Investigator’s Findings Overturned, Inglewood Police Officer Ordered Reinstated

ANDREW M. DAWSON
Partner
Dawson & Riley, LLP

The Inglewood Police Department terminated a police officer based primarily upon findings of fault made by the California Highway Patrol’s Multi-Disciplinary Action Investigation Team (MAIT) for a fatal traffic collision. However, CHP MAIT made inaccurate conclusions and failed to include a significant piece of evidence in its findings. The arbitrator held that even though the CHP determined that the other driver was a factor leading to the collision, it failed to give it the appropriate weight. With the assistance of Dawson & Riley, LLP, the appellant was able to convince the arbitrator that his termination must be overturned based on the inaccurate findings and conclusions of the CHP.

On May 24, 2011, the appellant and his partner were involved in an on-duty fatal traffic collision while responding Code 3 to a burglary in progress, which subsequently led to an officer-involved shooting involving another officer. At the intersection of Prairie Avenue and Manchester Boulevard, the light for eastbound traffic on Manchester turned green. Two citizen vehicles began to enter the intersection but immediately slowed and stopped after seeing a patrol car, driving Code 3, enter the intersection against a red light heading northbound on Prairie. A Range Rover then came up behind the cars and continued into the intersection. The driver of the patrol car and the Range Rover both applied their brakes upon seeing each other. The patrol car stopped, and the driver of the Range Rover released the brake, maneuvered left and drove around the patrol car. At that point, the appellant’s vehicle, also driving Code 3, entered the intersection on a red light heading northbound on Prairie. The appellant collided with the right front of the Range Rover, which then rolled. The front passenger, who was not wearing her seatbelt, was ejected and sustained fatal injuries. As a result of the fatality and the involvement of a Department employee, the Department requested the assistance of CHP MAIT to investigate this matter.

Two major points of contention, in this case, were 1) the failure of the Range Rover driver to yield to the first patrol vehicle that entered the intersection and 2) the intoxication level of the Range Rover driver. The lead investigator, who is not a certified human factors expert, found that despite the other officer entering the intersection before the appellant, the Range Rover driver did not apply the brakes as a result of seeing the other patrol vehicle. In order to support this theory, the investigator speculatively concluded that due to the presence of numerous stimuli (e.g., traffic lights, switching lanes and other vehicles present at the intersection), by the time it would have taken the Range Rover driver to initiate the requisite thought process to apply the brakes, she would not have been in a position to see the other patrol vehicle. By making this baseless conclusion, the CHP attempted to negate the requirement of the Range Rover driver to yield to emergency vehicles, as mandated by Vehicle Code Section 28106. MAIT concluded that because the ability to see the emergency vehicle had been obstructed, which was based on inaccurate conclusions regarding human factors, a reasonable and prudent driver should not have been required to make an emergency maneuver in order to yield to the patrol vehicle. The CHP attempted to reinterpret the clear language of the Vehicle Code to excuse the actions of the other driver in her failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Additionally, said conclusion also ignores that two other drivers who were in front of the Range Rover saw the patrol vehicle and successfully yielded to it.

The appellant’s attorneys retained a human factors expert to refute these speculative conclusions. The expert determined that had it not been for the behaviors and responses of the Range Rover driver, the accident would have been avoidable. Evidence proved that had the driver continued braking rather than driving around the first patrol vehicle, she would have stopped prior to colliding with the appellant’s vehicle. After a review of the intersection, the appellant’s expert determined that the Range Rover driver would have been able to see the patrol vehicle, which had its emergency lights on. Additionally, the driver would have seen the two cars in front of her stop as a result of the other patrol vehicle entering the intersection. Given that she saw the first patrol vehicle and applied her brakes, she would have been more sensitive to observing similar stimuli — the appellant’s vehicle with emergency lights activated — approaching from the same direction. Thus, since she had already been alerted to the hazard presented by the first patrol car, her reaction time to the second hazard, presented by the appellant, would have been quicker. A typical driver would have noticed the appellant’s vehicle and continued braking to yield, as required by the Vehicle Code.
Moreover, despite repeated requests by the appellant’s attorneys for the Range Rover driver’s toxicology reports and known prior DUI convictions and probation status, the CHP lead investigator failed to examine the full toxicology reports. Rather, he simply looked at the blood alcohol results and determined that the Range Rover driver had been drinking but was not under the influence. However, once at the hearing, the appellant’s attorneys were able to subpoena the driver’s complete toxicology report, which indicated the presence of both alcohol and THC. The appellant’s other expert, a forensic pharmacologist, testified that the Range Rover driver was severely impaired due to the combination of alcohol and marijuana use and that a reasonable driver would normally have stopped in this situation. As such, in the expert’s opinion, the accident would not have happened had the driver of the Range Rover not used alcohol and marijuana together. This significant fact was not even considered by CHP’s lead investigator since he failed to obtain a copy of the full toxicology report.

The arbitrator found that 1) a typical driver would have noticed the appellant’s patrol car and would have continued braking to a stop and 2) the Range Rover driver’s judgment, decision making, risk-taking and reaction times were adversely affected by her use of marijuana and alcohol. As such, the fault of the accident lay with the Range Rover driver and not the appellant. It was, therefore, reasonable for the appellant to expect vehicles to stop in response to the presence of the other patrol vehicle already in the intersection and, given that the other two vehicles heading the same direction as the Range Rover driver had stopped, to infer that other drivers were sufficiently alerted to stop. Given that the Department relied heavily on the CHP’s conclusions, which were determined to not be supported by the evidence, the arbitrator ordered the appellant’s reinstatement. The appellant is grateful to the Legal Defense Fund and his attorneys at Dawson & Riley for their unwavering support throughout this process.

About the Author

Andrew Dawson is a founding partner of Dawson & Riley, LLP. He received his Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from San Jose State University with a special major in law enforcement and received his Juris Doctor degree from Pepperdine University Law School. Throughout his career, Andrew has successfully litigated wrongful termination, suspension and demotion cases involving allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, sexual harassment, misuse of property, department policy violations and criminal law matters.