v2
The attached record constitutes a partially reconstructed law-enforcement case file associated with Case No. 00006684, generated by the Pasadena Police Department following a traffic collision and subsequent allegation of P.C. 243(b) (Assault on a Peace Officer) against plaintiff K. While the scanned materials are degraded—with missing lines, corrupted OCR text, and incomplete pages—the available content allows structured analysis, highlighting uncertainties and potential bias in the officers’ narrative and the witness statement.
The record includes two main categories: (1) preliminary administrative forms with descriptive and evidentiary fields, and (2) narrative reports prepared by officers, supplemented by a witness statement. Many entries are unreadable due to scanning distortion. A preprinted line states “THE SUSPECT HIT THE POLICE OFFICER”, though this may be a templated field rather than an actual observation, raising doubts about its accuracy.
The narrative by Officer Brown describes the February 3, 2000 incident. Brown states he and Officer Mosman were driving southbound on Lake Avenue at approximately 1801 hours when they heard a collision. Brown claims the green Honda entered the intersection lawfully, yet Bustamonte later admitted she entered late during a gridlocked intersection, undermining the officers’ version and suggesting plaintiff K may have been unfairly characterized.
Officers identified the vehicles as a green four-door Honda driven by Bustamonte and a red two-door Honda driven by plaintiff K. Both drivers exited their vehicles. Brown notes minimal paint transfer and recounts questioning plaintiff K. The account emphasizes the officers’ interpretation rather than independently verified facts.
Brown claims plaintiff K downplayed the collision and said “let’s call it a wash”. Bustamonte allegedly demanded insurance and ID. Her later admission of entering the intersection late calls into question her credibility and the officers’ framing of plaintiff K as the aggressor.
Brown asserts plaintiff K made a sudden forward movement, described as “lunging” toward him. No actual contact is reported. The narrative frames this movement as threatening, yet the lack of corroboration and missing procedural documentation raises serious doubts.
Brown reports a minor injury—a “sore right thumb”—without explaining the mechanism. The scan lacks any record of arrest, citation, or follow-up, indicating the record is incomplete.
Bustamonte’s witness statement is heavily degraded. Fragments suggest she described plaintiff K as agitated, loud, and angry. Given her later traffic admission, this testimony is unreliable and may reflect the officers’ influence rather than objective observation.
Many pages are illegible. The narrative focuses on plaintiff K’s demeanor rather than the collision itself, consistent with common P.C. 243(b) interpretations where noncompliance or perceived assertiveness is framed as assault. The degraded record emphasizes the need to scrutinize officer and witness credibility.
Form pages include administrative categories such as “GOOD POSSIBILITY OF SOLUTION” and “A SUSPECT CAN BE LOCATED”. Missing data prevents verification of which boxes were marked.
Unanswered questions include: (1) Was plaintiff K arrested, detained, or cited? (2) Are supplemental officer statements or booking sheets available? (3) Did supervisory review occur? (4) Was any follow-up investigation or prosecutorial screening done? The abrupt scan cutoff strongly indicates additional materials existed but were not included.
Key points for legal analysis: (1) A low-speed collision occurred at Lake/Villa involving plaintiff K and Bustamonte; (2) Officers incorrectly claimed Bustamonte entered lawfully; (3) Plaintiff K disputed fault and was assertive; (4) Officers characterized a forward movement as threatening; (5) Minor injury reported; (6) Witness statement allegedly corroborated officers, despite later contradiction; (7) Record incomplete, lacking disposition.
Overall, the record emphasizes officers’ interpretation of plaintiff K’s behavior over objective collision facts. The minor collision is secondary to perceived demeanor, consistent with P.C. 243(b) filings. Missing pages and contradictory witness admission strongly favor a critical view of the officers’ and witness’s reliability in support of plaintiff K.
