WEST COVINA, CA—During a DUI/driving under the influence trial here in a Los Angeles County Superior Court last week, the arresting officer said he stopped the accused after receiving an anonymous tip that a woman was stumbling outside of a white Nissan Altima.
However, when placed on the stand as a witness, the officer’s account of the night did not appear to align with the images projected in the courtroom, said the defense.
The officer, on Jan. 15, 2021, said he found the accused inside her parked car, not outside stumbling like the tip had mentioned. The accused said, the officer testified, she had one previous drink before driving and a Gatorade drink, and claimed that had stopped drinking at around 8 p.m. that day.
During the prosecution’s questioning, it was revealed the officer offered the accused either a breath test or blood test to measure her Blood Alcohol Concentration. She chose the breath test.
The breath test resulted in two results, .14 percent and .15 percent. This was the BAC level identified while the accused was in her parked car and not actively driving.
The officer said the accused had violated vehicle code 1353.C, placed her under arrest, and transported her to Montebello City Jail. However, vehicle code 1353.C concerns instances where the accused individual refuses to agree to any form of testing for BAC, which in this case, the accused had chosen a breath test without refusal.
The accused had two children in her car, a one-year-old and a four-year-old. The officer testified he called the Department of Children and Family Services and spoke with a social worker before placing the two children in the care of the accused’s mother, who was just across the street.
The defense then projected a photograph of the interior of the accused’s vehicle. There, a single can of beer is visible in the cupholder. The officer said the can was half full.
The defense asked if he had poured the liquid that he claimed to be “half full” into a clear glass to gauge how much was consumed, to which the officer admitted he did not. Moreover, in the image, the can tab has been lifted and the opening is closed, which does not match the officer’s claim the can was half full.
During questioning the officer also admitted he was not wearing a body camera. He added that he did not see for himself any signs of intoxicated active driving at the time of interaction and did not test the can for fingerprints.
This is an ongoing jury trial expected to end this week.
