By Danielle Eden C. Silva
In Department 11, Judge Timothy L. Fall presided over the trial of Brian Nicholas Freeland. Mr. Freeland is charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle by driving. Deputy Public Defender John Sage represents the defendant. Deputy District Attorney Shelby Davitt represents the People.
Opening statements began with Attorney Davitt. On February 15, 2018, Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy Jose Vera saw a black Honda Civic parked on the side of Highway 16. The defendant was sitting in the driver’s seat. Officer Vera ran the license plate and the license plates were registered to Mr. Freeland. However, dispatch recounted the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) listed with the license plates which did not match the VIN located on the car’s window. The license plate was listed to a black Honda Civic.
On February 3, 2018, an owner of a black Honda Civic left his car in his driveway. The car was discovered missing when he came home from work. The owner had both sets of keys and spoke with Officer Nathaniel Woodall. Additionally, he didn’t know Mr. Freeland. Therefore, the prosecution argued that the defendant unlawfully drove the vehicle.
The defense’s opening statement requested that the jury keep track of the dates. Before the defendant’s arrest on February 15, Mr. Freeland had intended to get his wife a new vehicle for her job. Mr. Freeland met with an individual to buy a black Honda Civic for $200 on February 8. Later, a tree fell on his own car of the same model and make, so he put the plates of his old car on the vehicle he just bought.
The car was reported stolen on February 4. When Mr. Freeland obtained the vehicle, he didn’t know it was stolen and the vehicle didn’t have personal property or license plates. The defense argues Mr. Freeland is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution then called the owner to the stand. The owner had used the black Honda Civic ’98 as a means to get to work. His work hours spanned from Monday to Friday from 7 am to 3 pm. The black Honda Civic had been parked in front of his son’s house on Friday, and was still there February 4, Saturday morning, at 11 am, and had disappeared by Saturday afternoon at 8 pm. The owner had been gone 
between the hours of 11 am and 8 pm with his wife.
No one else used the car. The owner had both sets of keys and had the car registered under his name. When he had last seen the car, it still had license plates.
When filing the report, the owner needed his son to help, as there was a language barrier. The owner would receive paperwork confirming the report had been filed and later a phone call saying the car was found.
The owner did not recognize the defendant.
In cross-examination, the defense shared that February 4, 2018, was a Sunday, contrary to what the record states. The owner then gave his son’s full name at the defense’s request, but was unsure of his son’s birthdate. He confirmed there was no damage to the vehicle which had 216 miles put on it. The vehicle, returned after two days of being found, also was missing personal materials.
The owner also mentioned when he bought the car four years ago, the price had been $400 including repair costs. The owner needed to get new license plates in order to pick it up, and mentioned calling a person to do so.
In redirect, the owner mentioned it was missing on Saturday and there had been a dent in the front of the car when he bought it. The car ran well, never stalled on him, and was reliable. The car needed $800 in repairs.
In cross-examination, the list of missing items was confirmed by the owner. He mentioned his son wrote the list as the owner couldn’t read English and had trusted his son to write it. He guessed his son’s age to be between 27-28. The witness was then dismissed.
The prosecution called Officer Woodall to the stand.
Officer Woodall is a part of the Watch Office for the California Highway Patrol Sacramento Communication Center. He runs security and takes phone reports, including stolen vehicle reports.
On February 3, 2018, he worked from 10-11 pm on that Saturday when he received a report of a stolen vehicle. Officer Woodall recalled a language barrier and took both the VIN, license plate number, and registered owner’s information. This would need to be run run through the system before being given to dispatch, which gives out all three. Officer Woodall placed specific emphasis on the VIN and the fact that he needed to speak directly to the owner.
In cross-examination, the officer noted the son on the other end helped clarify parts of the conversation, but he mostly understood as he’s bilingual. The report listed $3000 for the vehicle value and miscellaneous items and tools. The vehicle was estimated to have been taken between 8 pm and 10:10 pm. The officer did not take down any information on the son.
After noting in redirect that both the license plate and the VIN were given by dispatch, the witness was excused.
The prosecution called Deputy Vera to the stand.
Deputy Vera works with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office Patrol. He had been patrolling Highway 16 on February 15, 2018, with a fully marked police vehicle. Highway 16 was noted as having one lane in each direction with not much traffic. On the date in question, the deputy noticed a vehicle parked on the shoulder of the county road. He parked on the other side of the road, not putting on his lights, and crossed the road to the car.
Deputy Vera recognized the defendant in the driver’s seat from previous encounters and asked if he was on probation, which the defendant confirmed. From that position, the deputy noted that Mr. Freeland could have driven the car. The deputy asked him to step out and began to search the car, running the license plate number and getting Mr. Freeland’s name on the registration and the same make and model of the car. However, the VIN listed did not match what he saw through the car windshield. After comparing the VINs in full, he removed the key and later contacted the owner of the car, receiving a brief statement.
In cross-examination, the deputy confirmed the defendant hadn’t violated any traffic laws, there was no indication he committed a crime, he was not driving at the time, and the key came straight out, showing the engine was not engaged. Deputy Vera did note that he later went to the address of Mr. Freeland’s ex-wife but not to search for the original license plates. At the time of the arrest, he faintly recalled the defendant looking through his phone for a phone number. The original license plates have not been found by anyone in the department, to Deputy Vera’s knowledge.
This witness was excused and the courtroom would be in recess until 1:30 pm.
