A man was punched repeatedly by a California cop, he's now accusing the officer of excessive use of force and filing a false report to cover up his unlawful use of force.
A man was punched repeatedly by a California cop, he's now accusing the officer of excessive use of force and filing a false report to cover up his unlawful use of force.
A man was punched repeatedly by a California cop, he's now accusing the officer of excessive use of force and filing a false report to cover up his unlawful use of force.
A man was punched repeatedly by a California cop, he's now accusing the officer of excessive use of force and filing a false report to cover up his unlawful use of force.
Semi dvsneun
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P= CFIVED
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
SHARON PETROSINO 17 aoept: W-1
Public Defender ‘Bates 1/8/2018
Orange Count cen Estctime: 1 hr.
SCO’ SANDERS OCT ¥7 2018
Assistant Public Defender
state Bar No.
14120 Beach Bivd., Suite Ze aera.
i iforni: IBALC iam nu iT
‘Westminster, California 9268346 aw we Saator i Ney,
WESTMENeTER ca a4
Telephone: (714) 896-7281 Laity
Fax: (714) 896-7368
Attorneys for Defendant Mohamed Zahangir Sayem
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE, WEST JUSTICE CENTER
Case No.: 18WF1909
NOTICE AND MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY OF PEACE OFFICER
PERSONNEL RECORDS; POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT.
THEREOF; DECLARATION OF
COUNSEL AND EXHIBITS.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MOHAMED ZAHANGIR SAYEM,
Defendant.
TO: THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THE CLERK OF|
THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 8, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as|
counsel may be heard in Department W-1 of the above-entitled court, Defendant Mohamed!
Zahangir Sayem will move this Court for an order directing the Orange County Sheriff's
Department (“OCSD”) to disclose information from peace officers” personnel files pursuant
to Evidence Code sections 1043-1046, Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531,
jAbativ. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.ath 39, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 US. 83,
and in accordance with Mr. Sayem’s state and federal constitutional rights of due process,
confrontation, and cross-examination.
1 Pitchess Motion ~ SayemSema dvsu run
SUMMARY OF MOTION
Defendant Mohamed Zahangir Sayem seeks personnel records related to three officers
employed by the OCSD: one who committed an unjustified felony assault with force likely
to cause great bodily injury and then filed a false police report, the second who filed a false
police report, and a third who as a supervising sergeant aided and abetted in the filing of a
false police report. In sum, Officer Michael Devitt committed a brutal act of excessive foree,
and then decided that rather than take responsibility for his actions he would collaborate with
a fellow officer and his sergeant to fabricate facts in hopes of securing the defendant's
wrongful felony conviction of violating Penal Code (“P.C.") Section 69.
On August 19, 2018, Officer Michael Devitt approached Sayem’s vehicle in the city
of Stanton. Sayem was passed out in the driver's seat. Devitt approached Sayem on the
driver's side of the vehicle, and made several attempts to wake him up before succeeding,
The car was turned off. Devitt removed the key from the ignition. Deputy Eric Otal
Positioned himself on the passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. Devitt and Ota spoke|
with Sayem, who appeared obviously intoxicated to the officers and gave a number off
partially understandable answers, statements, and insults—often chuckling and falling in the|
car as he delivered them. On several instances, the officers asked him to repeat or clarify]
what he said, as the officers asked that he give his identification. After having not received!
the identification, Sayem appears to intend to walk away from the vehicle—placing his foot
outside of the vehicle. Devitt warmed Sayem to stay in the vehicle. When Sayem again put
his foot outside of the vehicle, Devitt pushed back on Sayem. Sayem then said “Don’t touch!
me like that.”
Sayem then tried to pull away from Devitt, who responded by yanking Sayem by his
left arm out of the vehicle. Sayem appears to have pushed on the horn with his right hand as
hhe was being pulled, and then clung to the steering wheel with his right hand. Once forcibly|
removed from the car and up against the side of the vehicle, Sayem’s left arm came free of
Devitt’s grasp as he clung to the steering wheel. Devitt then grabbed Sayem near his face
2 Pitchess Motion ~ SayemSemin asuawn
and neck while using the car to prevent Sayem from moving, Devitt proceeded to grab Sayem|
on the side of his face and then punch him repeatedly with a closed fist. It appears that Devitt
Punched Sayem approximately six times. By the third punch, Sayem appears to have lost
consciousness. At some point around the time of the third and fourth punches, Sayem’s right
hand fell from the steering wheel. After Devitt delivered the fifth punch, Ota, who had come
around from the other side of the vehicle, forcefully yanked Sayem downward. Sayem’s right|
arm collapsed onto the back of Devitt’s neck. As Sayem continued to fall toward the ground,
Devitt delivered the sixth punch and then pulled Sayem’s arm off from around his neck: and
Sayem fell onto the ground, where he was handcuffed by Devitt and Ota. Sayem suffered
injuries to his face and leg. With Sayem lying face first on the ground, and barely moving
after being beaten up, Devitt said, “Moe needs to calm down a little bit.” Later, while still
face first on the ground, Sayem asked the officers, “Are you going to shoot me?” Devitt
answered “No.” Ota said, “Like to.” Sayem said, “C’mon bro. Really?...Really?” Neither
officer responded.
While Devitt admitted in his report to punching Sayem, as described below, hel
fictionalized key details, including Sayem’s violence in order to justify his own use of force,
Sergeant Christopher Hibbs quickly arrived on scene, and received Devitt’s first description
of what occurred just seven minutes after Sayem hit the ground. Hibbs took another statement!
from Devitt approximately ten minutes later, and the sergeant repeated to Devitt his
understanding of what occurred. Hibbs’ MVAR (“dash cam”) captured the statements made
by Devitt prior to the audio being turned off. (See footnote 2.) Hibbs later approved the|
reports written by Devitt (and Ota),! even though he knew that Devitt had changed his|
description of the incident in material aspects.
There were two particularly significant changes to Devitt’s story—both of which|
' Hibbs’ report—if written—has not been disclosed to date. Based upon Hibbs’ history
discussed herein, itis certainly understandable why he would have been strongly opposed
writing a report that contradicted his fellow deputies’ official description of events.
3 Pitchess Motion — Sayem