FULL MINIMAL REWRITE — ALL SECTIONS
I. Pitchess Motion and Procedural Background
Appellant filed a Pitchess motion seeking personnel records relevant to excessive force. Prior to the hearing, appellant voluntarily narrowed the motion and removed one officer entirely. Despite this good-faith narrowing, the court denied the motion as “overly broad.” Appellant argues the ruling ignored Penal Code §832.7(c) and §832.7(e). Pasadena Police Department did not comply with either requirement. The court mistakenly referenced the July motion instead of the operative September motion, resulting in incorrect analysis.
Appellant attempted to amend the complaint after the court stated an ex parte motion was improper. He filed the amendment immediately, yet the court struck it while leaving the summons intact. Appellant then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to Amend, asserting actual notice, Doe-defendant principles, and ostensible-authority rules. The court denied the motion although service objections remained unresolved. Denial of amendment prejudiced appellant’s rights.
Appellant also filed motions to compel cooperation from the City Attorney regarding witness coordination, to disqualify the City Attorney based on prior misconduct, and to access personnel materials relevant to internal affairs. These motions were denied or restricted, limiting appellant’s ability to present evidence. Pretrial evidence restrictions hindered fair trial.
II. Issues at Trial: Testimony, Conflicts, and Evidentiary Concerns
Officer Mosman testified that loud rock music was playing in the patrol car; Officer Brown denied this. Training testimony revealed contradictions: Chief Milenkian stated Pasadena exceeded POST requirements with 40 hours/year; Sgt. Pratt testified handcuff practices were unchanged for decades. Policy updates were inconsistent, demonstrating inadequate training and oversight. Insufficient oversight contributed to excessive force.
Use-of-force testimony conflicted: Brown admitted baton use and a leg sweep; Mosman said Brown used the baton twice; Bustamante saw no baton or kicking; Rosner observed the event but did not recall a baton. Mosman stated appellant’s arms were “flailing”; Dollar denied this. Court limited impeachment of prior inconsistent statements. Limited cross-examination reduced ability to challenge credibility.
III. Dispatch Tape Failure and Unruh Act Arguments
Dispatch Supervisor Blaine testified the tape was “absolutely blank.” She could not determine if it malfunctioned or was erased and did not examine adjacent portions. Cabinet lock never changed; Sgt. Pratt had never seen such failure in 29 years. Evidence tampering or severe negligence suspected.
Defense claimed officers lacked knowledge of appellant’s race, religion, or orientation. Appellant asserts modern prejudice often involves rapid, unconscious judgments based on appearance or context. Officers could have perceived appellant as “foreign” or attached stereotypes. No training addressed Protestant Christians. Subtle bias supports Unruh Act claim.
IV. Medical Testimony
Dr. Kenneth Wogenson testified MRI findings showed cervical disc disease and noted appellant’s arms were tightly placed and pulled behind his back. Differences in wording reflect note-taking variation. Medical evidence corroborates excessive force claims.
V. Failure to Investigate and Municipal Liability
Multiple officers, including Dollar, Rosner, and May, testified they were never contacted about the civilian complaint. Officer Brown read it the next day; Mosman said they read together the same evening; Chief learned of baton use “in the last few weeks.” Timeline shows failure to investigate.
Court barred questions about the civilian review board. Scholarship by Douglas Colbert and cases such as Canton v. Harris and Batista v. Rodriguez show persistent failures constitute unconstitutional ratification. Lack of access to personnel and internal affairs records prevented full proof of custom and practice. Municipal liability fully implicated.
VI. Remedies and Appellate Options
- Remand for a proper Pitchess hearing focused on Brown and Mosman.
- Allow further testimony, including from former Pasadena officers such as Naum Ware.
- Permit expert or academic testimony on music and officer aggression correlations. Scientific evidence may influence credibility.
- Remand for trial against individual officers.
- Evaluate connections between City policies and officers’ conduct.
- Sustain defaults against unresponsive officers.
- Determine lack of training contributed to the violation. Failure-to-train directly caused harm.
- Find municipal inaction amounted to ratification under Monell.
“He shall give thee the desires of thine heart.” — Psalm 37:4
