On January 30, 1998, a Superior Court judge for
Madera County dismissed felony false police report charges which were
filed against Madera County Deputy Sheriff Sergeant Darrell Hibbens. The
case arose out of an allegation made by a deputy, who, at the time of
the incident, had eight months experience.
Hibbens had been on the job for 17 years. The judge
dismissed the fourth count alleging Hibbens filed a false police report
in violation of Penal Code subsection 118. 1. Hibbens was represented by
PORAC LDF attorney, Stuart D. Adams of the law firm of Goyette &
Adams.
A preliminary hearing was held on January 29 and 30,
1998, at the Bass Lake Municipal Court. All other judges in Madera
County had recused themselves from hearing the matter because they knew
Hibbens through his 17 years of service with the county.
The facts underlying the Penal Code subsection 118.1
charge arose out of a disturbance call to which Hibbens responded along
with the new sheriff's deputy. The incident took place on June 13, 1997,
at approximately 5 a.m.
Hibbens and the deputy arrived at the scene and made
contact with minors outside of the residence who had been drinking
alcohol. The minors were taken into custody and placed in the patrol
unit.
Hibbens and the deputy then went to inspect the
house. They walked behind the house, Hibbens in the lead. At the rear
door they were contacted by an individual who represented himself as the
resident of the house.
When asked for identification the individual said he
had it in a back bedroom and proceeded to walk back into the house to
get his identification. Hibbens and the deputy entered.
Once inside they encountered minors sleeping.
There were containers of beer throughout the residence and kegs located
in the garage area adjacent to the kitchen.
While Hibbens inspected the house looking for other
minors who may have been drinking, the other deputy attempted to arouse
two minors sleeping on the floor. Both minors became combative which
resulted in Hibbens having to return and assist the deputy in taking the
two into custody.
The two were taken into the patrol unit. The previous
individuals who had been placed in custody were released to make room
for the minors who had committed the assault on the deputy because there
were no other units available to transport and the assault was far more
serious than the drinking in public charges. Hibbens and the deputy left
without further incident.
The suspects were booked for assault on a
police officer and resisting arrest. Approximately two days later, the
deputy read Hibbens' report. The deputy felt there were discrepancies.
Specifically, the deputy felt that: The report said
there were kegs in the "kitchen area" and he did not see kegs
in the kitchen; the deputy felt the individual at the door told the
officers to wait while Hibben's report stated the individual
"allowed" the officers to enter; and, the deputy felt that
upon arrival he did not recall hearing music while Hibbens' report
stated that he heard loud music when they first arrived.
The deputy took his concerns to a different sergeant.
That sergeant submitted the matter to a lieutenant and a criminal
investigation was commenced. At the preliminary hearing, the deputy was
called to testify. He testified to the facts as stated previously.
On cross examination, by attorney Adams,
however, he admitted that within two hours of the incident he had been
in a serious automobile accident wherein the vehicle he was driving had
rolled over. He had responded directly from the scene of the accident to
this call with Hibbens who had picked him up at the accident scene.
Additionally, the deputy admitted he had been working since 3 p.m. the
previous afternoon and was actually in his sixth hour of overtime when
responding to the call.
The investigating officer was also called to testify
regarding the statements he took from the individuals who were at the
residence. He testified that the individuals told him that the kegs were
not in the kitchen, the music was not playing when the deputies arrived
and the individual at the door told the officers to wait.
On cross-examination, however, it was demonstrated
that the kegs were visible through a window into the kitchen because the
garage door was in the kitchen. Even the deputy admitted the kegs could
be visible through the kitchen window.
Additionally on cross examination of the
investigating officer it was demonstrated that one of the individuals in
the house told the investigating officer that the music had indeed been
on immediately prior to the deputies arrival at the residence. This was
consistent with the fact that the deputies had to walk approximately 100
yards to get to the rear of the residence.
This left open the argument that the music was on as
they approached, but was turned down once the individuals inside
realized the police were walking up the driveway. Finally, it was
demonstrated through the cross-examination the investigating officer
that the individual who opened the back door opened it first
approximately six inches and then opened it another 12 as he stepped
away from the door as if to allow he officers in.
The judge interpreted this as a basis for determining
that in fact Hibbens believed that he was being allowed into the
residence and used it as the foundation to dismiss the charges.
The judge ruled that the District Attorney's office
failed to meet its burden of proving that a crime had been committed
with respect to Penal Code section 118.1 charges and dismissed it. The
District Attorney has 15 days from January 30, 1998 to re-file the case
in Superior Court.
According to attorney Adams, he would be
extremely surprised if the District Attorney elected to re-file the
charges given the extensive damage that was done to the case at the
preliminary hearing. "I went in there to win that case at the
preliminary hearing.
"I told the judge that if ever there was a case
that needed to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing it was this one.
The Judge agreed," Adams said.
