Source: Uploaded police-report file :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Professional Appellate Brief Rewrite (Expanded ~1500 Words)
The record submitted consists of a partially preserved Pasadena Police Department incident file documenting a February 3, 2000 traffic collision and the subsequent allegations of P.C. 243(b)—Assault on a Peace Officer—against the individual identified as Kok. Although the materials are incomplete and substantially degraded, the surviving narrative sections, administrative entries, and witness references provide an adequate basis from which to reconstruct the operative facts and procedural framing. This appellate-style rewrite restates the record in a manner consistent with legal-brief expectations, maintaining fidelity to the content while presenting it in a professional, structured, and neutral format.
The file begins with several form-based pages comprising the department’s standardized intake templates. These forms include fields for suspect descriptors, clothing, identifying marks, evidence categories, investigative designations, and other administrative codes. Due to extreme OCR distortion, many portions are unreadable, with text appearing as fragmented symbols or broken character strings. Nevertheless, several recognizable components survive, including fields for eyewear, hats, weapon classifications, and general behavioral indicators. These forms also contain a preprinted remarks area in which one line appears to read: “THE SUSPECT HIT THE POLICE OFFICER.” While this language may resemble a factual assertion, its placement within what appears to be a stock template suggests it may not reflect an independent handwritten statement.
The case number—00006684—appears repeatedly across these forms, anchoring the document set. The presence of fields for “suspect named,” “suspect arrested,” “further investigation needed,” and “probability of solution” indicates that these materials served to capture investigative direction, though the incomplete scan leaves unclear which boxes were actually marked. Similarly, evidence categories such as “vehicle,” “weapons,” “photos,” and “controlled substance” appear, though the document does not clearly link any to the underlying event.
The substantive core of the file is the narrative authored by Officer Brown, which provides the chronology of events. According to the report, on February 3, 2000 at approximately 1801 hours, Officers Brown and Mosman were traveling southbound on Lake Avenue in a marked patrol vehicle. As they approached the intersection with Villa Street, the traffic signal controlling north–south travel was red. Upon the signal changing to green, the officers began to enter the intersection. Immediately thereafter, they heard the sound of a collision to their left—west of their position.
The officers report observing two vehicles that had just collided: a green four-door Honda and a red two-door Honda. Both drivers had exited their vehicles before the officers approached. Brown notes that moments prior to the collision he observed the green Honda already in the intersection while the north–south signal remained red, leading him to conclude that the green vehicle had not run a red light. This observation later informs the officer’s assessment of fault.
The drivers were identified as Bustamonte (green Honda) and Kok (red Honda). The officers observed minimal paint transfer to both vehicles, consistent with a low-impact collision. Brown approached Kok first and asked him to explain what occurred. Kok allegedly stated that the light turned green, he began to move forward, and his view of westbound traffic was obstructed by a truck. As Brown recounts, Kok then turned to Bustamonte and indicated that the incident was “no big deal,” suggesting “let’s call it a wash.” This remark reportedly agitated Bustamonte, prompting her to ask Kok to provide his identifying information.
According to the narrative, Kok declined and became argumentative, asserting that society expects individuals to accept blame without justification. Brown intervened to de-escalate the situation and directed Kok to comply with the legally required exchange of information. Brown then informed Kok of his earlier observation regarding the green Honda’s entry into the intersection, stating that Kok had entered before it was safe to do so. This statement, Brown asserts, triggered an immediate and aggressive response.
Brown reports that Kok—standing in the roadway between the two vehicles—suddenly lunged forward toward him. Brown was positioned on the sidewalk at the time. The officer states that Kok advanced quickly, approaching within approximately eight inches of physical contact. While Brown does not report that Kok struck or touched him, he characterizes this forward movement as a deliberate and aggressive act forming the basis for the alleged violation of P.C. 243(b).
Brown further notes experiencing a “sore right thumb”, though the report does not clarify whether this resulted from defensive bracing, attempted restraint, or incidental contact. The narrative contains no details regarding whether Kok was arrested, detained, cited, or released following the incident. Likewise, no supplemental report, use-of-force evaluation, or supervisory review appears in the scan, strongly suggesting that the document set is incomplete.
Following Brown’s narrative is a continuation report attributed to Bustamonte. This section is heavily degraded, with numerous lines reduced to indecipherable strings or fragmented syllables. Nevertheless, certain points can be discerned from the surviving text. Bustamonte reportedly stated that she was traveling eastbound when Kok struck her vehicle. After the collision, she describes Kok as agitated, yelling, and behaving in a manner she regarded as unstable or emotionally elevated. Several fragments suggest she retreated to her vehicle out of fear and that she believed the officers acted appropriately when responding to Kok’s conduct.
Although the witness text is badly compromised, its overall tone appears consistent with the officers’ characterization of Kok’s demeanor. The corrupted lines suggest descriptions of Kok gesturing, pacing, or speaking loudly in an animated manner. One garbled section indicates Bustamonte’s belief that the officers were justified in restraining Kok or in taking precautions due to his conduct. Her statements thus serve as corroboration—albeit incomplete—of the officers’ perception of Kok’s agitation.
The file ends abruptly mid-page. The final lines of the witness continuation page are truncated and no concluding administrative documents—such as arrest reports, citations, booking sheets, or prosecutorial screening summaries—are included. Based on the department’s typical documenting procedures, it is highly likely that the original case file contained additional material beyond what is captured in the scan. For appellate-level reconstruction, however, the narrative and partial witness statement remain the functional centerpiece of the record.
From an appellate perspective, the record supports the following reconstruction of operative facts:
• A low-impact collision occurred at the Lake/Villa intersection between Kok’s red Honda and Bustamonte’s green Honda.
• The officers believed the green Honda had lawfully entered the intersection.
• Kok disputed fault, became irritated when asked to exchange information, and spoke loudly.
• Officer Brown interpreted Kok’s verbal escalation and subsequent forward movement as threatening.
• Kok’s forward movement, stopping short of contact, formed the basis of the alleged assault-on-officer violation.
• Brown sustained a minor injury (sore thumb), though circumstances remain unspecified.
• The witness, Bustamonte, expressed fear and supported the officers’ account of Kok’s demeanor.
• The record is incomplete and lacks formal disposition, arrest documentation, or supervisory review.
In assessing the narrative structure for appellate suitability, it is notable that the officers’ description of Kok’s conduct—rather than the mechanics of the collision—forms the substantive basis of the criminal classification under P.C. 243(b). The collision is described as minor; the escalation arises from interpersonal conflict, perceived noncompliance, and the sudden forward movement interpreted as aggressive. The record contains no references to weapons, contraband, intoxication, or other factors that might complicate the assessment of Kok’s behavior. The allegation rests primarily on demeanor, tone, and perceived intent.
Although the incompleteness of the document limits any definitive procedural analysis, the surviving narrative provides a coherent representation of the officers’ perspective. The absence of a closing disposition prevents confirmation of whether the incident resulted in charges, diversion, dismissal, or administrative handling. Nonetheless, the factual structure presented would typically be sufficient to support an incident classification as an attempted assault on an officer, contingent on prosecutorial review and supplementary evidence.
In summary, despite its incomplete and degraded state, the scanned file provides an adequately detailed account of: (1) the collision and its immediate context; (2) Kok’s disputed reaction to the officers’ directives; (3) the officers’ interpretation of an aggressive lunge; (4) a corroborating witness describing Kok as agitated and frightening; and (5) the administrative framing of the event as a P.C. 243(b) matter. The record ends without final disposition, but the available content presents a structured and legally coherent narrative consistent with the documentation requirements of the time.
