v4
This file represents a partially reconstructed police case file generated by the Pasadena Police Department regarding an incident on February 3, 2000 at or near Lake Avenue and Villa Street. The scanned materials are heavily degraded, including torn pages, OCR distortions, missing lines, and incomplete text. Despite these limitations, the document allows reconstruction of the incident sequence, capturing officer observations, suspect behavior, and witness testimony surrounding a P.C. 243(b) (Assault on a Peace Officer) allegation.
The early section includes standardized administrative forms designed to capture suspect descriptors, evidence categories, and incident metadata. These forms list clothing, accessories, identifying marks, potential weapons, and other checkboxes. Though much of the text is corrupted, certain entries remain legible: “baseball hat,” “glasses (plastic frame),” and generic weapons categories. Notably, one preprinted line reads: “THE SUSPECT HIT THE POLICE OFFICER”. Whether this originates from an officer’s notation or a template artifact is unclear, raising questions about its reliability.
Case identifiers, including Case No. 00006684, recur throughout the intake forms. Other numerical or coded references are present, likely indicating internal categorization or revision dates. Though mostly illegible, these repeated identifiers reinforce that the file adheres to departmental procedures for documenting P.C. 243(b) cases.
The most coherent portion is a narrative authored by Officer Brown. At approximately 1801 hours, Brown and Officer Mosman were southbound on Lake Avenue in a marked vehicle. As they approached Villa Street, the north–south traffic signal was red. Upon turning green, they began moving through the intersection when they heard a collision from their left.
The involved vehicles were a green four-door Honda driven by Bustamonte and a red two-door Honda driven by plaintiff K. Brown observed the green Honda entering the intersection from the west prior to the light change, concluding it had lawfully occupied the intersection. Later admissions from Bustamonte that she entered the intersection late during gridlock cast significant doubt on the officers’ assessment of fault.
Both drivers exited and moved toward the sidewalk. Officers observed minor paint transfer, consistent with a low-speed collision. Brown first engaged plaintiff K. Plaintiff K reportedly stated he moved forward when his light turned green but that a truck obstructed his view of westbound traffic. He allegedly downplayed the collision, saying “let’s call it a wash”. Bustamonte requested insurance and identifying information. Plaintiff K initially refused, claiming no fault. These accounts may overstate the severity of plaintiff K’s demeanor.
Officer Brown intervened to de-escalate the situation, instructing plaintiff K to comply. Brown reiterated that the green Honda entered the intersection before the north–south signal changed, concluding plaintiff K entered unsafely. At this point, Brown alleges plaintiff K escalated physically.
Brown reports that plaintiff K, standing between vehicles while Brown was on the sidewalk, “lunged” in what Brown described as aggressive movement, approaching within eight inches. No strike, push, or grab occurred. The report may exaggerate plaintiff K’s movement to justify the P.C. 243(b) allegation.
Brown also noted a sore right thumb, without clarification on how it occurred. There is no indication whether plaintiff K was arrested, cited, or otherwise processed, highlighting the incompleteness of the scan.
Witness statements attributed to Bustamonte are heavily degraded. Fragments suggest she described plaintiff K as agitated, loud, and emotionally unstable. However, Bustamonte’s later admission of entering the intersection late undermines her credibility and calls into question her version of events.
Additional fragments imply plaintiff K gestured, paced, or spoke loudly. The corrupted and partial nature of the witness text, along with potential bias, limits its reliability as evidence.
The administrative forms included checkboxes for evidence types (e.g., “vehicle,” “weapons,” “tools,” “controlled substances,” “photographs”) and investigative categories (e.g., “suspect named,” “suspect arrested,” “further investigation needed”). The corrupted forms do not confirm selections. Preprinted phrases such as “A SUSPECT CAN BE LOCATED” reflect template language rather than verified investigative conclusions.
The scan ends abruptly, leaving unresolved questions: (1) Was plaintiff K formally arrested, detained, or cited for P.C. 243(b)? (2) Were supplemental booking sheets or officer statements completed? (3) Did supervisory review take place? (4) Was further investigation or prosecutorial screening conducted? Standard procedure would typically require additional documentation for an assault-on-officer allegation, none of which appears in this scan.
Key findings include: (1) A minor traffic collision at Lake/Villa involving plaintiff K and Bustamonte. (2) Officers’ claim that Bustamonte entered lawfully is questionable. (3) Plaintiff K disputed fault, initially refused to exchange information, and spoke firmly. (4) Plaintiff K made a forward movement interpreted as threatening, though no contact occurred. (5) Officer Brown reported minor thumb soreness. (6) Witness corroboration is unreliable due to credibility concerns. (7) Procedural resolution is absent.
Legally, the narrative emphasizes plaintiff K’s perceived behavior rather than the mechanics of the collision. The escalation appears based on interpretation of verbal tone and movement, not actual physical aggression.
In its current form, the file serves as a partial evidentiary record, highlighting inconsistencies in police reporting and witness statements while documenting the circumstances of the February 3, 2000, incident.
