Police Complaints

CPC 187-09: Two officers arrest a man under the wrong charges

Date of Incident or Complaint:
Date Published or Updated on Web Site:
Complainant: Redacted

While the officers were investigating the complainant, his actions could have had him detained, but they chose to arrest him on false charges.

Summary of Allegations:

Was Officer Hernandez’ arrest of the complainant legal?

Did Officer Hernandez record the supposed verbal consent to search the vehicle from the complainant?

Did Officer Hernandez use force appropriately?

Did Officer Hernandez conduct himself professionally?

Was Officer Hernandez’ policing based on race and appearance?

Did Officer Hernandez misplace or carelessly treat some of the complainant’s personal belongings?

Did Officer Pitzer conduct himself professionally?

Did Officer Pitzer cause damage to the complainant’s car during the search?

Summary of Findings:

While some of the complainant’s actions could have resulted in arrest, the officers did not act on them. Instead, they acted on two charges with no real grounding, making it an unlawful arrest. This issue was sustained.

Officer Hernandez did not activate his belt tape in time to record any consent, therefore making it an illegal search. This issue was sustained.

There were no serious injuries to the complainant, and the use of force was required to subdue him, and was therefore lawful. This issue was exonerated.

There is no independent evidence to prove or disprove the charge of unprofessional conduct, and the stories conflict. This issue was not sustained.

There is no independent evidence to prove or disprove the charge of racial bias, and the stories conflict. This issue was unfounded.

The non-evidentiary property was given to the complainant’s cousin, and not tagged as evidence, rendering the charge of theft by an officer unfounded.

There is not sufficient independent evidence to prove or disprove that Officer Pitzer acted unprofessionally, and so this issue was not sustained.

The issue of damage to the car of the complainant was unfounded.