By Madison Whittemore
WOODLAND, CA – A jury trial proceeded here in Yolo County Superior Court this week for an unhoused man who is charged with possession of identification of another person and possession of drug paraphernalia—although arresting law enforcement officers admitted their incident reports lacked some key details.
On July 26, 2023, officers Joseph Rodriguez and Ruben Gonzalez (who both work at the Yolo County Probation Department) pulled over a car for a routine stop in Woodland. There were three people in the car: the accused, the accused’s mother, who was driving, and another unidentified person in the backseat of the car.
Upon approaching the vehicle, Rodriguez saw the accused sitting in the passenger’s seat of the car and recognized him as having a criminal history. Rodriguez was the accused’s probation officer and they would meet weekly for probation check-ins.
Because of his knowledge about the accused having a prior criminal conviction, Rodriguez conducted a pat search of the accused, noting he found nothing of significance or any contraband on the accused during the pat search.
Meanwhile, Officer Gonzalez searched the vehicle, eventually pulling out a black backpack that contained several suspicious items including multiple wallets with cards of identification, a “bulbous” glass pipe, and white powder.
According to the driver (the accused’s mother), the backpack belonged to the accused.
Rodriguez testified the “white powdery substance could be several different things, possibly fentanyl or methamphetamine, and that after drug testing the white substance was identified as methamphetamine.
Despite claiming that he did not remember much about the wallets, officer Rodriguez testified there were three wallets found in possession of the accused, but added he did not put those specifics in his report or whether or not the accused’s wallet was found among the wallets.
Following direct examination by Deputy District Attorney Jose Figueroa, Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig questioned Rodriguez about the wallets found on the accused during the vehicle search.
Officer Rodriguez explained he was not wearing a body camera and never actually saw where Officer Gonzalez retrieved the wallets and drug paraphernalia.
Officer Gonzalez stated the accused’s backpack contained four wallets—contradicting what Officer Rodriguez stated regarding the backpack containing just three wallets.
Officer Gonzalez also testified that one of the wallets belonged to the accused and another wallet belonged to the accused’s brother.
DPD Craig questioned Gonzalez about the little documentation of evidence in the police report, asking why the officers had not taken photos of the backpack and several of the key items.
“We probably should have,” Gonzalez replied, admitting that they didn’t take photos of all the evidence to include in their police report.
DPD Craig focused on the detail about the number of wallets found in the black backpack and why the details about whom the wallets belonged to weren’t mentioned in the police report.
Officer Gonzalez explained that he “didn’t recall” anything notable about the wallet belonging to the accused and he didn’t question anyone at the scene about any of the wallets.
DPD Craig concluded her witness examination by once again questioning Gonzalez about why nothing about the location of the wallets or the ownership of the fourth wallet was documented in the police report.
The jury trial is ongoing this week.
