“The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” — Psalm 119:130
TIGHTER LEGAL BRIEF VERSION
I. Introduction
This case concerns the conduct of Pasadena police officers during their interaction with appellant Philip A. Kok, and the City of Pasadena’s policies, training practices, and investigative failures regarding officer conduct. Appellant challenges:
- Excessive force, including tight handcuffing and baton use;
- Inconsistent officer testimony;
- Improper denial of access to personnel records;
- Failure to investigate a citizen complaint;
- Mishandling of dispatch recordings;
- Prejudicial assumptions underlying officer behavior.
Appellant argues these collectively establish police misconduct, municipal liability, and procedural error.
II. Pitchess Motion and Procedural Irregularities
Appellant filed a Pitchess motion for personnel records and voluntarily narrowed the request, dropping one officer. The court denied it as “overly broad.” Appellant contends this violated Penal Code §832.7(c) (non-identifying complaint disclosure) and §832.7(e) (30-day notification requirement). The court also confused the July and September motions, contributing to an erroneous ruling.
III. Amendment of the Complaint
After discouragement of ex parte amendment, appellant filed an amended complaint, which was later struck while leaving the summons intact. Motion for reconsideration and leave to amend was denied despite ongoing service objections. Declaring the case “at issue” simultaneously was contradictory and foreclosed perfection of service within the three-year statutory period.
IV. Pretrial Motions
Appellant sought:
- Improved communication regarding witness coordination;
- Disqualification of the City Attorney for adversarial behavior and prior misconduct;
- Admission of personnel-related materials to assess internal affairs;
- Preservation of previously approved causes of action.
These motions were denied or limited, restricting presentation of evidence.
V. Issues at Trial
Mosman said loud rock music played; Brown denied. Court dismissed, but appellant argued research links certain music to aggression.
Chief: 40 hours annual training; Sgt. Pratt: handcuffing policy unchanged for decades. Policies reviewed 90–180 days, but loosening handcuffs uncertain; Pratt unsure if a formal policy existed. Appellant argues inadequate training/oversight.
- Brown admitted baton use & leg sweep; Mosman said baton twice; Brown said once; Bustamante never saw; Rosner did not see baton.
- Dollar alternated between “angry” and nothing unusual.
- Disagreement on whether Kok’s arms were “flailing.”
Appellant argues contradictions undermine credibility.
- Tape “absolutely blank”; cause unknown.
- No adjacent tape checked; cabinet lock never changed.
- Sgt. Pratt: never seen mechanical failure in 29 years.
Suggests mishandling/tampering.
Defense: no officer knowledge of race/religion/orientation. Appellant: discrimination often subconscious—appearance, context, stereotypes. Remarks (“You’re never wrong, are you?”), selective sensitivity training relevant.
Brown and Chief misused terms; excusing ignorance incentivizes officer misunderstanding. Objective reasonableness standard applies (Graham v. Connor).
Bustamante: moving to car = resistance; Kok allegedly walked. Minor accident = misdemeanor. Tennessee v. Garner limits force.
Brown admitted being “upset”; court prevented deeper inquiry. Mindset informs objective reasonableness. Appellant cites Grooms, Bruner, Depew, Fiacco, Colbert.
VI. Medical Evidence
Dr. Wogenson confirmed MRI findings and tightly applied handcuffs/arms pulled back. Defense tried to exploit wording; doctor clarified notes were not always verbatim.
VII. Failure to Investigate
Chief learned of baton use “in the last few weeks,” two years post-incident. Denial of civilian review board relevance. Appellant cites City of Canton v. Harris, Batista v. Rodriguez, Monell for municipal ratification.
VIII. Conclusion
Cumulative inconsistencies in testimony, policy contradictions, denial of records, mishandled dispatch evidence, incomplete investigation, and failure to train/discipline officers establish grounds for reversal and demonstrate constitutional and statutory violations.
