Suit Claims Injury by Irvine Police : Report Sheds More Light on Autistic Youth’s Arrest

Sections of an Orange County district attorney’s office report on the arrest of an autistic youth by Irvine police last April are at variance with a two-page summary of the report, issued in July, that seemed to absolve the three officers involved of any misconduct in the incident.

A Superior Court commissioner on Tuesday ordered the release of additional sections of the report to an attorney representing Guido Rodriguez Jr., 18, whose family has charged in a civil suit that their son lost a kidney as a result of rough handling by police.

Several officers involved in the arrest stated in their reports that they suspected Rodriguez, who has a mental age of about 4, was under the influence of the drug PCP.

The more detailed report, however, indicates that one of the officers, Shari Lohman, had reason to believe the young man may have been mentally ill or retarded rather than on drugs but did not convey this possibility when broadcasting a request for assistance. Radio logs of the incident have not been released.

Another part of the district attorney’s summary concluded that there was “no evidence” that Rodriguez’s struggle with the officers had aggravated the condition of his kidney, which was congenitally enlarged and eventually would have required removal.

But the more detailed report discloses that the physician who removed the kidney said that bleeding had begun moments after the struggle and stopped after its removal.

“This type of kidney is very prone to have injury,” Dr. Chang-Hawn Park told investigators. “Any kind of injury to it could cause Guido to bleed to death.” (Several days after the arrest, the Rodriguezes’ family doctor, J. E. Altamirano, linked the urinary bleeding to “recent trauma” to the enlarged kidney.)

The incident began on a Sunday afternoon, while Rodriguez was riding his bicycle near his Irvine home. According to her written account, Officer Lohman spotted the youth and tried to stop him because she thought the bicycle he was riding was stolen or that “he was possibly on drugs.”

Rodriguez abandoned the bike and fled. Lohman pursued him and radioed for assistance.

Irvine police have not yet made public the text of the radio logs dealing with the incident.

According to three witnesses who approached Lohman while she was radioing for assistance, the officer told them she wasn’t certain of Rodriguez’s mental condition.

A high school student, Ivan Adrian Serdar, “said she told them that ‘she didn’t know if he was retarded or what; just really weird,’ ” according to the summary.

Rudy Lozano, another high school student who was walking with Serdar, “said the officer asked him if they had observed the person and asked them, ‘was he on drugs or was he retarded?’ ” the summary stated.

Told He Was Retarded

The third witness, Peter Joseph Levandowski, said that he told Lohman that Rodriguez was retarded and, according to the summary: “He said this officer acknowledged that she was aware of this information.”

The possibility that Rodriguez might be retarded, in any case, apparently was not communicated to Sgt. James Lowder, one of the other officers involved in the arrest.

“Based on Officer Lohman’s statement,” Lowder wrote in his report, “and my own observations of the subject, I felt that it was possible the subject was having some type of reaction to a drug he had ingested,” a drug he later wrote was “possibly PCP,” known as “Angel Dust.”

Lowder, who responded to the radio call and was soon joined by Lohman and Officer David Stoermer, pursued Rodriguez into his garage, and subdued and handcuffed the youth in his front yard. A neighbor, Brian David Treser, “told Officer Stoermer that Guido was mentally retarded,” the summary states, and “Officer Stoermer replied something to the effect that he was not aware of that information.”

All Charges Dropped

After discussion with Rodriguez’s parents, he was freed and all charges were dropped.

The July investigation summary--which was in the form of a cover letter from Maurice L. Evans, deputy district attorney for special assignments, to Irvine Police Chief Leo Peart--concluded: “After an exhaustive review of all the information gathered, we have found no evidence to indicate there was criminal conduct involved in the arrest of Guido Rodriguez Jr.”

Sgt. Lowder, the summary concluded, used “reasonable force” in overcoming resistance of the youth and there was “no evidence” that he “used excessive force” in making the arrest.

Based on the complete district attorney’s report, which the City of Irvine declined to make available to the public at the time, Lt. Al Muir, a spokesman for the Police Department said that “in terms of our policies and departmental procedures, there was no violation of any sort on the part of the officers. . . . There will be no disciplining of the officers.”

Commissioner’s Ruling

On Tuesday, Superior Court Commissioner Greer H. Stroud ruled that nearly all remaining sections of the district attorney’s report be turned over to attorney Richard Peterson, who is representing the Rodriguez family. Excepted from the order are the investigators’ rough notes and the taped interviews with five Irvine police officers, including Lowder, Lohman and Stoermer.

At the request of attorneys representing the city and two of the officers, Stroud agreed to listen to the tapes before deciding whether Peterson will be permitted to have access to them.

Peterson, who characterized the district attorney’s report several times as “this so-called independent investigation,” said that he had no objection to allowing the officers’ attorneys to make copies of their clients’ tapes in the interim, or to the attorney for the City of Irvine making copies of all five, in advance of the commissioner’s decision.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Evans’ summary cover letter noted that “our office independently interviewed 81 civilian witnesses who appeared to have pertinent information on the matter.” Examination of the summaries indicates that at least a score of the 81 were people whose interviews consisted of statements saying that they knew nothing or saw nothing.