SAN FRANCISCO, CA – San Francisco police officers unlawfully searched an epileptic man’s vehicle before allowing medics to render aid after finding him unconscious behind the wheel, charged Assistant Public Defender Leo Fissel last week in San Francisco County Superior Court.
The accused was facing four weapons charges, including carrying a concealed weapon. The officers located the gun in question after concerned citizens reported to the authorities a man was unconscious in a vehicle parked on the side of the road.
Police body cam footage was played during the court hearing, showing, at approximately the same time, police and paramedics arrived on the scene, with an officer walking up to the passenger side window, and flashing her light into the cabin, where a man was witnessed hunched over the steering wheel.
Police claim that after multiple attempts to communicate with the accused, they opened the door to the vehicle, began searching the accused, and found the gun exposed on the floorboard.
Assistant District Attorney Ahmanda Lee asked if the accused was displaying any of the signs and symptoms of a person suffering from a drug overdose, and a testifying officer stated the man was “foaming from the mouth.”
APD Fissel’s first question to the officer was, “Before you searched, were you aware (the accused) is diagnosed with epilepsy?” The officer did not.
APD Fissel questioned the officer regarding the standard operating procedures for vehicle searches in situations with unresponsive inhabitants, and stated, “You are not investigating a crime at this point, are you?” And the testifying officer responded, “At this point? No.”
APD Fissel asked Officer Taylor why she and the four other officers were searching the vehicle and had all four doors open before allowing the medical personnel to begin administering aid. ADP Fissel stated, “Why did you search the car? Are there any concerns for officer safety?” Officer Taylor responded, “Absolutely.”
The officer said the foam and drool coming from the accused’s mouth was indicative of a person suffering from an overdose.
ADA Lee introduced new evidence, a report from another government agency, but ADP Fissel objected, stating, “This document has no government agency Seal or Stamp; it has no merit as evidence for this case.”
Judge Brian Hill overruled the objection, allowing the evidence to be entered.
Judge Hill stated the charges against the accused would be left to stand, although APD Fissel argued the third charge must be removed: having a concealed firearm, noting police testified the gun was found exposed on the floorboard and unconcealed. As APD Fissel stated, “It’s either concealed or in plain view.”
Judge Hill asked the ADA if she was aware of any case law regarding the definition of concealment with characteristics similar to those in the case before the court.
The ADA was unable to confirm the definition of concealment or previous case law, and Judge Hill remarked the accused is “not held to answer on Count Three,” having a concealed firearm.
The accused is facing the remaining two weapons charges and is set for trial at a future date.
