Professional Appellate Brief Rewrite (Expanded ~1500 Words)
The record submitted consists of a partially preserved Pasadena Police Department incident file documenting a February 3, 2000 traffic collision and the subsequent allegations of P.C. 243(b)—Assault on a Peace Officer—against plaintiff K. Although the materials are incomplete and heavily degraded, the surviving narrative sections, administrative entries, and witness references provide an adequate basis to reconstruct the operative facts and procedural framing. This appellate-style rewrite emphasizes potential discrepancies in the police and witness testimony while presenting a professional, structured narrative.
The file begins with form-based pages comprising the department’s standardized intake templates. These forms include fields for suspect descriptors, clothing, identifying marks, evidence categories, investigative designations, and administrative codes. Due to OCR distortion, many portions are unreadable, appearing as fragmented symbols. Recognizable fields include eyewear, hats, weapon classifications, and general behavioral indicators. One preprinted line reads: “THE SUSPECT HIT THE POLICE OFFICER.” Its placement in a stock template raises questions about whether it reflects an independent factual assertion.
The case number—00006684—appears repeatedly across the forms. Fields such as “suspect named,” “suspect arrested,” “further investigation needed,” and “probability of solution” indicate investigative direction, but the incomplete scan leaves unclear which boxes were actually selected. Evidence categories including “vehicle,” “weapons,” “photos,” and “controlled substance” appear, though there is no clear linkage to the incident.
The substantive core is the narrative authored by Officer Brown. On February 3, 2000 at approximately 1801 hours, Officers Brown and Mosman were traveling southbound on Lake Avenue. Approaching Villa Street, the north–south signal was red. Upon turning green, they entered the intersection and immediately heard a collision to their left.
The vehicles involved were a green four-door Honda and a red two-door Honda. Drivers were identified as Bustamonte (green Honda) and plaintiff K (red Honda). Brown claims the green Honda entered before the signal changed, a conclusion contradicted by later statements from Bustamonte admitting she entered late during gridlock, raising doubt about the officers’ assessment of fault.
Both drivers exited their vehicles. Officers noted minor paint transfer, consistent with a low-impact collision. Brown approached plaintiff K first. Plaintiff K reportedly stated his light turned green and that his view of westbound traffic was obstructed. Brown recounts that plaintiff K told Bustamonte the incident was “no big deal,” “let’s call it a wash.” Bustamonte’s request for identification allegedly provoked plaintiff K’s refusal, though this may reflect misunderstanding or overstatement of plaintiff K’s conduct.
Brown asserts that plaintiff K became argumentative, prompting officer intervention. Brown states he explained that the green Honda entered before the light changed, claiming plaintiff K entered unsafely. Brown alleges this triggered an aggressive reaction.
Brown reports that plaintiff K—standing between the vehicles—suddenly lunged forward toward him. Brown remained on the sidewalk. Plaintiff K allegedly came within eight inches of contact. No strike, push, or grab occurred. The officers’ interpretation may exaggerate plaintiff K’s movement to justify a P.C. 243(b) allegation.
Brown notes a “sore right thumb”, without clarifying the cause. No records indicate whether plaintiff K was arrested, cited, or processed. Supplemental reports or supervisory reviews are missing, emphasizing the incomplete nature of the file.
Witness statements attributed to Bustamonte are heavily degraded. Surviving fragments suggest she described plaintiff K as agitated, yelling, and emotionally elevated. However, her later admission about entering the intersection late undermines her reliability and raises questions about the accuracy of her account.
Corrupted text implies plaintiff K gestured, paced, or spoke loudly. Due to distortion and potential bias, these descriptions should be treated cautiously.
Administrative forms include checkboxes for evidence types and investigative categories, though selection is unclear. Preprinted phrases such as “GOOD POSSIBILITY OF SOLUTION” and “A SUSPECT CAN BE LOCATED” reflect template language, not verified observation.
The scan ends abruptly. Missing documents—arrest reports, citations, booking sheets, or prosecutorial screening—likely exist in the original file but are absent here.
Key points for appellate analysis:
• Minor collision at Lake/Villa involving plaintiff K and Bustamonte.
• Officers’ claim that Bustamonte entered lawfully is contradicted by her later statement.
• Plaintiff K disputed fault and initially declined to provide information.
• Officers interpreted verbal escalation and forward movement as threatening.
• Forward movement did not result in contact.
• Brown sustained minor injury (sore thumb), circumstances unclear.
• Bustamonte’s fear and support for officers’ interpretation are undermined by her credibility issues.
• Record lacks final disposition and procedural closure.
The narrative emphasizes plaintiff K’s demeanor rather than collision mechanics. Minor vehicle damage, misinterpretation, and perceived noncompliance appear central to the officers’ P.C. 243(b) allegation.
Despite missing material, the scanned file provides sufficient information to understand the officers’ perspective and the disputed nature of the allegations, highlighting inconsistencies and credibility concerns regarding both police reporting and witness statements.
