The Runaway Penske Truck

by Antoinnette Borbon

Yolo County Judge Paul Richardson held Mike Haverberg to answer on charges that he violated his terms of probation when he used a Penske rental truck without authorization.

For several afternoons, there was a preliminary hearing for the defendant, who was facing a probation violation for allegedly using a Penske moving truck beyond the time he had contracted to use it and failing to properly notify the company of the need for a contract extension.

The defendant relied on an employee of Penske’s corporate office to do the job of extending his contract, but, to the defendant’s subsequent surprise, that did not happen. After the initial rental contract time was up, the company expected the truck to be returned, but it wasn’t. The company considered the truck to be missing, and management reported it stolen.  It was later found when an officer located the defendant driving the truck down County Road 102, near Woodland.

The officer testified on the stand that he spotted the truck driving unsafely and began to follow him. He ran the license plate and found it to be stolen. Subsequently, the driver was arrested and charged with stealing the truck. The man was already on probation in Yolo County, from unrelated charges.

In evidence presented by Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson, we learned of a phone call which lasted five minutes during the period defendant had possession of the truck. The phone call was to the Penske corporate office where the defendant stated he had made the extension of the rental agreement.

However, the content of the conversation was unknown and neither the defense nor prosecution were able to locate the person on the other end of the phone that day. Without that evidence, the court was left with only inference as to whether the contract was extended. The evidence here was ambiguous.

Employees who testified could only state the procedure of extensions and explain the rental agreement. But no employee had record of the new extended document. In fact, the first phone call was to an employee at the hardware store where the defendant had first rented the truck, and was told by the employee, “Quit bugging me about the truck, keep it as long as you want, just talk to corporate to extend.”

Mr. Hutchinson argued that employees make mistakes and explained how the phone number left on the invoice, supposed to be the defendant’s, could have had the numbers inverted.

He argued that in good faith his client had contacted corporate and was under the impression the extension was input by the employee he spoke with for five minutes. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out, “Employees make mistakes, just like the media does.” That being said, it was possible the employee had failed to update the rental contract via the internet as the defendant had believed.

However, Deputy District Attorney Sulaiman Tokhi argued that this defense was not good enough. Instead, Mr. Tokhi had a different theory of what happened.

He argued during summation to the court that he believed this man had been using the moving trucks for his business off and on for a period of years, knowingly renting for just a day or so.

But in this case, he had no money to extend the contract and had damaged the vehicle. He argued that a document from FedEx had been received making the defendant aware the truck needed to be returned.

However, that information was contested by the defendant’s mother who testified that she had not seen him for a few weeks because of a falling out – leaving one to suspect the defendant had no prior knowledge of the letter.

Mr. Tohki stated that the defendant knew of the rules and, even though he had consistently returned the trucks before, he also knew he needed to pay to extend the contract. He argued that the defendant did not have the money to pay and that was clear.

He reiterated the words of the manager who had testified as to how the procedure works. DDA Tohki contended that Mr. Haverberg did not have a credit card on file nor had he paid additional cash to keep the truck longer. This forced the Penske corporation to send out a letter to the defendant and, after no response, to report it stolen.

Mr. Hutchinson strongly disagreed.  He went over and over the evidence of all documents and how they showed no knowledge of Penske’s corporate office extending the rental agreement other than the five-minute phone call on record.

Mr. Hutchinson stated, “In good faith, [his client] believed the phone call to extend the contract had been documented.” But there was still nothing showing a credit card or cash payment. Mr. Hutchinson also went over testimony of the defendant’s mother and girlfriend, who both stated the defendant had always rented and returned the trucks on the day they were due to be returned. Why would this time be any different?

DDA Tohki did not back down and asked the judge to hold him on the VOP, due to the incident with the truck.

Judge Paul Richardson went over all the evidence and testimony given by all witnesses. He stated, “Even if defendant had extended his contract with the truck, there is no history of a cash payment or credit card on file.”

Judge Richardson ruled it was reasonable to have known one needed to put more money down toward the rental, and there was none. He decided to hold the defendant to answer.

The defendant had been charged, in addition to the violation of probation, with Vehicle Code section 10851, unauthorized use of a vehicle.  However, the prosecution dropped the charge due to lack of evidence.

Judge Richardson held Mr. Haverberg to answer only for the violation of probation.

Categories: