KELSEYVILLE – A federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday ruled a local California Highway Patrol officer acted appropriately during an April 2004 traffic stop which ended with an arrest.
Officer Dan Frederick, a former Marine and a member of the Clear Lake CHP Office, was cleared of any wrongdoing in the suit, lodged by Jose Angel Martinez Romero in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Martinez Romero sued the CHP, Frederick and 10 unspecified defendants claiming his civil rights had been violated during a traffic stop at the intersection of Highway 29 and Live Oak Avenue on April 29, 2004.
A statement from the Clear Lake CHP Office on Friday said that Frederick stopped Martinez Romero for not wearing a seat belt. Frederick then discovered that Martinez Romero had no identification, was not licensed to drive in California and was driving a vehicle registered to someone else.
Frederick, following departmental policy and California law, then informed Martinez Romero he was going to impound the truck so that he could not continue to drive, the CHP statement said.
There were tools in the truck bed that Martinez Romero asked to have, but the CHP said Frederick explained to Martinez Romero several times that, because he had no identification, the tools had to remain with the truck until the registered owner of the truck came to claim them.
The CHP said Martinez Romero persisted in demanding the tools, at which point Frederick told him he would be arrested if he didn't leave the scene.
“Despite that warning, Martinez Romero tried to push past Officer Frederick in an attempt to gain entry to the bed of the truck,” the CHP reported. “Officer Frederick then told Martinez Romero that he was under arrest, and attempted to handcuff him. Martinez Romero resisted violently. In the struggle, both men fell to the ground.”
The fall resulted in Frederick injuring his left shoulder and Martinez Romero dislocating his left hip, according to the CHP.
The case galvanized the local Latino community, who believed that Martinez Romero – studying at the time to become a priest – had been unfairly treated. Community meetings subsequently were held to help him raise money for his defense.
Richard L. Coshnear, one of Martinez Romero's four attorneys, said Friday he defended Martinez Romero in a subsequent criminal case in which he was charged for assaulting Frederick. Coshnear said those charges were dismissed after being found “utterly groundless.” Those charges were dropped in October of 2004.
Federal court documents show that Martinez Romero filed his case in federal court on July 25, 2005.
Court documents reveal that Frederick's legal team had attempted to find out more about Martinez Romero's immigration status. However, Coshnear said, Judge Martin J. Jenkins ruled that wasn't an issue.
During the trial, Coshnear said Martinez Romero's legal team focused on certain aspects of the incident, including whether Frederick ever actually wrote Martinez Romero a ticket, or if Martinez Romero actually gave his name at the time of the traffic stop.
Coshnear added, “We believe that in the trial CHP Officer Dan Frederick was impeached and shown to have lied about several issues, including how he took Mr. Martinez down to the ground.”
Harry Gower, a deputy attorney general with the Department of Justice who was on Frederick's defense team, dismissed Coshnear's claims.
“They're basically hanging their whole case on minor details,” Gower said.
What Coshnear alleged were “lies” were actually minor mistakes in reporting, said Gower. Frederick himself brought the mistakes to the court's attention, said Gower, when he pointed out an incorrect date on the citation he wrote for Martinez Romero.
“That's their whole case, is that based on those minor errors Officer Frederick is not believable,” said Gower.
In the end, the jury didn't agree with Martinez Romero's assertions.
The trial, said Gower, was six days long, yet the jury only took two hours “to figure out that the plaintiff's version of events was just completely incredible.”
Gower said once under oath, Martinez Romero's witnesses gave testimony that backed up Frederick's version of events.
“Coshnear got some very bad information from his client,” said Gower.
The verdict delivered Wednesday found that Frederick had not violated Martinez Romero's rights, according to the CHP. The jury instead found that Frederick had tried to accommodate Martinez Romero during the enforcement contact, and that he had acted within California and federal law.
CHP's statement also said the jury found “no evidence of any racial animus or bias as claimed by Martinez Romero’s legal team,” and that Martinez Romero’s injury “was the result of his own violent resistance to a lawful arrest.” As a result, the jury refused to award any money to Martinez Romero or his attorneys.
Coshnear said the defense team believes the jury didn't understand some of the judge's instructions in the case, and that they're looking into a possible appeal on behalf of Martinez Romero, who now lives in New Mexico.
Gower said there were very few jury instructions, which he said were “clearly laid out in plain English.”
He added, “The jury completely understood what was going on,” which was why it took them less than two hours to come back with a verdict in Frederick's favor.
Gower said anyone can file an appeal, but he feels that, given the circumstances of the case and the jury's quick decision, an appeal “is a waste of time.”
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
