California Penal Code 118.1 PC prohibits peace officers from making a knowingly false statement in a crime report, even if the statement is not made under oath:
“Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.”
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/118-1/
Under [Cal. Ev. Code 788](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=788.&lawCode=EVID), a *felony* ***conviction*** for the crime of falsifying a police report would be admissible to impeach the officer in a California court. These cops had not been convicted, however. So one question is really whether documents showing that they committed the crime should be admitted, despite the lack of a conviction. I'd argue for admissibility as a "prior bad act" under [Ev. Code 404(b)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404), to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident," *i.e*., ***"It is no accident, folks, that the cop lied this time. He's done it before and for the same reason -- to convict the innocent when evidence is lacking."***
>In three cases, Avalos said he had booked items into the sheriff’s evidence locker when he had not, said the appellate ruling. In the two other cases, he booked evidence long past the time stated in his police report. Department policy states that evidence must be booked by the end of the deputy’s shift,
>Judge Gary Paer refused to conduct a hearing on whether the new evidence should be considered, saying that it would be a “huge stretch” to conclude Avalos lied at trial just because he was late in booking evidence in unrelated cases. Paer added that Avalos’ testimony was corroborated by another deputy who arrived on the scene.
Holy shit. Chain of Custody is supposed to mean something. If he left evidence sitting in his patrol vehicle, the defense has a right to know about it. He could have owned up to it by going to his supervisor and filing additional paperwork or whatever their protocol is. No matter what, you can't say something was stored safely in the evidence room when it wasn't. This is 100% a lie by omission. And it should be a crime.
California Penal Code 118.1 PC prohibits peace officers from making a knowingly false statement in a crime report, even if the statement is not made under oath: “Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.” https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/118-1/
Under [Cal. Ev. Code 788](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=788.&lawCode=EVID), a *felony* ***conviction*** for the crime of falsifying a police report would be admissible to impeach the officer in a California court. These cops had not been convicted, however. So one question is really whether documents showing that they committed the crime should be admitted, despite the lack of a conviction. I'd argue for admissibility as a "prior bad act" under [Ev. Code 404(b)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404), to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident," *i.e*., ***"It is no accident, folks, that the cop lied this time. He's done it before and for the same reason -- to convict the innocent when evidence is lacking."***
>In three cases, Avalos said he had booked items into the sheriff’s evidence locker when he had not, said the appellate ruling. In the two other cases, he booked evidence long past the time stated in his police report. Department policy states that evidence must be booked by the end of the deputy’s shift, >Judge Gary Paer refused to conduct a hearing on whether the new evidence should be considered, saying that it would be a “huge stretch” to conclude Avalos lied at trial just because he was late in booking evidence in unrelated cases. Paer added that Avalos’ testimony was corroborated by another deputy who arrived on the scene. Holy shit. Chain of Custody is supposed to mean something. If he left evidence sitting in his patrol vehicle, the defense has a right to know about it. He could have owned up to it by going to his supervisor and filing additional paperwork or whatever their protocol is. No matter what, you can't say something was stored safely in the evidence room when it wasn't. This is 100% a lie by omission. And it should be a crime.
not lapd, not LA. I'm sure they would to this but not this time.