False Report Charges Against Deputy Dismissed

On January 30, 1998, a Superior Court judge for Madera County dismissed felony false police report charges which were filed against Madera County Deputy Sheriff Sergeant Darrell Hibbens. The case arose out of an allegation made by a deputy, who, at the time of the incident, had eight months experience.

Hibben’s had been on the job for 17 years. The judge dismissed the fourth count alleging Hibbens filed a false police report in violation of Penal Code subsection 118. 1. Hibben’s was represented by PORAC LDF attorney, Stuart D. Adams of the law firm of Goyette & Adams.

A preliminary hearing was held on January 29 and 30, 1998, at the Bass Lake Municipal Court. All other judges in Madera County had recused themselves from hearing the matter because they knew Hibbens through his 17 years of service with the county.

The facts underlying the Penal Code subsection 118.1 charges arose out of a disturbance call to which Hibbens responded along with the new sheriff’s deputy. The incident took place on June 13, 1997, at approximately 5 a.m.

Hibben’s and the deputy arrived at the scene and made contact with minors outside of the residence who had been drinking alcohol. The minors were taken into custody and placed in the patrol unit.

Hibben’s and the deputy then went to inspect the house. They walked behind the house, Hibben’s in the lead. At the rear door, they were contacted by an individual who represented himself as the resident of the house.

When asked for identification the individual said he had it in a back bedroom and proceeded to walk back into the house to get his identification. Hibben’s and the deputy entered.

Once inside they encountered minors sleeping. There were containers of beer throughout the residence and kegs located in the garage area adjacent to the kitchen.

While Hibbens inspected the house looking for other minors who may have been drinking, the other deputy attempted to arouse two minors sleeping on the floor. Both minors became combative which resulted in Hibben’s having to return and assist the deputy in taking the two into custody.

The two were taken into the patrol unit. The previous individuals who had been placed in custody were released to make room for the minors who had committed the assault on the deputy because there were no other units available to transport and the assault was far more serious than the drinking in public charges. Hibben’s and the deputy left without further incident.

The suspects were booked for assault on a police officer and resisting arrest. Approximately two days later, the deputy read Hibbens’ report. The deputy felt there were discrepancies.

Specifically, the deputy felt that: The report said there were kegs in the “kitchen area” and he did not see kegs in the kitchen; the deputy felt the individual at the door told the officers to wait while Hibben’s report stated the individual “allowed” the officers to enter; and, the deputy felt that upon arrival he did not recall hearing music while Hibbens’ report stated that he heard loud music when they first arrived.

The deputy took his concerns to a different sergeant. That sergeant submitted the matter to a lieutenant and a criminal investigation was commenced. At the preliminary hearing, the deputy was called to testify. He testified to the facts as stated previously.

On cross-examination, by attorney Adams, however, he admitted that within two hours of the incident he had been in a serious automobile accident wherein the vehicle he was driving had rolled over. He had responded directly from the scene of the accident to this call with Hibbens who had picked him up at the accident scene. Additionally, the deputy admitted he had been working since 3 p.m. the previous afternoon and was actually in his sixth hour of overtime when responding to the call.

The investigating officer was also called to testify regarding the statements he took from the individuals who were at the residence. He testified that the individuals told him that the kegs were not in the kitchen, the music was not playing when the deputies arrived and the individual at the door told the officers to wait.

On cross-examination, however, it was demonstrated that the kegs were visible through a window into the kitchen because the garage door was in the kitchen. Even the deputy admitted the kegs could be visible through the kitchen window.

Additionally, on cross-examination of the investigating officer, it was demonstrated that one of the individuals in the house told the investigating officer that the music had indeed been on immediately prior to the deputies arrived at the residence. This was consistent with the fact that the deputies had to walk approximately 100 yards to get to the rear of the residence.

This left open the argument that the music was on as they approached, but was turned down once the individuals inside realized the police were walking up the driveway. Finally, it was demonstrated through the cross-examination the investigating officer that the individual who opened the back door opened it first approximately six inches and then opened it another 12 as he stepped away from the door as if to allow the officers in.

The judge interpreted this as a basis for determining that in fact, Hibben’s believed that he was being allowed into the residence and used it as the foundation to dismiss the charges.

The judge ruled that the District Attorney’s office failed to meet its burden of proving that a crime had been committed with respect to Penal Code section 118.1 charges and dismissed it. The District Attorney has 15 days from January 30, 1998, to re-file the case in Superior Court.

According to attorney Adams, he would be extremely surprised if the District Attorney elected to re-file the charges given the extensive damage that was done to the case at the preliminary hearing. “I went in there to win that case at the preliminary hearing.

“I told the judge that if ever there was a case that needed to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing it was this one. The Judge agreed,” Adams said.