![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/YoloCourt-16-765x510.jpg)
By Sophie Marconi
On August 1, 2016, in Department 7, the preliminary hearing of the People vs. Thomas Phillip Leae began, with Judge Samuel T. McAdam presiding over the case. The hearing regarded an incident that occurred on November 30, 2015, at approximately 10 pm. On the given day, Mr. Leae was involved in a high-speed chase with several police officers. This dangerous and drawn-out pursuit ended in the death of Mr. Leae’s girlfriend, Ali Siufunna, a passenger in the vehicle at the time.
As a result of the event, Leae is charged with the following six counts: murder in the second degree; evading a peace officer resulting in death; evading a police officer through reckless driving; vehicle theft; receiving stolen property; and driving under the influence of drugs, causing injury. All charges except for the last offense are considered felonies by Yolo County.
The first witness who took the stand was Officer Marcos Castillo, a California Highway Patrol officer. Officer Castillo has been a CHP officer for nine years. During the People’s direct examination, Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays asked Officer Castillo to describe how the incident began.
Castillo testified that he was sitting in his patrol car on the side of the road when he saw the defendant speeding. He estimated the defendant’s speed at approximately 80 miles per hour. At this point, Castillo checked the vehicle’s speed with his radar, verified that the vehicle was driving at a speed above the limit, and pursued the vehicle going southbound on Interstate 5.
The prosecution asked Officer Castillo if he believed he made the right decision, considering the possible risks involved with engaging in a high-speed chase. Officer Castillo responded that with his past training and because the traffic was light, he believes he made the right decision in pursuing the vehicle.
After about half a mile, Castillo caught up to the vehicle and turned on his warning lights. At this point, the vehicle did not slow down in speed and pull over to the roadside, but rather sped up in an attempt to evade the officer. In response, the officer sped up to keep up with the vehicle, while he ran the license plate.
After running the license plate, Officer Castillo discovered that the vehicle had been reported stolen in Washington. The officer then called in for backup as he continued pursuing the vehicle at speeds up to 110 mph. About 10 miles into the chase, the suspect turned off his lights in an attempt to lose the officer.
The suspect was now driving well over 100 mph, swerving between lanes without his headlights on, and posed a serious threat to other vehicles on the road. At this point, Officer Castillo updated dispatch with the current location, speed and traffic conditions of the stolen vehicle.
Deputy Public Defender John Sage conducted a cross-examination on the witness. Mr. Sage questioned the safety of the pursuit, bringing attention to the high speeds and issues with visibility at such a late time. He also questioned why the officer did not use a pit maneuver or road spikes to stop the vehicle, to which Officer Castillo responded that either of these maneuvers would be much too dangerous at such speeds.
The second witness the People called to the stand was CHP Officer Timothy S. Lovato, who has worked as a CHP officer for 11 years. Officer Lovato was called in by dispatch to join the pursuit, and shortly became the primary officer in the chase, due to his past experience with high-speed chases, which he estimated to number between 23 and 28.
Officer Lovato, in primary position, was pursuing the vehicle when the suspect exited the town of Arbuckle and turned left without stopping at the stop sign. At this point Lovato executed a pit maneuver by placing his bumper against the rear bumper of the suspect’s vehicle in an attempt to bring the vehicle to a stop. The suspect’s vehicle came to a complete stop, but only temporarily.
Lovato then got out of his vehicle and initiated a felony stop. Through the window, Lovato saw that the driver of the vehicle was male, and a female passenger sat beside him. Soon after Lovato made this observation, the vehicle sped away toward the off ramp, and drove the wrong way on I-5 southbound.
At this point three police vehicles were pursuing the suspect on the proper side of the freeway parallel to the suspect vehicle. The suspect was driving over 100 mph, on the wrong side of the freeway, with his headlights turned off, making the situation incredibly precarious. Each police vehicle had a spotlight on the suspect’s vehicle, in an effort both to keep the vehicle in sight and to allow other drivers driving on I-5 southbound to see the vehicle coming and avoid an accident.
Approximately seven miles after the vehicle began traveling in the wrong direction on I-5 southbound, the suspect lost control of the vehicle while trying to exit at a rest stop, and drove down an embankment where he hit a tree. When the officers arrived at the accident, the car and passengers had sustained serious damage. The entire front of the vehicle was smashed to the point where both the driver and passenger had their legs entrapped by the dashboard.
Officer Lovato noticed that the passenger was unresponsive and had no pulse. Later the officer discovered that the passenger of the vehicle was Ali Siufunna. She died due to the injuries she sustained during the crash. She was not wearing her seat belt and none of the law enforcement witnesses could recall if her airbag had inflated.
Thomas Phillip Leae sustained critical injuries but survived the incident. He is scheduled to return for arraignment on August 16 at 9 am, as the People have met their burden of proof for Mr. Leae to be held accountable for all the felony charges against him.
He only killed someone because the Police were chasing him, and since she is dead, he should be let go because speeding is a “non-violent crime”, right? Am I getting this right, according to the Vanguard point of view?
Another upstanding Criminal-American eligible for Prop 47/57?
Crickets…
and, WHY were the police chasing him?????
why was he “running”…why and why…
don’t count on the police nor the prosecution to tell the truth here…
and, so you have it…our justice system is supposed to “protect the innocent”…and if the person was not guilty of anything, why the chase???????
Driving a stolen car was illegal last time I checked. Maybe we could get an update from an attorney. As a practical matter someone driving is stolen car is likely to have other issues
Another unarmed person doing nothing wrong that was killed by a police officer. When will it end?
Yes, so obviously the officer’s fault. They should know better than to chase a criminal.
BP, Marina will TALK to Some of HER highlY,,,hiGHLY Placed Friends,,,,,, ANd get the reallll story
The death of that female should be directly attributed to the lawless and dangerous behavior of the criminal driving that she car she rode in and died in, and her bad judgment being with him including probably knowing that it was a stolen car. It had zero to do with the police.
Question. If the officer had shot the driver after the bumper maneuver would the female be alive today?
Folks make their own decisions, correct, and therefore, I am sure one can blame the victim, who shoulda known better, and the crim, who was speeding in a stolen car…
If all that is true, then that makes it a different story.
Is it true? or is that what the CHP says?????
I no longer trust any CHP or police reports in the general 100 mile radius from Davis….too many false reports have surfaced in cases I have been way too intimately connected with..
Please excuse my cynicism, as I have no faith in “officer’s testimony” or their written reports, either…
And, if someone has other evidence to share, then have at it….
PS> no seat belt? again, the victim’s fault… and the driver’s fault, also? per CA law? both, if adults, are at fault, right?
and, yet the “officer could not recall if the air bag deployed?
really, why was that not critical info in the report…
and, finally, isn’t the car still around as “evidence” in the matter and cannot that question still be “answered”….
not sure why that is/was important to this case, but often it is highly important info, which a competent officer should document…
oops, there I go again, criticizing the competence of the officer who didn’t “notice”….. oh well…