WOODLAND, Calif. — Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt challenged the grounds, during a combined preliminary hearing and suppression hearing in Yolo County Superior Court, for an accused person’s detention and pat-down, questioning a Davis police officer about discrepancies in the suspect description and his justification for searching the accused.
Under questioning by Van Zandt, Davis Police Officer Xia Vang acknowledged that the accused did not match the initial suspect description and that he had no information indicating the accused was armed or dangerous before conducting the pat-down.
Deputy District Attorney Zachary Gazda focused on the accused’s inconsistent identifying information and conflicting explanations for being at the apartment complex. Vang also described evidence obtained later in the investigation, including a comparison between the accused’s shoe tread and a print found near the reporting witness’s window.
Vang testified that he responded to a report of possible indecent exposure at a Davis apartment complex on Nov. 22, 2024. Dispatch received the call around 11:10 p.m., and Vang arrived approximately seven minutes later.
During cross-examination, Vang agreed that the reported conduct had occurred approximately five minutes before the call, placing his arrival roughly 12 minutes after the alleged incident.
He also acknowledged that the initial 911 call came from someone other than the reporting witness and that he did not know how long it took for the information to reach the caller.
Dispatch initially described the suspect as a shirtless white adult man. However, Vang encountered the accused wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and black pants.
The hearing also addressed a separate description of an individual wearing camouflage pants and a ball cap.
Vang clarified that the accused had provided that description to another officer, Sgt. Ramos, while reporting that someone else was nearby.
Vang testified that he initiated verbal contact with the accused. During questioning about the encounter, he acknowledged using the words “stand by.”
According to Vang, the accused initially provided a name and date of birth that produced no results in police records before supplying different identifying information.
Vang also testified that the accused first claimed to live at the apartment complex but later said he was visiting a friend. The accused provided an apartment number that officers subsequently determined did not exist.
The accused also stated that he was walking to a nearby gas station to purchase cigarettes, although he told officers he had no money or wallet, according to Vang.
Vang testified that officers detained the accused after further questioning, during which the accused became defensive.
Officers handcuffed the accused, conducted a pat-down search and escorted him to a patrol vehicle.
When questioned about his justification for the search, Vang cited the circumstances of the encounter, the accused’s behavior and the officers’ intention to place him inside the patrol vehicle.
Van Zandt challenged whether those circumstances provided sufficient grounds for the search.
When asked whether he had information indicating the accused was armed before conducting the pat-down, Vang acknowledged that he had no information establishing that the accused was armed or dangerous.
Vang described bulges in the accused’s clothing, including what appeared to be a cellphone illuminated in the front pocket of his pants.
He also testified that he could see what appeared to be a lotion bottle during the pat-down but maintained that neither he nor another officer removed anything from the accused’s pockets at that time.
The defense also questioned the evidence connecting the accused to the reported conduct.
Vang acknowledged that he had not personally observed the accused looking through a window and that no witness he personally interviewed had reported seeing the accused do so.
During questioning about body-worn camera footage, Van Zandt addressed Vang’s use of the phrase “dad bod” when asking the reporting witness to describe the person she had seen. The witness agreed with that characterization.
Vang testified that a subsequent comparison indicated the accused’s shoe tread matched a print found near the reporting witness’s window.
He also stated that information concerning the suspect’s chest hair contributed to his assessment, although he acknowledged that he had not personally conducted that comparison and that confirmation had been relayed to him.
Vang further testified that officers later learned the accused had prior convictions and was a registered sex offender.
During cross-examination, however, Vang acknowledged that officers had not established the accused’s identity at the time they placed him in the patrol vehicle.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
