By Noor Rashid, Shiying (Phoebe) Lin, Ellianah Yang, Amir Zepeda, Coey Zhang, Chaz Keith, Sarah Naser, Jojo Kofman
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — During a jury trial in San Francisco Superior Court on Tuesday involving a man who was pulled over for allegedly driving under the influence, Deputy Public Defender Samantha Perez pointed out inconsistencies in California Highway Patrol Officer Jonathan Briggs’ testimony and the officer’s subsequent messages to Deputy District Attorney Michael Foley, apologizing for “getting flustered” in a previous court hearing.
The incident took place on Dec. 6, 2020, and is now going to trial. In her opening argument, Perez described the incident as stemming from a normal day and said the defendant was simply someone who made a mistake, noting he was originally the designated driver.
Foley argued that the accused posed a risk to public safety, pointing to the testimony of Briggs, whose “attention was drawn to” the defendant’s silver Toyota Sienna that was allegedly traveling approximately 100 mph in a 50 mph zone and dangerously changing lanes at the last minute.
When Briggs approached the defendant in his vehicle, he stated the driver did not have his physical license on hand but gave him his name for identification. As a result, Briggs decided to conduct an enforcement stop and determined the defendant was driving under the influence based on the evidence and subsequent field sobriety tests.
Under examination by Foley, Briggs stated he noticed the accused had red eyes and a strong smell of alcohol immediately upon the stop. However, under cross-examination, Perez pointed out that in a prior hearing with the same counsel and judge, Briggs testified the defendant’s eyes were not red or watery.
Briggs responded that he “made a mistake.” In explaining the inconsistencies, he said he was not sure whether the accused had watery, red eyes, despite stating so earlier.
Perez then asked Briggs if he had sent text messages to the district attorney after the previous hearing, including, “Let me know how it (the hearing) goes… I didn’t mean to get all confused about the red eyes question…” Briggs confirmed he sent the messages, explaining that he felt dumb and the texts were intended as self-deprecating humor.
He added that he had not initially viewed the situation as a serious criminal case. Perez followed up by asking Briggs if he normally texted information to prosecutors or joked about criminal cases. Briggs said no and reiterated that he “didn’t think of this as a criminal case.”
Briggs testified that he administered five sobriety tests during the investigation and confirmed the defendant remained cooperative and calm throughout. He determined based on the field sobriety tests, unsafe driving, and what he described as the defendant’s inability to follow instructions that the driver was under the influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest.
Perez noted that Briggs did not inform the defendant that participation in the field sobriety tests was voluntary.
During cross-examination, Perez referenced the California Vehicle Code Manual and questioned Briggs on whether he observed any of the listed signs of impairment. Briggs confirmed he did not and struggled to identify several sections of the code.
Briggs also testified that he asked the defendant if he had consumed alcohol that day. He said the defendant responded affirmatively, stating he drank a six-pack of beer between 5:30 and 6 p.m. The stop occurred around midnight—roughly six hours later.
Briggs further stated the defendant was walking on the backs of his heels and appeared unsteady. Perez noted this detail was not included in the original police report and that Briggs chose not to update the report afterward.
