Dannie Berchtold v. City of Angels et al

Filing 38

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/2/2018. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNIE BERCHTOLD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-00397-DAD-EPG

v.

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

CITY OF ANGELS a/k/a ANGELS
CAMP; KYLE HANSON, in his individual
and official capacities; CHRIS ADAMS, in
his individual and official capacities, and
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
19

On November 27, 2017, the court conducted a final pretrial conference in this action.

20

Plaintiff Dannie Berchtold appeared pro se. Kelley Kern appeared as counsel for defendants.

21

Having considered the parties’ joint pretrial statement, the views of the parties and the objections

22

to the tentative final pretrial order the court now issues this final pretrial order.

23

Plaintiff Dannie Berchtold brings this action against defendants City of Angels a/k/a

24

Angels Camp (“City”) and Kyle Hansen1 in his individual and official capacities. Plaintiff alleges

25

as follows. On February 5, 2015, he was parked along the side of the road outside the city limits

26

of Angels Camp, California, when he was approached by defendant Hansen, who claimed that

27
28

1

Defendant Hansen’s Answer to Complaint (Doc. No. 6) indicates that he is erroneously sued
herein as Kyle “Hanson.”
1

1

plaintiff was driving in excess of the speed limit and had crossed over a double yellow line.

2

Defendant Hansen performed a series of field sobriety tests to determine whether plaintiff was

3

driving under the influence. Defendant Hansen then transported plaintiff to the Angels Camp

4

police station, where plaintiff underwent a series of additional tests conducted by Officer Chris

5

Adams. Plaintiff claims that at all relevant times, he was not driving under the influence.

6

According to plaintiff, after approximately two hours of detention and interrogation, he was

7

released and cited merely for vehicle code violations. Plaintiff also claims that while he was

8

being held at the police station, defendants confiscated his driver’s license and did not return it to

9

him.
Defendants contend that the stop of plaintiff’s vehicle and his detention for purposes of

10
11

determining whether he was driving under the influence were reasonable.

12

Plaintiff brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with causes of action under the Fourth

13

and Fourteenth Amendments alleging that the stop, detention, and arrest were unreasonable and

14

violated his civil rights. Plaintiff also alleges that the defendant City is liable for failing to

15

implement appropriate policies, customs, or practices in connection with its law enforcement

16

activities. Plaintiff has also alleged state law claims, for unlawful search and seizure under the

17

California Constitution, and for violation of his civil rights under California Civil Code § 52.1

18

(“Bane Act”).

19

I.

20
21

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. Jurisdiction is not
contested.

22
23

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue is not contested.
II.

24
25

JURY
Both parties have demanded a jury trial. The jury will consist of seven jurors.

III.

26

UNDISPUTED FACTS
1.

27
28

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Officer Kyle Hansen was employed by the City of Angels as a police officer on
February 5, 2015.

/////
2

1

2.

2
3

February 5, 2015.
3.

4
5

On February 5, 2015, at approximately 6:00 pm, plaintiff was driving his vehicle
southbound on Highway 49 through Angels Camp.

4.

6
7

Sergeant Chris Adams was employed by the City of Angels as a police officer on

Officer Hansen detained plaintiff to question him about speeding and crossing a
double-yellow line.

5.

Officer Hansen attempted to perform field sobriety tests on plaintiff for the

8

purpose of determining if plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol or

9

substances.

10

6.

11
12

Plaintiff was unable to perform the field sobriety test, so plaintiff asked if Officer
Hansen wanted to go to the police station to do the testing.

7.

When plaintiff continued to be unable to perform the field sobriety tests, Officer

13

Hansen decided to go to the police station where Officer Adams, a Certified Drug

14

Recognition Expert, could perform further evaluation and field sobriety tests on

15

plaintiff.

16

8.

17
18

evaluation tests.
9.

19
20

10.

Officer Adams determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that
plaintiff was under the influence of any substances.

11.

23
24

Officer Adams conducted further sobriety and drug recognition tests on plaintiff at
the police station.

21
22

Plaintiff consented to go with Officer Hansen to the police station for further

Plaintiff was released after being cited for speeding and driving over the double
yellow line.

12.

Officer Hansen prepared a Detention Certificate pursuant to California Penal Code

25

§§ 849, 849.5, and 851.6, indicating that plaintiff’s arrest shall not be deemed an

26

arrest, but a detention only.

27
28

13.

Officer Hansen filled out a DMV Notice of Priority Re-Examination of Driver
form for plaintiff.
3

1

14.

2

Officer Hansen gave plaintiff a copy of the DMV Notice of Priority ReExamination of Driver form.

3

15.

The DMV Notice of Priority Re-Examination of Driver form informed plaintiff

4

that if he did not call or appear at the DMV within five (5) working days, his

5

privilege to drive in this state would be suspended until he satisfactorily completed

6

a re-examination.

7

16.

At a June 1, 2015, Calaveras County Traffic Court hearing on the two moving

8

violations, at which plaintiff was represented by counsel and Officer Hansen

9

testified, the Court dismissed the charges for speeding under Vehicle Code 22350,

10

but found plaintiff guilty of crossing the double yellow line, in violation of Vehicle

11

Code 21460(a).

12

IV.

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

13

1.

Whether the Angels Camp Police Department returned plaintiff’s driver’s license.

14

2.

Whether plaintiff was refused a ride back to his vehicle and had to walk two miles

15

back to his car after being released from the police station.

16

3.

17

that plaintiff would not be able to drive until the DMV issued him a new license.

18

4.

19

22

Whether Officer Hansen accurately identified the person or vehicle that he
observed speeding and crossing over the double yellow line.

20
21

Whether Officer Hansen stated that plaintiff’s driver’s license was suspended and

5.
V.

Whether plaintiff received the Detention Certificate.

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE
The parties have not yet filed motions in limine. The court does not encourage the filing

23

of motions in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the

24

court prior to trial and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the

25

parties at trial. The defendants anticipate filing the motion in limine below. Any motions in

26

limine the parties elect to file shall be filed no later than 21 days before trial. Opposition shall

27

be filed no later than 14 days before trial and any replies shall be filed no later than 10 days

28

before trial. Upon receipt of any opposition briefs, the court will notify the parties if it will hear
4

1

argument on any motions in limine prior to the first day of trial.

2

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

3

None.

4

Defendant’s Motions in Limine

5

1.

6

expert witness.

7

2.

8

Motion to exclude witnesses that were not disclosed by plaintiff in his Rule 26
disclosure.

9

3.

Motion to exclude plaintiff’s proposed Exhibit 2, “Pictures of the speeding
site/Napa.”

10
11

Motion to exclude any testimony from plaintiff’s purported expert or rebuttal

VI.

12

SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION
Special factual information, pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6), is not applicable to this

13

action.

14

VII.

15

RELIEF SOUGHT
1.

16

violation of his civil rights, punitive damages against the officers, and costs.

17
18

Plaintiff seeks an award of monetary damages to compensate him for alleged

2.
VIII.

Defendants seek judgment in their favor and costs.

POINTS OF LAW

19

The claims and defenses arise under both federal and state law. Plaintiff’s first cause of

20

action for unlawful detention, second cause of action for unlawful arrest, fourth cause of action

21

for unlawful search, fifth cause of action for unlawful seizure of property, and sixth cause of

22

action under the California Constitution are brought against both defendants. Plaintiff’s third

23

cause of action for unlawful threat to arrest is brought against defendant City only. Plaintiff’s

24

seventh cause of action under California Civil Code § 52.1 is brought against defendant Hansen

25

only.

26

1.

27
28

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a Fourth Amendment claim
alleging unlawful detention under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

/////
5

1

2.

2

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a Fourth Amendment claim
alleging unlawful arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3

3.

4

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a Fourth Amendment claim
alleging unlawful threat to arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5

4.

6

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a Fourth Amendment claim
alleging unlawful search under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

7

5.

8

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a Fourth and Fifth
Amendment claim for unlawful seizure of property under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9

6.

10

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof to hold a municipality liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

11

7.

12

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for punitive
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

8.

14

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in raising a qualified immunity
defense.

15

9.

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof with respect to an argument

16

that any of plaintiff’s claims are barred by the decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512

17

U.S. 477 (1994).

18

10.

19

seizure claim under the California Constitution, Article I, §§ 7, 13.

20

11.

21

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim under California
Civil Code § 52.1.

22
23

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an unreasonable search and

Trial briefs addressing the points of law implicated by these remaining claims shall be
filed with this court no later than 7 days before trial in accordance with Local Rule 285.

24

ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOT EXPLICITLY

25

ASSERTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER POINTS OF LAW AT THE TIME IT

26

BECOMES FINAL ARE DISMISSED, AND DEEMED WAIVED.

27

IX.

28

ABANDONED ISSUES
1.

Plaintiff has abandoned his claim against defendant Chris Adams.
6

1

X.

Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Defendants’ witnesses shall

2
3

WITNESSES

be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other.

4

A.

The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,

5

including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:

6

(1)

The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the

7

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at

8

the pretrial conference, or

9

(2)

10

The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering
party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.

11

B.

Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial,

12

the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of

13

the unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be

14

permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless:

15

(1)

16

The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the
discovery cutoff;

17

(2)

18

The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of
the witness;

19

(3)

If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

20

(4)

If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony

21
22

was provided to opposing parties.
XI.

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES

23

Joint exhibits are listed in Attachment C. Plaintiff’s exhibits are listed in Attachment D.

24

No exhibit shall be marked with or entered into evidence under multiple exhibit numbers, and the

25

parties are hereby directed to meet and confer for the purpose of designating joint exhibits. All

26

exhibits must be pre-marked as discussed below. At trial, joint exhibits shall be identified as JX

27

and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically and

28

defendants’ exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. All exhibits must be pre-marked. The parties
7

1

must prepare three (3) separate exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side tab

2

identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall have an

3

identification label on the front and spine. The parties must exchange exhibits no later than 28

4

days before trial. Any objections to exhibits are due no later than 14 days before trial. The

5

final exhibits are due the Thursday before trial is set to begin. In making any objection, the

6

party is to set forth the grounds for the objection. As to each exhibit which is not objected to, it

7

shall be marked and received into evidence and will require no further foundation.

8
9

The court does not allow the use of undisclosed exhibits for any purpose, including
impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria.

10

A.

The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists

11

referenced above unless:

12

(1)

The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the

13

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably

14

anticipated, or

15

(2)

16

The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the
proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.

17

B.

Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly

18

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the

19

court may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received

20

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

21

(1)

The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

22

(2)

The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their

23

existence;

24

(3)

The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically

25

possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the

26

proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably

27

available for inspection by the opposing parties.

28

/////
8

1

XII.

2
3

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
The parties must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used at

trial with the Clerk of the Court no later than 14 days before trial.

4

Plaintiff and defendants may use the following discovery documents at trial:

5

1.

6

XIII.

7

Excerpts of Deposition of Dannie Berchtold (Nov. 15, 2016).

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
Defendants anticipate moving for entry of judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 50 of

8

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at the close of plaintiff’s case and before the case is

9

submitted to the jury.

10

XIV. STIPULATIONS

11
12
13
14
15

None.
XV.

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS
None.

XVI. SETTLEMENT
There have been no formal settlement negotiations to date and plaintiff has made no

16

demand. As in all civil cases before the undersigned, the parties will be required to participate in

17

a mandatory court supervised settlement conference prior to proceeding to jury trial. The place,

18

date and time of that mandatory settlement conference will be set by the magistrate judge

19

assigned to this action. (See Doc. No. 32.)

20

XVII. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties have agreed to the following joint statement of the case:
The Plaintiff alleges that on February 5, 2015, Angels Camp Police
Officer Hansen spoke with the Plaintiff while he was stopped
alongside of the road, two miles away from the Napa Store in the
county. Officer Hansen stated that he had observed a red SUV
driving in excess of the posted speed limit through the city, and
crossing over double yellow lines. Plaintiff alleges that Officer
Hansen performed a series of field sobriety tests, then transported
the Plaintiff to the Angels Camp Police Station, where Officer
Adams performed another set of tests for the alleged purpose of
determining whether the Plaintiff was under the influence at the
time he was driving his motor vehicle. The Plaintiff alleges that he
at all times was not driving under the influence. The Plaintiff
alleges that after approximately two hours of detention and
9

1

interrogation, the officers released him and cited him for Vehicle
Code violations. The Plaintiff also alleges that the officers did not
release his driver’s license and informed him that the officers had
the power to suspend it at that time. After a hearing in Calaveras
County Traffic Court on June 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the
charges against Plaintiff for speeding under California Vehicle
Code Section 22350 but found Plaintiff guilty of Vehicle Code
21460(a) for driving over the double yellow. Plaintiff alleges that
Officer Hansen violated his constitutional rights by detaining and
arresting him, submitting him to field sobriety tests and seizing his
driver’s license. Defendants have denied all the allegations of the
Plaintiff’s complaint, and assert that Officer Hansen’s stop of
Plaintiff’s vehicle was reasonable, the detention of the Plaintiff for
determining whether he was driving under the influence was
reasonable, and Officer Hansen’s referral to the DMV for Priority
Re-Examination was also lawful.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
None.

11
12

XIX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS
None.

13
14
15

XX.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Plaintiff states that he will seek attorneys’ fees and costs if he prevails. However, because

16

plaintiff is representing himself in this action, he is not entitled to such an award.

17

XXI. TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

18
19
20
21
22

None.
XXII. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
XXIII. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE
Jury trial is set for January 30, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable

23

Dale A. Drozd. Trial is anticipated to last two days. The parties are directed to Judge Drozd’s

24

standard procedures available on his webpage on the court’s website.

25

The parties are to call Renee Gaumnitz, courtroom deputy, at [phone], one week

26

prior to trial to ascertain the status of the trial date.

27

XXIV. PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

28

The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire 7 days before trial. Each party will be
10

1
2

limited to fifteen minutes of jury voir dire.
The court directs the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set of jury

3

instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions 14 days before

4

trial, identified as “Joint Jury Instructions and Verdicts.” To the extent the parties are unable to

5

agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their respective proposed instructions are due 14

6

days before trial.

7

The parties shall e-mail a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts, whether

8

agreed or disputed, as a Word document to [e-mail] no later than 14 days

9

before trial; all blanks in form instructions should be completed and all brackets removed.

10

Objections to proposed jury instructions must be filed 7 days before trial; each objection

11

shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the basis for

12

the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting party shall submit

13

an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of his or her own proposed

14

instructions covers the subject.

15

XXV. TRIAL BRIEFS

16
17
18
19

As noted above, trial briefs are due 7 days before trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 2, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11

ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses

1
2

1.

Margie McCarthy – Witness to location of vehicle when picking up plaintiff.

3

2.

Melissa A. Rottinghause – Witness to location of vehicle when picking up

4
5

plaintiff.
3.

Lindy Ramey – 19978 Jack Rabbit Trail, Sonora, CA 95370 – Witness will testify

6

that plaintiff and she always stop along road on return trip from Jackson Casino to

7

take a nap.

8

4.

9
10

trial on June 1, 2015.
5.

11
12

Joe Bautista – 22 Battery Street Suite 888, San Francisco, CA 94111 – Witness to

Shannon Seibert – 22 Battery Street Suite 888, San Francisco, CA 94111 –
Witness to trial on June 1, 2015.

6.

Department of DMV Employee(s) – trained and employed in the capacity

13

performing the re-examination of drivers requiring re-examination pursuant to

14

21061 CVC under Sections 12818 and 12819 CVC due to committing a violation

15

Section(s) 2100 through 23336 CVC or other indicated evidence of the incapacity

16

as indicated.

17

7.

Teresa Pry – Custodian of records at the Angels Camp Police Department.

18

8.

Wallace Stuart, OD – 48 S. Stewart St., Sonora, CA 95370. Expert will testify

19

regarding the subject of visual impairments during the stop of the motor vehicle

20

for suspected moving violation.

21

9.

Robert Tovey, OD – 3081 W. Bullard Ave., Fresno, CA 93710. Expert will testify

22

regarding the subject of visual impairments during the stop of the motor vehicle

23

for suspected moving violation.

24

10.

Heather Bowlin, OD – 6331 N. Fresno, St. Ste. 102, Fresno, CA 93710. Expert

25

will testify regarding the subject of visual impairments during the stop of the

26

motor vehicle for suspected moving violation.

27
28
12

ATTACHMENT B: Defendants’ Witnesses

1
2

1.

Officer Kyle Hansen – C/O Longyear, O’Dea & Lavra, 3620 American River Dr.

3

Suite 230, Sacramento, CA 95864. Officer Hansen arrested plaintiff Berchtold for

4

suspected drug DUI. He is being offered as a percipient witness, as well as a non-

5

retained expert.

6

Officer Hansen will testify that the stop and detention were reasonable based upon the

7

observation of the officer. He will testify that the investigative stop and the manner of the

8

investigation were reasonable. He will testify that the conduct of the Field Sobriety Test was

9

reasonable, lawful, and consistent with training.

10

In addition, the witness will testify that the Drug Recognition Examination (“DRE”) was

11

conducted in a reasonable manner consistent with state wide and other law enforcement training,

12

that the decision of the officers was reasonable and consistent with the results obtained. The

13

witness will testify that the use of DMV reporting forms were lawful and consistent with the

14

training and experience. The witness will testify that the decisions with respect to the stop,

15

detention, arrest, investigation, and release of the plaintiff were reasonable, lawful, and consistent

16

with training and experience.

17

2.

Officer Chris Adams – C/O Longyear, O’Dea & Lavra, 3620 American River Dr.

18

Suite 230, Sacramento, CA 95864. Officer Adams conducted a Drug Recognition

19

Evaluation on plaintiff Berchtold. He is being offered as a percipient witness, as

20

well as a non-retained expert.

21

Officer Adams will testify that the stop and detention were reasonable based upon the

22

observation of the officer. He will testify that the investigative stop and the manner of the

23

investigation were reasonable. He will testify that the conduct of the Field Sobriety Test was

24

reasonable, lawful, and consistent with training. In addition, the witness will testify that the DRE

25

was conducted in a reasonable manner consistent with state wide and other law enforcement

26

training, that the decision of the officers was reasonable and consistent with the results obtained.

27

The witness will testify that the use of DMV reporting forms were lawful and consistent with the

28

training and experience. The witness will testify that the decisions with respect to the stop,
13

1

detention, arrest, investigation, and release of the plaintiff were reasonable, lawful, and consistent

2

with training and experience.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14

1

ATTACHMENT C: Joint Exhibits

2

1.

3

Angels Camp Police Department Incident Report, Bates Document ACPD
000001–ACPD 000005.

4

2.

5

Drug Recognition Evaluation sheet and Supplemental Report, Bates Document
ACPD 000006–ACPD 000007.

6

3.

Notice to Appear, Bates Document ACPD 000008.

7

4.

Angels Camp Police Department CAD Incident Report, Bates Document Plaintiff

8

016.

9

5.

Video 1, Bates Document ACPD 000009.

10

6.

Video 2, Bates Document ACPD 000010.

11

7.

Video 3, Bates Document ACPD 000011.

12

8.

Video 4, Bates Document ACPD 000012.

13

9.

Video 5, Bates Document ACPD 000013.

14

10.

Detention Certificate, Bates Document Plaintiff 013.

15

11.

Notice of Priority Re-Examination of Driver DMV Form, Bates Document

16

Plaintiff 002.

17

12.

February 16, 2015, DMV Order of Suspension, Bates Document Plaintiff 003.

18

13.

Audio Recording of Calaveras County Traffic Court Hearing, Case #15TR00523,

19

June 1, 2015 (no Bates Document number).

20

14.

21

Bates Document ACPD 000037–ACPD 000039.

22

15.

23

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 514, Impaired Driving and Evidence
Collection, Bates Document ACPD 000040–ACPD 000045.

24

16.

25

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 516, Traffic Citations, Bates Document
ACPD 000046–ACPD 000048.

26

17.

27
28

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 500, Traffic Function and Responsibility,

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 600, Investigation and Prosecution, Bates
Document ACPD 000049–ACPD 000053.

/////
15

1

18.

2
3

Document ACPD 000054–ACPD 000058.
19.

4
5

20.

21.

22.

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 446, Portable Audio/Video Recorders,
Bates Document ACPD 000072–ACPD 000078.

23.

12
13

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 438, Detentions and Photographing
Detainess, Bates Document ACPD 000066–ACPD 000071.

10
11

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 419, Cite and Release Policy, Bates
Document ACPD 000062–ACPD 000065.

8
9

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 400, Patrol Function, Bates Document
ACPD 000059–ACPD 000061.

6
7

Angels Camp Police Department, Policy 900, Custodial Searches, Bates

Officer Hansen Training Records, Bates Document ACPD 000016–ACPD
000019, and ACPD 000035–ACPD 000036.

24.

Officer Adams Training Records, Bates Document ACPD 000020–ACPD 000034.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

ATTACHMENT D: Plaintiff’s Exhibits

1
2

1.

Pictures of the speeding site/Napa.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

1
2
3

ATTACHMENT E: Defendants’ Exhibits
1. (Blank) Notice of Priority Re-Examination of Driver DMV Form, Bates Document
ACPD 000079–ACPD 000080.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18