WOODLAND, CA – In a pre-trial hearing at Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Daniel Wolk denied a motion to suppress a felony charge of resisting arrest, despite defense arguments that the arrest may have violated the accused’s due process rights.
The accused, an unhoused resident of Davis, was arrested on Thursday, March 27, 2025, for resisting an arrest warrant related to a misdemeanor charge of theft and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. As a result of the alleged resistance, the accused now faces an additional felony charge of resisting an executive officer.
Deputy District Attorney Jesse Richardson called Officer Devon Young to testify. Officer Young recounted two encounters with the accused. The first occurred on February 20, 2025, when Young responded to a report of trespassing at an apartment complex on Anderson Road. Recognizing the individual as the accused from prior interactions, Young addressed him by name. The accused denied being that person and walked away.
Upon searching the accused’s name in the system, Officer Young discovered an active arrest warrant dating back to December 2024. He also noted the accused was carrying a black backpack that contained a Chromebook belonging to a Davis Joint Unified School District student. Young contacted the student and returned the backpack.
The second incident occurred on March 27, 2025. Officer Young testified that he responded to a call on H Street in Davis, where multiple officers had already arrived and were attempting to detain the accused. According to Young, it took six officers approximately 11 minutes to arrest the accused, who allegedly resisted by yelling profanities, threatening to kill officers, and nearly biting Young’s forearm.
Deputy Public Defender Erin Decanayan raised concerns during cross-examination, pointing out inconsistencies in the timeline regarding the Chromebook. According to Young’s report, the student did not realize the Chromebook and backpack were missing until February 24—four days after the initial police encounter. Officer Young conceded that this discrepancy was an “error” in the report.
DPD Decanayan further questioned whether the accused could have found the backpack in a dumpster, noting that Young’s report did not provide definitive proof the accused had stolen the items. The prosecution did not refute this possibility.
Decanayan also argued that officers had not verified the arrest warrant at the time they detained the accused on March 27. Officer Young testified that he had not personally verified the warrant but believed other officers were in the process of doing so. He asserted the accused was merely “detained” until confirmation.
However, Decanayan pointed out that body-worn camera transcripts revealed officers had already told the accused he was “under arrest” before the warrant was confirmed.
DDA Richardson next called Officer Sandeep Mann of the Davis Police Department, who was involved in the March 27 arrest. Mann testified that she and Officer Miller encountered the accused near railroad tracks. Officer Miller believed there was an arrest warrant for the accused. Mann said she approached the accused, who walked away and refused to stop despite verbal commands. She called for backup.
When Officer Young arrived, officers conducted a search and reportedly found a blade and a glass pipe in the accused’s pocket. Officer Young testified that the pipe was believed to be used for smoking controlled substances.
During cross-examination, Decanayan emphasized that Officer Miller, who was still in training, only said the accused “may” have had a warrant. Mann responded that she confirmed the warrant herself and checked “multiple times” afterward. Still, Decanayan noted that body camera footage showed officers expressing concern about the warrant’s validity.
Mann maintained that in her seven years of service, a warrant had never turned out to be invalid. Decanayan then played footage from Mann’s body camera, showing her calling the accused by name and stating he was “under arrest.” The accused denied being that person and protested repeatedly, yelling phrases like “this is an illegal arrest,” “I do not consent,” “I plead the Fifth,” and “I will struggle until I die.”
The footage also showed Officer Young arriving and asking, “Are you Artemis?” before saying, “I don’t know what you are talking about.” As the accused continued to resist, Mann threatened to use a Taser. The accused responded, “You can do whatever.” Decanayan argued the footage showed that Mann was still trying to confirm the warrant during this interaction, reinforcing the claim that the arrest was premature.
Decanayan concluded her cross-examination by asserting that officers should not have declared the accused under arrest before confirming the warrant. She added that, given the misdemeanor nature of the warrant, officers could have issued a citation or asked the accused to appear in court rather than proceeding with a physical arrest.
On redirect, DDA Richardson emphasized that the warrant was in fact valid and that the accused’s physical resistance—including attempting to bite officers—justified the felony resisting charge.
Ultimately, Judge Wolk ruled against the defense, denying the motion to suppress and declining to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. The case will now proceed to arraignment with all charges intact, despite ongoing concerns from the defense regarding due process and police conduct.
