 |
Newsletters
Suspension of Officer
Involved in Fatal Traffic Collision Overturned
On November 15, 1997, Alhambra Police Officer Keith Eggleston, while in route to back another officer, collided with a pedestrian crossing the street. As a result of the collision the pedestrian received fatal injuries. Multiple investigations took place as a result of the traffic accident, including a criminal investigation by the California Highway Patrol, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's Office, and Administrative Investigations by the Department of Motor Vehicles as well as Officer
Eggleston's employer, the Alhambra Police Department.
The first action taken against Officer Eggleston in what was to be a two year ordeal was instituted by DMV. DMV notified Eggleston of their intent to revoke his
driver's license as a result of alleged negligence in the traffic collision. Office Eggleston, through LDF Panel Attorney Dieter C. Dammeier of LACKIE & DAMMEIER LLP, immediately requested an administrative hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles to contest the Revocation Order. A hearing was held with DMV in which the Revocation Order was overturned. Attorney Dammeier presented evidence to the hearing officer, including photographs, accident statistics, and testimony from the investigating CHP officer and Officer Eggleston. Eggleston testified that he did not see the pedestrian until it was too late to avoid a collision, in part due to poor lighting conditions and his view being obstructed by other vehicles. The CHP officer as a result of the evidence and testimony he observed at the hearing testified his conclusions in the report should be changed.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office declined to file any charges against Officer Eggleston in the matter, citing that the evidence was not clear that the fault of the collision did not belong to the pedestrian. Eighteen months after the collision,
Alhambra's Chief of Police, Leon Burrus, decided to impose a three week suspension against Officer Eggleston as a result of the collision. A pre-disciplinary hearing (Skelly) was held with the Chief of Police. Eggleston, again represented by Dammeier, was able to convince the Chief to reduce the suspension to a nine day suspension, setting the stage for a civil service hearing with the Alhambra Civil Service Commission.
Due to the length of time it took for the Chief of Police to impose discipline, the Civil Service Hearing did not commence until exactly two years from the date of the collision (the one year statute of limitation in POBR was not effective on the date of this collision). Eggleston, again represented by Dammeier, vigorously defended his actions in the traffic collision before the Civil Service Commission. The Department, in an effort to prove Officer
Eggleston's negligence introduced the CHP report which initially found Officer Eggleston at fault in the collision. The CHP
officer's conclusions in that report was based on two independent witness statements provided at the scene. Dammeier in contesting the findings of that report, introduced contradictory testimony from the two witnesses which was given in the civil lawsuit filed by the collision
victim's family. By introducing this contradictory evidence, Dammeier was able to establish that the pedestrian was not inside of the cross-walk and was running across the street in the path of oncoming traffic. Dammeier then put on the investigating CHP officer who, after learning the witnesses new versions, (given under oath) testified that if he had been aware of those versions the night of the collision he would not have found Officer Eggleston at fault and would have placed the fault on the pedestrian.
The City next attempted to justify the discipline by introducing the findings of a Traffic Review Committee who, again initially, found Eggleston at fault in the collision. Dammeier, in questioning the Traffic Committee Chairman at the hearing, again established that had the committee been aware of the full circumstances and contradictory statements by the only two independent witnesses, they to would have reached a different conclusion.
Dammeier, when questioning the Lieutenant who conducted the administrative investigation, was able to establish that the investigation was not complete in that the Lieutenant failed to interview the only two independent witnesses to the collision. Had he done so, he would have been made aware of their versions of the accident, which was contradictory to their apparent initial versions given to the CHP officer. Dammeier further pointed out that there was no need for such an incomplete investigation, especially in light of the fact that it took 18 months to complete.
Ultimately, Dammeier was able to establish that Eggleston was not at fault in any way. Eggleston testified that he had no view of the pedestrian until the second of the impact. The pedestrian ran into his path and there was nothing that could be done to avoid the collision on his part. The City, in a final effort to establish negligence attempted to establish that Eggleston was speeding, however, the Captain who initially recommended discipline, under cross-examination, ultimately admitted that Eggleston was traveling at a
reasonable speed.
Finally, Dammeier argued that while the result of the incident was tragic, which was the apparent reason the department felt it necessary to impose severe discipline, the collision was not the fault of Officer Eggleston. The Alhambra Civil Service Commission agreed and overturned the nine day suspension.
|
