People v. Schweitzer

Opinion

STEPHENS, Acting P. J. Defendant was convicted of reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103). His appeal was transferred to this court from the appellate department of the superior court pursuant to rule 62(a), of the California Rules of Court.

The facts are these:1 while on routine patrol, with a fellow officer, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Souza observed a motorcycle traveling 55 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. The motorcycle did not have a rear view mirror. Souza pursued the motorcycle, which increased its speed to 60 miles per hour while traveling through a 35 mile per hour zone. At' one point Souza clocked the motorcycle at 75 miles per hour in a 35-mile zone. Souza observed that the motorcycle failed to stop for 2 boulevard stop signs. While [206]Souza was in pursuit, but some distance behind the motorcycle, the driver stopped to let off its passenger, Ingrid Wenzel. The motorcycle then sped off, eluding the officers’ pursuit.

After losing sight of the motorcycle, Souza returned to the intersection where Wenzel had been let off and found her still there. Souza testified, in essence, that Wenzel asked if she was in any trouble, and that he told her that would depend on whether the driver was fleeing because he had committed some criminal act, whether the motorcycle was stolen, and whether she had anything to do with his fleeing. Souza told Wenzel that he might have to take her to the police station to find these things out, but he did not threaten her with arrest. He further testified that Wenzel was worried because she did not want her parents to find out about the incident, that she was very angry with the driver for having placed her in the position she was in, and that she was fully cooperative with the officer throughout his interview with her. She identified defendant by name as the driver of the motorcycle. She did not know defendant’s address, but knew where his house was located and led Souza and other officers to it. Afterwards two police officers took Wenzel home, as she had no other means of transportation.

Wenzel, by contrast, testified that when the officer first approached her, she asked him if he had caught defendant, and the officer immediately told her that she was under arrest as an accomplice. She was very frightened because she had never before had any problems with police. She further testified that the officer implied that if she did not give him the information he wanted, she would be taken to the police station. She was scared that she would be taken into custody, scared about her parents’ reaction if that happened, and would have “done anything to get out of this situation.” It was in this state of mind that she told the officers defendant’s name and showed them to his home.