V5
I. Introduction
This appeal concerns a police encounter marked by inconsistent officer testimony, disproportionate force, a suspiciously “blank” dispatch recording, and a collapse of internal review mechanisms within the Pasadena Police Department. Appellant Philip A. Kok was subjected to baton strikes, a leg sweep, and excessively tight handcuffing despite presenting no threat. The City simultaneously obstructed discovery, denied access to personnel information, failed to investigate the complaint, and presented sworn testimony contradicting both physical evidence and officers’ prior statements. These failures reflect deficient training, nonexistent supervision, and a culture of non-accountability actionable under Monell. The cumulative record demonstrates structural injustice warranting reversal.
II. The Trial Court’s Denial of Pitchess Discovery Was Legally and Factually Unjustifiable
Appellant narrowed his Pitchess motion in good faith, yet the court labeled it “overly broad” while ignoring Penal Code §832.7(c) and §832.7(e). Pasadena violated both. The court conflated the July and September motions, resulting in an analysis based on the wrong filing. This deprived appellant of evidence essential to evaluating use-of-force patterns, credibility, and internal affairs practices.
III. The Court’s Handling of Appellant’s Amended Complaint Was Arbitrary and Prejudicial
The court informed appellant an ex parte amendment was improper, yet when appellant filed a formal amendment, the court struck it while leaving the summons intact. Appellant then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to Amend citing actual notice, Doe-defendant doctrine, and ostensible authority; the court denied it despite ongoing service objections.
IV. Restricted Critical Pretrial Evidence
Evidence of prior City Attorney misconduct and internal affairs failures was barred. The City obstructed witness coordination, and motions in limine excluded material necessary to establish custom, practice, and deficient training.
V. Officer Testimony Was Inconsistent
Officers could not agree: Brown admitted one baton strike; Mosman said two; Rosner “saw nothing”; Bustamante testified she saw no baton. Brown admitted a leg sweep; Bustamante denied any kicking.
Officers described appellant as “agitated,” “in their face,” “flailing his arms,” or calm. Dollar denied flailing, signaling departmental inconsistency or post-incident reconstruction.
VI. Training and Policy Failures
Chief claimed “exceeding POST minimums.” Sgt. Pratt testified handcuff training unchanged for decades. Policies inconsistently enforced; officers misapplied assault/battery definitions. Classic Canton v. Harris failure-to-train liability.
VII. The “Blank” Dispatch Tape
- The tape was “absolutely blank”
- Malfunction or erasure undetermined
- Other portions unexamined
- Cabinet lock unchanged
- No chain-of-custody safeguards known
VIII. Failure to Investigate
Officers were never contacted regarding the complaint. Chronology shows no meaningful investigation occurred. Authorities such as Batista, Fiacco, and Tuttle demonstrate ratification.
IX. Unruh Act Liability
City argued officers lacked knowledge of race/religion. Inconsistent reports and hostile remarks support differential treatment. Lack of Protestant-focused training exacerbates selective enforcement.
X. Medical Evidence
Dr. Wogenson confirmed cervical disc disease; appellant’s arms were tightly pulled behind his back. Minor wording differences reflect note-taking variation, not contradiction.
XI. Officers’ Emotional State
Officer Brown admitted being “probably more upset than anything.” Court barred inquiry. Emotional state relevant under Graham v. Connor, Grooms, and Bruner.
XII. Conclusion
Contradictions, missing evidence, investigative collapse, and deficient training deprived appellant of a fair trial. Pasadena’s institutional failures demonstrate Monell, Canton, and Fiacco liability. Reversal and remand are required.
