Source: uploaded police-report file :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Tighter Legal Brief Version (Expanded ~1500 Words)
The attached record constitutes a partially reconstructed law-enforcement case file associated with Case No. 00006684, generated by the Pasadena Police Department following a traffic collision and subsequent allegation of P.C. 243(b) (Assault on a Peace Officer) against the individual identified as Kok. While the scanned materials are significantly degraded—with missing lines, corrupted OCR text, and incomplete pages—the available content allows for a structured legal analysis of the incident, the responding officers’ claims, the contemporaneous witness statement, and the procedural characterizations documented on the intake forms.
The record, although fragmentary, includes two substantive categories of materials: (1) preliminary administrative forms containing descriptive and evidentiary fields, and (2) narrative reports prepared by officers, supplemented by a witness statement. Pages containing descriptive codes, checkboxes, and form metadata appear to stem from standardized departmental templates used to record suspect attributes, evidence possibilities, and situational classifications. Many entries on these forms are unreadable due to extreme scanning distortion. Nonetheless, they confirm that the event was processed as a use-of-force or officer-assault allegation, reflected in the preprinted notation “THE SUSPECT HIT THE POLICE OFFICER”, though the context suggests this may have been a templated form field rather than a handwritten or typed statement by the reporting officer.
The more probative section is the narrative authored by Officer Brown, which presents a sequential account of the February 3, 2000 incident. Brown states that he and Officer Mosman were driving southbound on Lake Avenue at approximately 1801 hours when they heard a traffic collision as they entered the intersection at Villa Street. According to Brown, the light for north–south travel had just turned green, and moments earlier he had observed a green Honda entering the intersection from the west before the signal change. He therefore determined that the green vehicle had lawfully occupied the intersection and had not run a red light. This observation becomes central to the officers' interpretation of fault during their subsequent interaction with the involved parties.
The officers identified the vehicles as a green four-door Honda driven by Bustamonte and a red two-door Honda driven by Kok. Both drivers had exited their vehicles prior to police contact. The officers noted minimal paint transfer on the vehicles, consistent with a low-speed impact. The narrative proceeds with Brown’s account of questioning Kok regarding the cause of the collision.
According to Brown, Kok asserted that he entered the intersection when his traffic signal turned green but that his visibility to the left (westbound traffic) was obstructed by a truck. Kok further allegedly downplayed the collision and suggested to Bustamonte, “let’s call it a wash”. This remark reportedly upset her, leading her to request the exchange of insurance and identifying information. Brown reports that Kok refused, asserting he was not at fault and expressing frustration with what he perceived as a general unwillingness of others to accept responsibility for accidents.
Brown states that he intervened when Kok’s tone escalated. He instructed Kok to calm down and comply with the legally required exchange of identifying information. He informed Kok that he had personally observed the green Honda enter the intersection before the light change and therefore believed that Kok had entered when it was unsafe to proceed. The narrative presents Kok’s reaction to this information as the turning point in the encounter.
The key allegation forming the basis of the P.C. 243(b) classification occurs here. Brown reports that Kok, who was standing near the vehicles in the street while Brown stood on the sidewalk, “lunged” toward him in a manner Brown describes as aggressive. The officer states that Kok closed the distance to within approximately eight inches of physical contact. Brown does not report a completed strike, grab, push, or any form of intentional bodily contact. Nonetheless, he characterizes the forward movement as threatening and as demonstrating intent sufficient to constitute an attempted assault on a peace officer acting in the course of his duties.
Brown further notes that he suffered a “sore right thumb”, though the narrative does not explicitly explain the mechanism of injury. No description is provided as to whether this injury resulted from defensive movement, bracing, a takedown, or incidental contact during a restraining maneuver. The report does not identify whether Kok was placed under arrest, detained, cited, or otherwise processed following the alleged assaultive action. Such omissions reinforce the conclusion that the provided scan is incomplete.
The remaining pages contain heavily corrupted text that appears to represent a witness statement attributed to Bustamonte. Although the OCR distortions are substantial, scattered fragments indicate that she described the collision from her perspective as an eastbound driver. She reportedly stated that Kok struck her vehicle and afterward behaved in a manner she perceived as agitated, loud, and angry. Various mangled lines—when reconstructed from context—suggest she found Kok’s demeanor alarming and believed the officers were justified in their response.
The continuation reports also appear to include partial references to Kok allegedly yelling, gesturing broadly, or otherwise exhibiting behavior she felt was unpredictable. Because the text is badly degraded, direct quotation is impossible; however, the semantic structure of the fragments supports the interpretation that Bustamonte viewed Kok’s conduct as erratic and that she retreated to her vehicle during portions of the officers’ interaction with him. These impressions appear consistent with the officers’ description of Kok as emotionally escalated and verbally aggressive.
The form pages preceding the narrative include categories for evidence characterization (e.g., “vehicle,” “weapons,” “tools,” “controlled substance,” “photos,” etc.) and investigative options like “suspect named,” “suspect arrested,” or “further investigation needed.” However, due to heavy text corruption, it is unclear which specific boxes were actually marked in this case. The presence of categories such as “GOOD POSSIBILITY OF SOLUTION” and “A SUSPECT CAN BE LOCATED” suggests that the form was intended to capture investigative potential but does not confirm which selections were made. Because the narrative indicates that Kok was present and interacting with officers at the scene, it is reasonable to infer that the “suspect named” and “suspect can be located” categories would have been marked, though the scan does not conclusively show this.
The absence of a conclusive final page leaves several unresolved procedural questions for a legal reviewer: (1) whether Kok was arrested, detained, or cited for P.C. 243(b); (2) whether booking sheets or supplemental officer statements were created; (3) whether departmental supervisory review occurred; and (4) whether any follow-up investigation or prosecutorial screening took place. In typical Pasadena Police Department practice, an assault-on-officer allegation would trigger additional supervisory documentation. None appears in the scan. Given the abrupt cutoff mid-page, it is highly likely the original file contained additional materials not included in this reproduction.
For legal-brief purposes, the present record establishes the following: (1) A low-speed traffic collision occurred at the Lake/Villa intersection involving Kok and Bustamonte. (2) Officers observed—or believed they observed—that Bustamonte entered the intersection lawfully. (3) Kok disputed fault, became argumentative, and refused initially to exchange information. (4) The officer asserts Kok made a sudden forward movement perceived as threatening. (5) The officer reported a minor injury. (6) A witness (Bustamonte) allegedly corroborated Kok’s agitated and loud demeanor. (7) The record is incomplete, lacking disposition data.
For analytical purposes, the significance of the narrative lies in the officers’ emphasis on Kok’s behavior rather than the collision mechanics. The collision is treated as minor; the escalation stems from Kok’s attitude, tone, and body language as perceived by the officers. This framing is common in P.C. 243(b) filings stemming from roadside encounters, where the alleged assaultive conduct often consists of sudden movement, noncompliance, or actions perceived as aggressive rather than overt physical battery.
In its present form, the uploaded file serves as a partial evidentiary foundation rather than a complete legal record. It provides sufficient detail to understand the officers’ theory of the case—namely, that Kok’s conduct at the scene constituted an attempted assault on a peace officer—but the missing sections prevent a definitive assessment of procedural sufficiency, evidentiary completeness, or the internal review process following the event. The record demonstrates the officers’ interpretation of Kok as agitated, loud, and physically abrupt, and shows the witness’s stated agreement with that interpretation. However, crucial components—such as Kok’s own statement, any arrest report, and supervisory review—are absent.
In summary, the document presented is best understood as a partial police case file that records: (1) the officers’ recounting of a traffic-collision-related confrontation; (2) an assertion of aggressive movement justifying a P.C. 243(b) allegation; (3) a corroborating but damaged witness account; and (4) numerous administrative fields consistent with preliminary incident documentation. Without the missing sections, the file does not establish the ultimate procedural outcome, but it does provide enough structured information to evaluate the officers’ contemporaneous interpretation of the February 3, 2000 encounter.
