Avoid further delay in investigation of two police officers

The old cliché “justice delayed is justice denied” remains pertinent.

On July

27, an interaction between San Rafael police officers and a gardener named Julio Jimenez Lopez, who was drinking beer in public after work in the Canal neighborhood, resulted in Jimenez Lopez suffering a broken nose and traumatic brain injuries, according to a claim filed by his lawyers against the city.

After officers approached Jimenez Lopez and his friends, words were exchanged. What should have been a minor encounter escalated. Fortuitously, the incident was caught on video by one officer's body camera.

Lopez retained an attorney and filed a claim, the first step toward filing a civil suit for monetary damages against San Rafael. District Attorney Lori Frugoli initially filed a felony charge against Jimenez Lopez but it was quickly dismissed. Now the DA's office is conducting its investigation to determine whether the two officers should be charged with unreasonable or excessive use of force.

The city is now spending thousands of tax dollars retaining communications experts to rebuild community relations and repair two-way dialogue with the Latino community. It's not a stretch to believe that the firm will help smooth things over should the investigation lead to an outcome some might find objectionable.

I have no idea if either Jimenez Lopez or the two officers were “in the right” or “in the wrong.”

I do know that a delay of over eight months is an unusually long time to finish an investigation and arrive at a conclusion. I spent 45 years as a trial lawyer representing individual clients in hundreds of civil suits involving personal injuries; some were the result of assaults. Most experienced lawyers can complete their investigation within a month.

In considering Jimenez Lopez's civil action, the investigation must start with a key piece of evidence: the video. Then the statements of the two officers, Jimenez Lopez and the bystanders are taken, each with their attorney present. If any refuse to give a voluntary statement, they'll be informed it's futile. When Jimenez Lopez's suit is filed in Marin Superior Court, sworn depositions of all witnesses will be taken under subpoena.

This is not a complex process. It's an everyday occurrence. Even if the investigation clears the officers, Jimenez Lopez will still have his day in civil court before a jury.

I'm no expert in criminal matters, but either the parties are willing to give their statements, or they aren't. In any event, it's likely the DA has as much information as she is ever going to get.

It's better for all concerned to be transparent, stop the delay, complete the process, disclose the investigation's findings, file charges against the officers (or not) and then let the chips fall where they may.

***

Last week, I wrote about the possibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission placing another Bay Area regional measure on the ballot to raise bridge toll to aid transit agencies experiencing post-pandemic patronage declines. MTC's spokesperson John Goodwin wrote saying that from wherever those rumbling came, it wasn't from MTC. They've given no consideration to another toll hike.

Goodwin explained, “Your column is correct that MTC is beginning early work for a possible regional transportation measure that may be put before voters. I want to emphasize that there's been no discussion at all about this being another toll increase.”

He added, “To help many of the Bay Area's transit operators avoid falling off a `fiscal cliff' MTC is turning to legislators, not toll payers.”

In other words, they are looking for California taxpayers to fund the current level of transit services and employee headcount despite the dramatic decrease of ridership. Since money to run half-filled trains and buses needs to come from other projects that will soon be on the chopping block. The alternative is imposing a new Bay Area-wide transit tax.