Source: Full Case Documents – Kok v. City of Pasadena, Appellant’s Appendix (Case No. GC026938/B161641)
π Clean Narrative Legal Summary of the Full Document
I. Background of the Case
This matter arises from an encounter between Philip A. Kok and several Pasadena Police Department officers. Mr. Kok filed a citizen complaint and later initiated civil litigation alleging excessive force, improper handcuffing, mishandling of evidence, prejudicial behavior, and procedural irregularities.
Officers involved included Brown, Mosman, Pratt, Dollar, Rosner, and May, with civilian witness Evangelina Bustamante. The City of Pasadena was named for vicarious liability and policy failures.
Throughout pretrial and trial, Mr. Kok encountered repeated resistance in obtaining personnel records, internal affairs information, and dispatch recordings. He also challenged procedural errors, inconsistent testimony, and contradictions between departmental policy and officers’ statements regarding training and conduct.
II. Early Motions and Procedural Issues
Mr. Kok filed a Pitchess motion seeking relevant personnel records of officers involved, particularly complaints relating to excessive force. He voluntarily narrowed the motion before the hearing, but the court denied it as “overly broad.” Kok argued the denial was too restrictive.
California Penal Code §832.7(c) and §832.7(e) authorize disclosure of non-identifying complaint data and require departments to notify citizens of complaint dispositions within 30 days. Kok contended these duties were ignored.
The court mistakenly referenced an earlier July Pitchess motion instead of the operative September motion, contributing to the denial.
When Kok attempted to amend, the judge indicated ex parte was improper. Kok filed the amendment anyway. The court later struck the amended complaint, leaving the summons intact. A Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to Amend was denied despite service objections. Kok questioned how the case could be “at issue” while service remained incomplete and sought additional attempts within the three-year statutory period.
III. Additional Pretrial Issues
Kok provided partial MSJ records including affidavits from the process server and Nils Grevillius. An unsigned affidavit from Shelley Peutet was replaced with a signed version.
Motion to Compel Cooperation: Kok sought better coordination regarding witnesses including dispatch personnel and officers. City was unresponsive.
Motion to Disqualify City Attorney: Kok argued the attorney acted excessively adversarially and had prior misconduct documenting concealment of personnel information. Denied before trial.
Motions in Limine: City sought to exclude personnel information. Kok argued the court had a duty to investigate adequacy of internal affairs; denials were overly broad.
Causes of Action: False Arrest & Unruh Civil Rights Act included per prior judge. New judge left open modification possibilities.
IV. Issues Presented at Trial
Mosman testified rock music played; Brown denied. Court dismissed as “social,” but Kok argued academic research correlates certain music with aggression. Kok has BA in psychology and M.Div. coursework.
Chief Milenkian: Pasadena exceeds POST minimums, 40 hours annually. Sgt. Pratt: handcuff policy unchanged for 29 years. Chief unsure if loosening handcuffs required; policies reviewed every 90–180 days. Pratt unsure if formal handcuff policy existed. Contradictions suggest inadequate training and oversight.
Brown: baton & leg sweep; Mosman: baton twice; Bustamante: saw nothing; Rosner: no recollection of baton. Dollar: Kok’s eyes “large” = anger vs. no unusual behavior. Disagreement about arms “flailing.” Raises credibility questions.
Tape “absolutely blank”; mechanical failure claimed. Cabinet lock never changed; other parts of tape unchecked. Sgt. Pratt: never saw mechanical failure in 29 years. Suggests possible tampering or negligence.
Defense: officers lacked explicit knowledge of race/religion/orientation. Kok: modern prejudice is often subconscious; officers may have perceived “foreignness,” Fuller Seminary association, or stereotypes. Anti-Semitic-style remark: “You’re never wrong, are you?” Sensitivity training did not cover Protestant Christians.
Brown claimed right to use baton as “pain compliance.” Both Brown and Chief confused assault vs. battery. Kok cited Joseph F., Teresinski, Glick, Graham v. Connor: officers must act with objective reasonableness; anger or vengeance is not justification.
Bustamante: Kok “moving toward car” = resisting. Even walking is misdemeanor. Tennessee v. Garner: deadly force cannot be used against misdemeanor; force here unjustifiable.
Brown admitted being “upset.” Court blocked further questioning. Mindset informs objective reasonableness. Cases: Grooms, Bruner, Depew, Fiacco support municipal liability for tolerating abusive behavior.
Cervical disc disease on MRI (June 23, 2000). Notes (July 6 & 9, 2000): tight handcuff placement, arms “tightly placed and pulled behind back.” Defense attempted semantic distinction (“placed” vs. “pulled”); doctor confirmed notes not always verbatim.
V. Final Procedural Material
Proofs of service. Address and identification information. Header referencing the case: Kok v. City of Pasadena, Appellant’s Appendix (Case No. GC026938/B161641). Confirms structural completeness of the appeal package.
