WOODLAND, CA – Deputy Public Defender Cheyanne Martin, in a preliminary hearing this week in front of Judge Daniel M. Wolk at Yolo County Superior Court, claimed there is no substantial evidence to prove the accused was ever driving the vehicle in a high-speed chase, and the arrest was a result of “sexism.”
Deputy District Attorney David William Robbins called the defense claims “ridiculous.”
The accused was charged with two felonies relating to evasion, as well as a misdemeanor for a suspended license, while found in the passenger seat in a vehicle pursuit.
Police dashcam footage of the incident presented by DPD Martin showed a female occupant exiting the driver’s side door, while the accused exited through the passenger’s side door. Despite this, according to DPD Martin, the arresting police officer attempted to bend the female occupant’s statements to arrest the accused unjustly.
According to court documents, during night patrol on Jan. 25 at around 8:02 p.m., California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Balmain pursued a vehicle he ‘visually perceived’ going 80 miles-per-hour in a 65 mph zone near State Route 99 in Sacramento County.
Officer Balmain noted the vehicle had tinted windows, which did not allow him to see the occupants inside.
During the cross-examination of Officer Balmain, DPD Martin confirmed after losing sight of the vehicle during the pursuit, an aerial helicopter was able to direct ground units to find the car.
After detaining both individuals, Officer Balmain began speaking with the female suspected driver, who stated that “I didn’t know it (the police) was for me. I thought you were stopping someone else,” according to bodycam footage presented by DPD Martin.
Additionally, DPD Martin noted how the female occupant used words such as “me” rather than “us” when talking with the officer, insinuating that she was the sole driver.
Officer Balmain, according to DPD Martin and bodycam footage, asked the female occupant questions suggesting the accused was the driver, including, “Did he tell you to run away from police?” and “Did he say to drive faster?”
Officer Balmain claimed in his report the female occupant said that she wasn’t the driver soon after he approached the car, but bodycam presented by DPD Martin indicated that this did not occur until seven minutes following detainment.
DPD Martin cited bodycam footage, which also showed the female occupant changing her story and claiming she was asked to switch places in the vehicle by the accused before being detained.
The female occupant asked Officer Balmain, “Am I still going to jail?” to which he responded, “Are you comfortable testifying as a witness so you don’t get in trouble?”
DPD Martin claimed this whole event is the result of “sexism,” claiming Officer Balmain could not imagine a woman could have driven as erratically as was seen.
DDA Robbins stated that any claim of sexism was “ridiculous,” believing instead that the accused asked the female occupant to switch seats at some point during the pursuit.
Judge Wolk ruled there was enough probable cause to continue with the prosecution. The accused is currently out on a $10,000 posted bond. The next court date for this matter is set for May 7.
