officers. Officer Torres did not know the name of the officer to whom he spoke. Based upon reports and interviews, LAPD Officer Quiroga conducted the witness interview with Officer Torres. Officer Torres described other officers at the scene, and believed there were three in total, Officer Torres described the officer that interviewed him as a shorter male white. Officer Torres witness statement was a one on one interview. [audio I: 5m 23s] Officer Torres was asked what caused him to stop and provide a witness statement at 0150 hours in the morning. He stated that it appeared that other vehicles in the area did not care about the collision. He wanted to make sure that the person who crashed was okay. Once he pulled over, he saw that Sergeant Hillard was already present. Officer Torres was asked about his willingness and ability to participate in the court case as a witness. He stated that he was willing to go to court. He stated, “I got a subpoena, I know I have to go and show up on that date and time. There was a conversation between me and the ‘DA’ regarding this case, she read me this report and I had disagreed with facts in the report at which time she wanted me to go along with what was just written in the report. I told her that I would not do that, I would testify to what I actually had saw that’s not listed in the report.” Officer Torres was asked if at some point he expressed a reluctance to testify in court and told City Attorney Lee that the LAPD officers had seen everything and that they could testify to the facts of the case. Officer Torres denied that he made that statement. Officer Torres was asked about what brought him to the intersection of 77th St. and Sepulveda Blvd. at 0150 hours on that morning. He had gotten off work at 2230 hours. Officer Torres stated that he was dropping off a friend, unrelated to work. [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 INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 3 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. 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.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 5 involved in the collision. Sergeant Hillard opened the car door and the driver either fell or stumbled out of the vehicle. Sergeant Hillard had to hold the driver up against the side of the vehicle, the driver appeared to want to walk to the back of the vehicle. Sergeant Hillard is about six feet tall and the driver was about five feet tall according to Officer Torres. The Sergeant’s body was positioned between Officer Torres and the driver, Officer Torres did not get a good look at the driver. Officer Torres saw that it was a shorter person with what appears to be dark long hair. Sergeant Hillard had to hold the driver’s body up against the vehicle to keep him from walking away. Sergeant Hillard then radioed for help while holding on to the driver. Two LAPD patrol cars arrived on scene, one two-officer car and one single-officer car. One officer approached Officer Torres. The other two officers took control of the suspect and walked “him” out of Officer Torres’ sight. [audio I: 15m 45s] Officer Torres stated that he saw three officers arrive as back up for Sergeant Hillard and estimated it took about 5 minutes for them to arrive. Sergeant Hillard had to hold the driver against the vehicle while waiting for back-up to arrive. Officer Torres did not note any other significant activity while waiting for the additional officers. According to information in the police reports and interviews, LAPD Officer Quiroga approached and interviewed Officer Torres. Officer Torres stated that he did not know the name of the officer that interviewed him. Officer Torres told Officer Quiroga that he was on 77th St. and came to the intersection, the motorcycle was about 3 car lengths in front of him when it entered the intersection on a green light. A dark colored vehicle ran the red light nearly hitting the motorcycle. Officer Torres told him that the motorcyclist put his right leg and arm out around the driver’s side door area. Officer Torres could not tell if they actually made contact, he just knew the motorcycle rider made a hard- left turn and drove out of sight. The dark colored vehicle then veered right into the gas station parking lot where it struck a block wall. Officer Torres stated that when he gave his statement to Officer Quiroga, Sergeant Hillard was still standing by the vehicle involved in the collision and the two additional officers had taken the driver east, further into the gas station parking lot, out of his sight. [audio I: 17m 59s] Sergeant Hillard never approached Officer Torres or Officer Quiroga during his witness statement where he could have heard Officer Torres statement. INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 8 Officer Torres stated that he did not tell City Attorney Lee during their phone interview that he never provided his phone number to LAPD. Officer Torres stated he told City Attorney Lee that he did not know the make and model of the vehicle that collided in the gas station. Officer Torres was told that in the LAPD report, 17-14-07337, (Addendum #1), it stated that he reported the vehicle was a blue GMC Sierra. Officer Torres claimed that he did not make that statement. Officer Torres was asked if the vehicle was a blue GMC Sierra, he stated that he did not know. Officer Torres stated that at the time of the collision he thought the vehicle looked like an SUV, a full-length vehicle, like a “Suburban Type” vehicle. Officer Torres stated that if LAPD put in the report that it was blue GMC Sierra, he did not doubt that information, but he did know that information at the time of the incident. When 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.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 9 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 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, INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 10 “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.” 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] INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 11 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.” 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 INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 13 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 my phone. Um, I, I, entered my, my voicemail system, it’s the same voicemails as my kid’s mom’s that’s on it. Nothing can be added to it. The number that court affairs gave me for um, Lee, I have never received a call from that number prior to me calling her.” Officer Torres was asked to estimate when his voicemail box became full and when it was no longer full, specifically if it was full the entire time from April 2017 to October 2017. He stated, “I believe it was full, yes.” Officer Torres was asked INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 15 Officer Torres was asked about City Attorney Lee expressing concern about him not receiving subpoenas up to that point. He was asked if he told City Attorney Lee in reference to the address, “Just send them there.” He stated, “Yes, I told her send, send future subpoenas, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he had not received any of the subpoenas sent to him prior to August 11, 2017. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he would not appear in court on August 14, 2017 during their conversation on August 11, 2017. He stated, “No, I don’t recall telling her that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if he said, “No, I won’t be there.” He stated, “No, I don’t remember saying that, no.” [audio I: 53m 48s] Officer Torres was asked if during his conversation with City Attorney Lee he asked her for the Defense Attorney contact information for the person arrested at the scene of the traffic collision. He stated, “Yes I did.” When asked why, he stated, “Because I wanted to speak with them and let them know that the police report that was written was not accurate.” Officer Torres stated that City Attorney Lee did provide him with the Public Defender’s information. He stated, “Uh, just the first name and then she stopped and would not give him anything else.” Officer Torres was asked if she provided him with the name of the attorney and the phone number for the Public Defender’s office at the Los Angeles Airport Courthouse. He stated, “No, she told me that she would be typing up our conversation and that she would, that she had to personally give her a copy anyways, so that she would be in contact with her anyways regarding that.” Officer Torres was asked if he followed up or contacted the Public Defender’s office. He stated, “No, never saw them.” Officer Torres was asked if he contacted any defense attorney for the defendant in this matter. He stated, “No.” When asked why he did not follow up, he stated, “I thought I was going to be able to see them when I went to court, and when I showed up, um, they were not there.” Officer Torres was asked if he told City Attorney Lee that he was going to speak with defense attorney about the LAPD officers, “I’m going to have a conversation with them, I’m going to talk to them about this, and I am going to tell them all this stuff.” He stated, “Um, I did tell her that I was going to talk with the defense attorney and let them know that, that my recollection of what happened was not the same as what was written in the report.” Officer Torres was asked if the quote attributed to him by City Attorney Lee was accurate. He stated, “That’s fair to say.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 16 [audio I: 56m 04s] Officer Torres was asked if he alleged that Officer Quiroga and Sergeant Hillard were not truthful in their reports or their statements. He stated, “I never said that they were untruthful, I just said that, that its not what I, I told them.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever made any allegations about truthfulness against Officer Quiroga or Sergeant Hillard. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he alleged that the report was wrong and that he was going to notify the defense attorney. He stated, “I, I told them the report was inaccurate and that I would like to talk to the defense attorney about it, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he was trying to intimidate City Attorney Lee into taking him off the case. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he was trying to sabotage the case. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked what in this case needed to be brought to the attention of the defense attorney. He stated, “I believed that the defense attorney should have been told that my recollection was not what, what was written, was written in the report. That I, I never ID’d the driver or anything like that.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever spoke with the defense attorney or Public Defender. He stated, “I never did.” Officer Torres was asked if he did appear in court later. He stated, “Yes, I did.” Officer Torres was asked why he did not speak with the Public Defender or defense attorney. He stated, “They weren’t there.” Officer Torres was asked if he took any proactive steps to locate or notify defense counsel. He stated, “No, I was under the impression I would be subpoenaed, and I would have a chance at a later time.” Officer Torres was asked if he had an obligation to let somebody know if he believed the statements in the report were false. He stated, “She told me that she was going to be writing up a statement and giving a copy to let them know, so I figured that would have been done.” Officer Torres was asked if he took any steps to notify the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office if he felt the LAPD and LACA actions in this matter were improper. Attorney Trott objected and stated that Officer Torres was not making that allegation. [audio I: 58m 43s] Officer Torres was asked if he believed the LAPD officers reports and statements in this matter were improper. He stated, “Just inaccurate.” Officer Torres was asked if there was any impropriety by LAPD officers proceeding forward with a criminal case against the defendant. He stated, “I don’t think they were doing INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 17 anything wrong. I just think that there was information that just wasn’t written in the report that should have been.” Officer Torres was asked what his goal was in speaking with the Public Defender. He stated, “I was going to explain to them just the same thing I explained to you guys, the series of events.” Officer Torres was asked if any of his statements or behavior was motivated by not wanting to participate in the criminal case. He stated, “No.” He was asked if it was because he did not want to show up to testify. He stated, “No.” [audio I: 59m 57s] Officer Torres was asked if he notified anyone from LAPD that the police report was incorrect or inaccurate. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he notified anyone at LBPD that there was a problem in this case. He stated, “Uh, no.” Officer Torres was asked to assess or characterize the police report, specifically if it was a false police report. He stated, “I wouldn’t say it’s, it’s, it’s just inaccurate.” Officer Torres was asked if someone was being prosecuted on a case where statements in the police report were inaccurate, if he had any obligation as a police officer to take proactive steps to fix the problem or make someone aware. He stated, I would believe that someone needs to be told about it, and my understanding was that Lee was going to notify the defense like she told me she was.” Officer Torres was asked if he felt like he had any additional obligation to make any other notifications. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he felt LACA was doing anything improper in this matter by proceeding in a criminal case where he knew the statements in the report were inaccurate. He stated, “I, I never saw this report from our conversation, she gave me a brief, a brief um, account of what occurred, and I was telling her this was what I saw, and it wasn’t the same as what was lining up.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Lee told him that LAPD attributed witness statements to him that were not correct in the police report. He stated, “Just inaccurate, yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he thought that he did not need to do anything other than have a conversation with City Attorney Lee. He stated, “I, I was going to talk with the defense, but when she told me that she was going to, she had to type any, uh, uh, memo or something like that, that she, that she’s obligated to talk to, to send to the defense that I thought that that was covered.” Officer Torres was asked if he was attempting to avoid appearing in court by his actions and his statements. He stated, “No.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 18 [audio I: 1h 02m 48s] Officer Torres was asked if he ever told City Attorney Lee, “Why should I have to testify, they saw it, I shouldn’t have to testify.” He stated, “No, I don’t believe I told her that, no.” Officer Torres was asked why he wanted to seek out the information for the defense attorney. He stated, “I just wanted to let them know that from, that what I saw was different from what was written.” Officer Torres was asked if he was familiar with LBPD policy about subpoenas and appearances. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he was familiar with LBPD policy regarding having contact with defense attorneys. He stated, “No, I am not.” Officer Torres was asked if he testified in this matter. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he made any appearances in this matter. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres stated he appeared for what he thought was a prelim, but when he arrived City Attorney Lee told him that they were not going to appear with the case that day. She just wanted him to be in court so that the judge could order him back each day for the next two weeks. Officer Torres did not give any testimony in the case. [audio I: 1h 04m 39s] Officer Torres was asked if LACA ever told him why he did not testify in the case. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he spoke with City Attorney Lee’s supervisor when he appeared in court. He stated, “I, no I don’t believe I talked to the supervisor, no. Officer Torres was asked if he talked with another male City Attorney by the name of Spencer Hart. He stated, “I had a conversation with a male, but I don’t know that person’s name, they never identified themselves or told me who they were.” Officer Torres was asked if he knew that the male he spoke with was the Assisting Supervising City Attorney of that office. He stated, “If it’s the same person I talked to, no.” Officer Torres was asked if he introduced himself and told him who he was. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he would have told the male subject that there were problems with the police report if he would have known that the male subject was City Attorney Lee’s supervisor. He stated, “Yes.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 20 days of the week were better to appear. He stated, “No that’s not what I told her.” [audio I: 1h 09m 36s] Officer Torres was asked what he told her, “I told her it depends because I have child care issues. She wanted me to give me my schedule for the next two weeks and I explained to her that I’ve got child care issues so I can’t go day to day because I don’t know who’s going to watch my kid day to day for me. Um, she wanted me to give her specifics dates and I told her I just couldn’t do that but, I told her if the judge tells me come back on this day, I’ll make it work for my schedule.” Officer Torres was asked if he refused to discuss his schedule with City Attorney Lee and again stated, “If you want to know send me a subpoena,” he stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Lee went and got her supervisor, Assisting Supervising City Attorney Hart to come speak with him, he replied, “No, she never got anybody.” Officer Torres was asked again if City Attorney Lee left to go get anyone to come speak with him. He stated, “She never left to go get anybody. No. I can tell you what, what happened if that’s what you are trying to ask?” Officer Torres was asked to continue. “Um, after, after my conversation with her, with my childcare, she walked, she walked back to her, her uh, her table. Um, I was in the audience. And I sat down in the back row, far left seat, um, while I was just on my phone, just biding time. An unknown man comes from the back. I don’t know who this guy is, never seen him. He walks up to her, has a brief conversation with her, she points back towards me, he comes and walks back towards me. He stands to my left, there’s an aisle to the left. Um, never introduces himself. Never tells me his name. I am still on my phone, because I don’t know who this guy is, so I don’t, I am just not paying attention to him. Um, he tells me, um, ‘You know we’re gonna subpoena you back and you will show up.’ I said, okay, whatever date the judge tells me I’ll come back. He then tells me again, he’s all, ‘You understand you’re gonna be coming back here and you will show up.’ I told him, okay, whatever the judge, whatever date the judge tells me, I’m, I’m gonna be back, it’s not a problem. He asked me, ‘Well what’s your schedule for the next two weeks so I can, uh, tell Grace?’” [audio I: 1h 11m 53s] Officer Torres continued, “I told him, I, I, I told her I had childcare. I can’t give you my schedule. He then walks around to the front of me squats down a little bit and tells me to look him in his eyes when he talks to me, as if I was like, his kid. Again, never introduced himself, never told me who he is. I have no idea who this guy is. I, I told him that he needs to walk away from me and sit back over by INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 21 the table by where Lee’s area was, just leave me alone. Because, again, I don’t know who he is. He then walked off and he didn’t say anything to her. He sat away from her a good fifteen feet and never said a word to her the whole time I was in court.” [audio I: 1h 12m 38s] Officer Torres continued. “Eventually, the judge called me up and asked me what, what my schedule was. I told him, I, I had some childcare stuff and he’s all, ‘You know I can order you to come back every day?’ I told him I understood. He said, but he didn’t think it was fair to order me everyday so that he would put me on ‘on-call status’ for, I believe he said for the next fourteen days. Um, and then, I was excused. And I notified court affairs after I left that I would be ‘on-call’ for this case. Officer Torres was asked what he thought was going to occur during the next fourteen days in reference to the judge’s statement. He said, “I, I would imagine they would have had their, had their court appearances, or got the case handled some way.” Officer Torres was asked if that could include a trial or some other proceeding, he stated, “Correct.” Officer Torres was asked about when he planned on having a discussion with the public defender. He stated, “When I would be subpoenaed back to court and they would be there so I could find out who they were.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever sought out the public defender during that appearance (October 11, 2017). He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if there was anything preventing him from seeking out defense counsel. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if there was a rationale or reason why he did not seek out defense counsel. He stated, “Just didn’t think about doing it. I was just told that, I wasn’t, they weren’t going to do anything today. The other attorney wasn’t going to be there. They just wanted to have the judge, uh, tell me what days I was gonna have to be on the calendar for.” [audio I: 1h 14m 20s] Officer Torres was asked about his conversation with Assisting Supervising City Attorney Hart. Hart stated that when he approached Officer Torres, Officer Torres refused to look at him while he introduced himself and spoke with him. When asked if Hart’s statement was true, Officer Torres stated, “I, I never looked up. If that, if it’s the same person, I never looked up at him. If in, the same time he never introduced himself to me.” Officer Torres was asked if he had anyone else approach him on that day and introduce themselves or speak with him in any way. He stated, “No.” Officer INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 22 Torres was asked if there was any reason to doubt that the person talking to him was part of the City Attorney’s Office. He stated, “Um, yeah, I didn’t know who he was. I didn’t know where he was from.” Officer Torres was asked again if there was any doubt in his mind that the person who approached him was part of the City Attorney’s Office. He stated, “I never knew he was.” Officer Torres was reminded that he had discussed his availability and his court appearance with Hart. He stated, “To me that doesn’t mean he’s, he’s part. To me, I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t know who he, I knew he knew her, caused she talked to him. But I didn’t know what his role or title was.” Officer Torres was asked who he thought the unknown person was that approached him and started talking to him about his court appearance and availability to appear back in court, he stated, “I, I just thought it was, it was someone who, who, who worked in her office, but I didn’t know his, his title. It could have been a secretary or something, I don’t know, what his, who they were.” [audio I: 1h 16m 06s] Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Hart asked him to look at him while they spoke. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if he refused to shake City Attorney Hart’s hand when it was extended to him. He stated, “He never offered me his hand.” Officer Torres was asked to confirm that they never shook hands. He stated, “Not that I, no.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorney Hart told him that he had made their case very difficult for them and had caused unnecessary problems for the LA City Attorney’s Office. He replied, “This is his statement?” The investigator confirmed the allegation. Officer Torres stated, “No, he never told me that.” Officer Torres was asked if he received a voicemail from City Attorney Hart on August 11, 2017. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if he ever said anything to City Attorney Lee about the City Attorney’s Office threatening him or harassing him at work. He stated, “No.” City Attorney Hart stated that he left a voicemail for Officer Torres on August 11, 2017, explaining the critical need to speak with Officer Torres and that they had learned that he was a police officer from Long Beach Police Department. They did not want to involve his (Torres’) chain of command and offered to work with him if he had a difficult schedule. They had a hard time understanding his failure to contact their office. Officer Torres was asked if he received that voicemail from City Attorney Hart. He stated, “No.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 23 Officer Torres was asked to recall his earlier statement that he was not uncooperative with City Attorney Lee. He was asked to describe his behavior and demeanor with City Attorney Lee and throughout this proceeding. He stated, “I, I felt I was cooperative. I answered all their questions and when I got the subpoenas, I showed up like I was supposed to.” Officer Torres was asked about his court appearance, and if he was in uniform or civilian clothes. He stated, “Civilian.” Officer Torres was asked if City Attorneys Hart and Lee had him appear before Judge Saddler in order to confirm his availability and contact information. He stated, “Yes.” Officer Torres was asked if that was because he would not confirm his information or availability for them. He stated, “I, I.” [audio I: 1h 18m 53s] Attorney Trott interjected with a question, “Do you know why they had you there?” Officer Torres answered, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if, up to that point, he had given them any confirmation of his personal contact information. He asked, “Did I ever give them confirmation on it?” The question was clarified, “Did you tell them where you live and give them your phone number?” Officer Torres answered, “Yes, when I spoke with Lee.” Officer Torres confirmed again that he had provided that information to City Attorney Lee. Officer Torres was asked if he had confirmed for City Attorney Hart or Lee his availability to appear in court. He stated, “What’s the question again?” The question was repeated. He stated, “Hart is the Judge?” He was reminded that Hart was a City Attorney and Lee was a City Attorney. He stated, “I am not understanding the question.” The question was rephrased, “They asked you to confirm your availability for court, had you given it to them at that point or did they have to have you stand in front of the Judge to confirm your availability?” He stated, “I, I told them that I couldn’t give them specific dates because of child care.” The question was restated, “Is it fair to say that you had not confirmed your availability until they got you in front of the Judge?” He stated, “Yes.” [audio I: 1h 19m 36s] Officer Torres was asked to recall when City Attorney Lee requested that the Judge move his on call status from 24 hour notice of “Be there” to 3-4 hour notice INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 24 to better accommodate his schedule. Specifically he was asked, “Did the Judge ask you if you could respond to court within 3-4 hours?” He stated, “I don’t recall him asking me that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if in response to that question from the Judge, if he told the Judge that he would try to appear.” He stated, “I don’t remember saying that, no.” Officer Torres was asked if the Judge told him that was not good enough and he would have to confirm that he would be on 3-4 hour call or he would have to appear each day. He stated, “The Judge told me it was not good enough when I, when I told him that I had, I had child care, that I didn’t know my day to day. That’s when he made the comment that’s not good enough.” Officer Torres was asked if he eventually agreed to being on 3-4 hour call. He stated, “I agreed to whatever the Judge told us to be on, told me to be on.” Officer Torres was asked if he did not remember what he was agreeing to. He stated, “I don’t remember if it was a 3-4, I just remember it, walking out of there it was an ‘On-call’ status. He reversed the ‘Be-there’ that Lee wanted me to be on. He said it was not fair, that he would put me on an ‘On-call’. Officer Torres was asked if he was stating that the Judge did not hold him to a 3- 4 hour call status, meaning that he had to be able to respond to court within 3-4 hours of notification. He stated, “Well, my understanding to be ‘On-call,’ if he calls me, I’ve got to show up. I didn’t know I had a timeframe. I would assume they would call me and tell me a time to be there. I did let them know that I do have a drive, so it wouldn’t, it’s not like I can get there in thirty minutes.” [audio I: 1h 22m 29s] Officer Torres was asked if he had ever been placed before the court and ordered to provide contact and availability information because he would not provide it to the prosecution on a case either prior to or after this matter. He stated, “No.” Officer Torres was asked if there was a reason why it had to happen in this case. He stated, “No.” 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. INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 25 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.” Officer Torres was told that the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department employee that attempted subpoena service on all three occasions noted that he was evading service. Officer Torres was asked if he had any explanation or knowledge as to why they would make that statement. He stated, “No idea, never knew that.” Officer Torres was asked if he was notified in this same matter, #RID1603614, that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department attempted service multiple times at 3800 Willow St., the East Police Substation in October of 2016. He stated, “I was never aware of LA Sheriff’s, no.” (Addendum #24) INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 29 “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.” INTERVIEW OF MICHAEL TORRES – I.A. CASE# ADM2017-0037 April 9, 2018 Page 36 Officer Torres was asked if he had any thing else that he wanted to add. He did not. The interview was concluded at approximately 1935 hours. CE: ce