By Audrey Sawyer and Adam Solorzano
WOODLAND, CA — A jury trial proceeded here in Yolo County Superior Court Wednesday for a woman accused of driving while under the influence, a misdemeanor, although questions were raised about the sobriety test instructions and using a half inch space between a heel and toe as evidence of intoxication.
The accused, arrested Jan. 26, also said she was ultra compliant and polite not because she was guilty, but because, as a woman of color, she didn’t want the police encounter to escalate.
A key point that came out in testimony was that a body camera was muted at the time of the offense.
Officer Mitchell Williams stated officers inform people arrested on DUI charges they must take an alcohol test (either a blood test or a breath test), and admitted he is aware bodycam footage is often used as evidence.
Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig told the jury in closing arguments that she had doubts about instructions provided by both Officer Williams and Officer Michael Muro during the accused’s sobriety testing for the walk and turn.
DPD Craig noted that, according to Officer Michael Muro, the accused had a half inch space between the heel and toe, which he had claimed was an indication of an impairment.
DPD Craig pointed out Officer Michael Muro had testified the accused had stepped off of the line one time and when he was questioned about the rest of the portion of the test, he said he had “conveniently forgotten.”
DPD Craig expressed doubts about deciding impairment based on a half inch of space between the accused’s heel and toe, asking if that could be considered enough of a space to be viewed as intoxicated.
The public defender also noted Officer Muro had read instructions once, and that the accused was halfway through her turning test and had turned right, allegedly indicating impairment according to him. However, said the DPD to the jury, he never instructed the accused to turn left.
DPD Craig also argued the accused was unable to feel her legs because the test was being conducted later at night, and that the breath test was from later and not when she was pulled over.
According to previous testimony from Officer Muro, he did not say he had observed the accused for the 15 minutes needed for the test, and that a previous witness, forensic alcohol analyst Jyoti Mosquedamlic, had explained why the 15 minutes are crucial.
Another point raised by DPD Craig was that the accused had taken out the incorrect card when asked, not because of being impaired, but because it was dark outside, and that the correct card had been retrieved once a flashlight was made available.
Deputy District Attorney Casper Gorner, according to DPD Craig, is “attempting to use statements as proof of the accused’s guilty mind (by) taking accountability.”
The DPD insisted the accused, a woman of color, was just trying to show she was cooperative and compliant with the officers to avoid the escalation of the police encounter, and was not admitting guilt of the DUI.
In opening arguments Tuesday, DPD Craig said the trial was more than just an open and closed case, noting “this is not a simple DUI. This is a person, not a statistic. And we are not here to judge [her] for drinking alcohol,” giving the last words as a reminder to the jury to be fair in their decision making.
The first witness, the arresting officer, took the stand and was asked about his expertise in DUI investigations. As all law enforcement officers, he responded that he has taken the basic training for these types of investigations through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
When questioned further by the DPD about the reasons why he had made the arrest of the accused, he responded that the accused had slurred speech and smelled of alcohol, and this was enough to start the FST, which consists of up to several tests. He administered only three and then deemed the accused under the influence of alcohol, and the arrest was made.
But when questioned about his understanding of the testing and protocols of the test, for example, when DPD Craig asked, “Do these tests create a margin of error for someone who is nervous?” the officer answered, “I don’t know.”
DPD Craig followed up by stating that “if someone has a difficult time understanding or remembering your commands during these tests, the test does not recognize this?”
He again answered, “I don’t know.”
In fact, when the officer was asked if he had recalled his training in its entirety regarding the procedure of FSTs, he responded that he does not remember the entire procedure and for that reason he carries a “cheat sheet.”
The examination moved into the report that the arresting officer had written for the investigation. DPD Craig asked, “Do you recognize this sheet?” referring to the report log sheet for investigations.
The officer answered, “Yes.”
In this case, there were some events missing from the report. When questioned about this, the arresting officer stated that all the events from the initial stop were not recorded, but he gathered his information.
Some of the facts that were missing in the report included the accused was driving a friend who was intoxicated, so he would not drive. It was also left out that the accused had on high heels and asked to remove them for the FST. After the removal of her heels, she was standing barefoot on cold concrete at 2 a.m. while attempting to follow the commands of the officer.
Furthermore, the accused expressed many times on the body camera video evidence that her feet hurt. And she repeated this various times, “I can’t feel my feet. It is freezing. I can’t feel my legs.”
Moreover, the body camera on the arresting officer also displayed a moment when he had turned off the audio while speaking with another officer who was present at the scene.
He was asked by the DPD Craig why he had switched the audio off during a conversation in the investigation. In addition, she also added that the footage belonged to the People for trials such as this one.
He answered, in response to the question, “I didn’t know what he was going to ask and he advised me to hit the side bar.”
The DPD Craig asked, “What was said during the time the audio was off?” The arresting officer stated that his partner in the investigation asked him if he wanted to do the sobriety test. He responded it was his shift and he would conduct the test.
The DPD Craig responded, “Is this because you are still learning the Field Sobriety Testing?”
The officer admitted, “Yes.”
The accused had also asked if the arresting officer could repeat his instructions once more, so she could make the right turn in the heel to toe test. He said, “I stated them already.”
Initially, the accused completed the testing and was booked for DUI because she was unable to successfully complete the test. All these facts were left out of the document reported from the arresting officer.
