 |
Newsletters
DMV License Revocation of Alhambra Officer Set Aside
Alhambra Officer Keith Eggleston, while en route to back another officer, collided with a pedestrian in a crosswalk which resulted in fatal injuries to the pedestrian. The accident was investigated by the CHP. DMV, after conducting a very minimal investigation, ordered Officer Eggleston's driver's license revoked, alleging that his negligence caused the fatality.
Officer Eggleston, through LDF panel attorney Dieter C. Dammeier of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC, immediately requested a hearing to dispute DMV's allegations and the revocation order. A hearing was held before hearing officer Susan Carpenter on September 11, 1998. In an effort to show the dangerous conditions of the intersection where the collision occurred, attorney Dammeier presented evidence to the hearing officer, including photographs, accident statistics, and testimony from Officer Eggleston. Officer Eggleston testified that he did not see the pedestrian until it was too late to avoid a collision, in part due to the poor lighting conditions and the view of the crosswalk being obstructed by another vehicle. A diagram of the intersection was prepared to give the hearing officer a better understanding of how the collision occurred.
Next, attorney Dammeier called CHP Officer Jerry Peralez to testify in regard to his investigation of the collision. It was established that the conclusions reached by Officer Peralez in his investigation were made without obtaining a statement from Officer Eggleston. Officer Peralez' report was limited to the information he received from witnesses at the scene.
Officer Peralez, after hearing Officer Eggleston testify, explained that with the further information he had as a result of Officer Eggleston's testimony, he would change the conclusions in his report which would be more favorable to Officer Eggleston. When questioned by attorney Dammeier, Officer Peralez explained that police officers sometimes have to push the envelope when it comes to driving to calls or backing up other police officers. He testified that it is sometimes more dangerous to drive Code-3 than to just get there as fast as you can while still looking out for the safety of the public. This information was helpful because Officer Eggleston was not rolling Code-3 and witnesses had estimated his speed between 5 and 15 miles over the speed limit.
In closing argument, attorney Dammeier argued that the DMV's evidence did not support a finding that Officer Eggleston was at fault. Further, Dammeier made strong public policy arguments that sometimes police officers have to push the envelope when responding to aid the public or fellow officers and punishing them for that would send a bad message to the police community.
The hearing officer overturned the revocation and ordered no action to be taken against Officer Eggleston's
license.
|
