 |
Delano Police Officer Acquitted of Filing a False Police Report and
Destroying Evidence
By: Julio Jaramillo
Lackie &
Dammeier
On August 16, 2007,
after deliberating for less than ninety-minutes, a Kern County jury
found Delano Police Officer Rebecca Macklin not guilty of charges of
falsification of a police report and destruction of evidence in regard
to her on-duty investigation of an assault with a deadly weapon call.
Throughout the trial Julio Jaramillo of Lackie & Dammeier represented
Officer Macklin.
Officer Macklin and her trainee were dispatched
to handle an assault with a deadly weapon report. Almost immediately
after entering the apartment, Officer Macklin smelled what she believed
to be the odor of marijuana. As Officer Macklin searched the apartment
she observed a clear plastic baggie, which contained a green leafy
substance. She surmised that there was less than one ounce of marijuana
in the baggie. Officer Macklin took custody of the baggie, and as her
trainee continued the assault investigation, she began to speak with the
tenants of the apartment regarding her find. As she did so, she also
observed an electronic scale in the kitchen on one of the counter tops.
No one in the apartment claimed ownership of the baggie and it’s
contents or the electronic scale.
As her trainee
finished the assault investigation, Officer Macklin determined she did
not have sufficient probable cause to place anyone under arrest for
possession of the suspected marijuana. Furthermore, based upon the
small quantity of the substance, the fact that she did not observe
anyone in possession of the substance, Officer Macklin utilized her
discretion and decided to not make an arrest. Rather, she took custody
of the suspected marijuana and the electronic scale. Both officers then
left the apartment.
Officer Macklin
placed the baggie containing the suspected marijuana along with the
scale in the trunk of her unit. After handling other calls for service
they returned to the station to do reports. It is here that the
versions of events differ between Officer Macklin and her trainee.
Officer Macklin recalls telling her trainee to book the suspected
marijuana and the scale into the found property locker. The trainee
recalls seeing Officer Macklin take a plastic baggie from the truck and
put it inside her equipment bag as she cleared the unit.
The trainee prepared
their report regarding the assault with a deadly weapon investigation.
Upon her review of the report she noted that he had included information
and names of the tenants of the apartment, in conjunction with facts
about the suspected marijuana, in the assault report. Officer Macklin
believed that neither the suspected marijuana, nor the electronic scale
located inside the apartment were related to the assault investigation.
As such, she directed her trainee to delete the names of the tenants of
the apartment, which he had included in the report, along with any
mention of the possession of marijuana investigation, from the assault
report.
A few days later,
prior to washing the car, Officer Macklin opened the trunk to clear out
garbage. She noticed, what appeared to be a green leafy substance,
falling on the wet pavement. She realized that what had fallen onto the
ground was the green leafy substance she had located a few days prior at
the apartment. Officer Macklin noticed that among some of the items of
trash, which she grabbed out of the truck, was a plastic baggie
containing the green leafy substance. She also realized that all but a
few particles had already fallen onto the ground. Upon returning to the
police station, Officer Macklin counseled her trainee, in no that his
actions of failing to book the suspected marijuana was unacceptable.
Almost three weeks
later, Officer Macklin’s trainee filed a complaint against her alleging,
among other things, that Officer Macklin had instructed him to delete
names and information regarding the suspected marijuana from the assault
report and that she had destroyed evidence. Upon learning of these
accusations, the Delano Chief of Police wasted no time in encouraging
the Kern County District Attorney’s Office to conduct a criminal
investigation into these events The Kern County District Attorney’s
Office filed a two-count criminal complaint against Officer Macklin.
Regarding count one,
falsification of a police report, the prosecution first argued that
through an act of omission, Officer Macklin falsified a police report.
Regarding count two, destruction of evidence, the prosecution surmised
that since Office Macklin had a duty to make an arrest regarding the
suspected marijuana, and she had failed to do so, when she stomped the
substance into the pavement at the car wash, that that constituted a
destruction of evidence.
The prosecutions
case rested completely on the testimony of the trainee officer and a 32
year-veteran of the Delano police department, which the district
attorney used as her expert in police practice and procedure along with
report writing. On direct examination of the trainee, the district
attorney attempted elicit testimony regarding the substance believed to
be marijuana, which was located in the apartment and the possibility
that what the officers actually had confronted at the apartment was the
crime of possession of marijuana for sales, a felony. This was an
attempt by the prosecutor to paint Officer Macklin’s conduct in a false
light. The argument by the district attorney was that since Officer
Macklin located marijuana and an electronic scale in the apartment, that
what she obviously did, by not arresting a tenant, was ignore a felony
being committed in her presence (possession for sales).
The defenses’
case-in-chief consisted of only two witnesses: Officer Macklin and Mr.
Roger Clark, a former Los Angels Sheriff’s Department lieutenant who is
a nationally recognized expert in the filed of police procedures.
Officer Macklin showed on the witness stand her experience as a police
officer, her character for honesty and her passion for the true facts of
this case. Mr. Clark instructed the jury on the important and salient
points of police procedure and by contrast with the prosecutions
“expert” witness presented himself as the true “expert.”
On August 16, 2007,
after an almost a two week trial, the jury returned with two not guilty
verdicts. As the clerk read out loud each verdict, Officer Macklin wept
with joy. In speaking with members of the jury afterwards one
resounding question was asked: why? One female juror, with anger in her
voice asked defense counsel, “why would the district attorney’s office
spend all this taxpayer money, on this type of case where the officer
obviously did nothing illegal?” Another male juror asked, “why would an
officer who is just doing her job be put through this?”
|
