LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ‘CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET Page 1 of 12 TERETE TDACHSENG, ESDEEBO TE TST xreow — | CHPewair [ AGERE ALENGCORORURR) | DROFFICECOOE ‘TI ASSISTANCE REPERRA MSDEMEANOR | 5505513 SLD. #15.0076R CIYE = NOTIY WAP ED WO suse CHARGES 7 suspect fcooe | secron | OmENSE [REASON TET FT ROOT Po 19x1CKN) —sa7taror9 4 ee PC 192{C)2) —tartazors 8 1 [oe SEK | BOOKIE KS WE Yes Re suios77 |e Taste AST FRET OORT 2 Tor SEX] BOORRGWS. TS Yer We ang henber_nane of cang atm Gan arta Nene ag “vam are im 008 Ta ST PRT OLE 3 Toor SEX BOOKS WO: VP Yer Ro ang amber Nane oa ‘iam Gang Merber Name Ga eam Nene vier 008: SEE ATTACHMENT CORP EFT TSAR | COMPAR OPT TR | STATE BAR ROSA ALARCON/ap ot {have conveyed all relevant information tothe above-named Deputy Distt Attorney tobe used n consideration TEAR OF TEE | 8 ‘aeasow-cooes ‘CORALS. e rua Searvoate | 6 uncorncen sovarun- mailed 11/2 ‘Vicon GoavaTantoecnes | FOr ns Wo ason Wiese inaatabeectnes |. Reroute ‘Combined wih Ober 4 Dated for Revocation of frre urtce i. Farber vestigation DisImcrarronNers Hessov CODES Probation Viton dn Rt tery HYNNYP -SWWN 1S WN ISU Twi ‘6996098 "H3ANINN 3SvO vO‘Charge Evaluation Wosksheet SID. Fle #15-0078R ‘CHP. Fie #SF-085-15 Page2of 12 The Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Angeles County Distict Attorney's Office has completed its review of the allegation that Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Deputy Kamal Jannah, Serial #457217, committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter, in violation of Penal Code section 192(c)(1) and (2). For the reasons set forth below, this office declines to initiate criminal proceedings against Deputy Jannah. “The following analysis is based on reports prepared by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Multdisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT), submited to this office for filing consideration by CHP Sergeant K. Miller! Compelled statements were not considered a part ofthis analysis. FACTUAL ANALYSIS Statement of Deputy Kamal Jannah ‘On December 14,2013, at approximately 4:00 p.m. LASD Depaty Kamal Jannah was seated in his patrol vehicle, a marked Ford Crown Victoria, writing reports on 11® Street ‘and Palmdale Boulevard inthe City of Palmdale. At approximately 430 pum. he heard a dispatch call ofa volunteer unit requesting assistance at 30” Street and East Avenue R. Jannah believed the call may have involved a physical altereation, Jannah did not immediately respond as he was stil completing his reports. Aer a short time, he began driving his patrol vehicle southbound on 11® Street East to make his way to the location ofthe call. While en route, there was some confusion regarding which ‘unt was responding tothe call and which units had already arrived onscene. Jannah ‘umed left onto East Avenue R and made a radio inquiry to determine the status of the call? ‘As Jannah was traveling eastbound on East Avenue R in the number one lane of traffic, ‘the request for assistance was once again broadcast by dispatch. Jannah utilized hs radio to inquire as to the type of call and to determine whether other units were responding and. ‘where they were located, He was traveling at 5 miles per hour at that time. The patrol vehicle's overhead lights and siren were not activated. {As Jannah approached 15 Stret East, he observed a Ford Explorer sopped at the stop sign onthe south side of 17" Street East, facing a northerly direction. The Explorer did rot have its tum signal activated, It was the only vehicle visible onthe eastside ofthe The incident occured within the jurisdiction ofthe LASD Palnale Station. The LASD requested the ‘CHP anime investigative responsblites. MATT, consisting of ivesigatrs with peiliaed sks and ‘ining in acedent constuction, afc engineering and automotive engineering, was assigned the investzation ints eet end conducted a highly detaled analysis ofthe inet. "ast Avene sn exswest roadvay with wo lanes of waffle in eter dieton, 2 Thee no sop sign her aueton on East Avene ae Iereconot 17° Stet EaCharge Evaluation Worksheet SLD File 15-0078 CHP. File #SFOSS-13 Page3 of 12 roadway. When Jannah was approximately one quarter of a mile west of 17 Street East, the Explorer began “inching out.” Jannah applied his brakes but believed the Explorer stopped so he continved forward, Jannah then observed the Explore pul into the eastbound number two lane of trai. ‘Jannah applied his brakes forcefully, released them and “pumped” them once or twice. He believed the Explorer was going to stop so he turned the patrol vehicle to the lft, into the westbound traffic lanes, in an attempt fo go around the vehicle and avoid a broadside collision, ‘The Explorer continued northbound across the eastbound traffic lanes and erossed into the westbound traffic lanes of East Avenue R without stopping. Jannah applied full braking tothe patrol vehicle but was unable to stop before colliding with the Explorer. ‘After the collision, Jannab attempted to use his radio to request essistance but the vehicle's radio would not transmit and the battery to his handheld radio was depleted. He ‘observed two people lying on the roadway to the rear of his patrl vehicle, along with a large amount of debris. Due tothe pain he was experiencing to his ribs and chest, he was ‘unable to render them assistance. He requested emergency assisance via his Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT) and utilized a civlian’s cellular phone fo call dispatch, Statement of Genaro Vasquez, Jr. ‘On December 14, 2013, Genaro Vasquez spent the morning with family members in San Femando.* He returned to his home in Palmdale at 1:00 pm. After having lunch with his family, he eft his home to purchase drinks at Pyramid Market, which was located approximately four blocks from his residence. He drove his Ford Explorer and was accompanied by his cousin, Robert Delgadillo, and two friends, Joseph Espinosa and ‘Sara Paynter. Espinosa sat inthe front passenger seat, Delgado sat in the middle rear seat and Paynter sat in the right rear seat. ‘Vasquez and Espinosa wore their seatbelts. Vasquez did not recall whether Delgadillo and Paynter were wearing their seatbelts. ‘Vasquez was traveling northbound on 17 Street East, south of East Avenue R, approaching the stop sign. He stopped at the stop sign but moved forward so he could ‘see past a wall and a utility pole that were obstructing his view tthe left, Across the roadway from him, Vasquez observed a female driver facing south on 17 Street East at “This statement noah sed tha the Explorer was the only veil visible fom the east sie ofthe roadway. From his deseripton of evens, i appears tha he rean te southside ofthe roadvay $Vaxgue elated that he awoke a approximately 6:30 am. He ad breakfasts 8:30 am. and sbsequenly wed mdicnal marijuana, which evra prescribed for ansity He wad sporoinatly one Bou 0 ‘Smedown fom the effet ofthe marian and hen dove his vehicle o San Fernando. Vasquez dd notexhbit any symptoms of intoxication following the olson.‘Charge Evaluation Worksheet ASLD.File#15-0078R CAH. ile #SF-055-13 Page 4 of 12 East Avenve R. She had her left tum signal activated, He made eye contact with her and she “waved” at him to go.* Vasquez briefly looked in both directions. To his left, he could see “all the way down to the next light” but didnot see any police cars or other vehicles traveling eastbound in his direction, nor did he hear the sound ofa siren. To his ight, he saw a vehicle approaching ‘westbound but “he thought he could make it, so he went.” Vasquez accelerated northbound across East Avenue Rat approximately five miles per hour. Approximately ‘two seconds later, his vehicle was struck by a police vehicle. After the collision, Vasquez remained in his vehicle fora short time. He asked if ‘everyone was “ok” but did not hear a response fom the rear passengers. He looked back ‘and observed thatthe rear seat was empty. Upon exiting his vehicle, he saw Delgadillo and Payater lying on the roadway. Vasquez saw the involved officer walking around with his cell phone. The officer did not contact him nor did Vasquez see the officer approach Delgadillo or Paynter, Statement of Joseph Espinosa, Joseph Espinosa was seated in the front passenger seat of the Ford Explorer. The vehicle ‘was stopped atthe stop sign facing northbound on 17* Street East at East Avenue R. Espinosa looked both ways and did not see any oncoming trafic from either the eastbound or westbound lanes of East Avenue R. Vasquez entered the intersection and ‘was beyond the double yellow lines when they were struck by another vehicle and the Explorer began spinning. Espinosa did not recall anything beyond that point. Espinosa ‘was wearing his seatbelt but it “came off” durin the collision, Statement of Kuchon Jackson ‘Kuchon Jackson was traveling westbound in the number one lane of traffic on East ‘Avenue R approaching the intersection of 17 Street East. He observed a patrol vehicle traveling eastbound East Avenue R approaching 17° Street East. The patrol vehicle did ‘not have its headlights or overhead emergency lights activated.” Jackson observed a Ford Explorer traveling northbound on 17* Street Fast at East ‘Avenue R. The vehicle rolled passed the limit line without stopping. It proceeded far ‘enough to not have any visual obstruction of the oncoming patrol vehicle. Jackson began to slow his vehiele when he noticed the SUV was not stopping atthe stop sign. Jackson observed the SUV hesitate fortwo to three seconds and then “suddenly and ‘guickly” accelerate forward into the intersection inthe direct path ofthe patrol vehicle. This person was never dete " Photos taken during the mechanical investigation confmad thatthe pal vices headlights were of ‘ince the ellison oecred rng aight hous, dhe fc hat he pal eis headlights were not on swap nota fer in MATT analysis‘Charge Evaluation Worksheet ISD. Fe #1S-00788 CaP, Fle #SF-058-13 Page Sof 12 ‘The driver of the SUV was looking toward his right at Jackson's vehicle when it “shot” {nc the intersection. The pattol veblele swerved right and then left before colliding with the SUV, Jackson slammed on his brakes and came to & stop. Jackson believed that if the collision hnad not occurred and the SUV continued driving into Jackson’s path of travel, Jackson ‘would have collided with the SUV had Jackson not abruptly stopped his vehicle. Jackson. estimated that the patrol vehicle was approxinately 20-30 feet west of 17 Street Fast ‘when the SUV entered its path of travel, Jackson believed that the driver of the SUV should have waited for traffic to clear before entering the intersection. Dispatch Recordings ‘The following information was obtained fror: the LASD Palmdale Metro L-Tac radio channel recordings forthe date of December I4, 2013: Call Number 6 423 pm: Unit60 VI: Thisis sixty vicor-one,is there any unis fo assistance on 30! Street Eastand Avenue RI? fora 415? Jannah: Are you involved? Unit 60 V1: Yeah, this guy’s just down and this guy just went erazy on his girlfriend or something Call Number 7 423 pm: Unknown Deputy: Hey wht’s your location again? Unit 60 VI 30" Stret East and Avenue R12. Unknown Deputy: Do youneed anybody code or just respond? Unit 60 VI just need a unit here just for assistance, you know. Jannah (unelea)...heading that way from 11 and R Dispatcher 263 you up? Unknown Deputy: Yeah, we are going 97 Dispateher: Copy si. ‘Unknown Deputy: Unclear ransmission. Unit 60 V1 It’s ah, 30 East and R-12. Jannah: Do we have any other units re (transmission cut of. Call Number 8 424 pm: Unknown Deputy: Hey on anyone, is turgor back a his tim "415 isthe Penal Code section for disturbing the pee‘Charge Evaluation Worksheet SID. Fle #15-0078R Che Filersr-0ss 13 Page 6of 12 Dispatcher: Units en route to 30 Street Fast and R-12, the unit advised non-emergent, just back-up a this time. Unknown Deputy: Unclear transmission? Call Number 9 426 pm: Dispatcher: Palmdale units 901T coming out at 17% East at Avenue R.!° Unknown Deputy: Tom-one in about two. Dispatcher: Copy uni to assist Unknown Deputy: Team two from the station Unknown Deputy: Units authorized code. Call Number 10 427 pm: Unknown Deputy 20-20 by. Dispatcher Units en route to that 9017, we have information ‘that one of the units involved is a black and white unit Usknown Deputy: Are they Fi ties and Autopsy Reports!" (On December 14,2013, Robert Delgado, age 31, and Sara Paynter, age 20, were pronounced dead at the seene by responding Los Angeles County Fire Department personnel ‘On December 16,2013, Deputy Medical Examiner Kevin Young, M., ofthe Los Angeles ‘County Coroner’s Office (LACCO), conducted a post-mortem examination on Sara Paynter. Dr. Young ascribed the cause of death to blunt free head trauma. On December 17,2013, Deputy Medical Examiner Martina Kennedy, D.O, of the LACCO, conducted a post-mortem examination on Robert Delgadillo. Dr. Kennedy ascribed the eause of death to multiple blunt force traumatic injuries Vehicle Damage “The Ford Explorer sustained major contact collision related damage primarily to the front left side. The left side of the bumper and the hood were bent inward and displaced to the * based on Global Pestoning System (GPS) infomation obtained from the pavo vec, was ‘determined that the eslision occured afew seconds afer 425 pm. and 18 seconds ‘0rT isthe aspuch code for trai calison "Janna, Vasque and Espinoza were not ivy injured a result ofthe cllson. Jannah was ‘wanaportto Antelope Valley Hospital where he was treated for pain toi sights, Vasquer refed ‘medial eaten nd transport othe oeptl bt ater complained of pin to hist shoulder, wer back ‘ad left ar, Espinosa was not tansported othe hospi and wasnt seriou inured inthe clision‘Charge Evaluation Worksheet SID. Files1S-00788 CHP. Fle #SF-055-15, Page 7 of 12 right. The grille, left headlamp assembly and lef turn signal were absent, Thete was also damage to the fender and front whee! face ‘The left sie of the Explorer sustained induced collision related damage. The fender, Ariver’s side door and passenger door were misaligned. The right side of the vehicle sustained minor induced collision related damage. The Explorer also sustained contact and induced collision related damage to is liftgate The liftgate was in an open position following the collision and bowed outward on the right side, It was creased inward on its left edge, the window was dislodged and the latches were damaged. ‘The Explorer's rear split bench seat was declined at different degrees atthe righ, middle and left seat positions. ‘The patrol vehicle sustained major collision related damage to its front end, The damage ‘was concentrated in an area that began at the right side of the front grill and extended ‘outward tothe fender lin. Speed MATT determined that Jannah was traveling at 83 miles per hour at the time he reacted to ‘Vasquez’s vehicle and applied the patrol vehicle's brakes. Jannah collided with Vasquez. ata speed of approximately 57 miles per hour. Vasquez was traveling ata minimum calculated speed of approximately 11 miles per hour a the time ofthe collision, MAT further determined that had Jannah been traveling atthe posted speed limit of $0 mph when Vasquez entered the roadway, Jannah's vehiele would have been approximately 180 fet from the area of impact when Vasqucz cleared his path of travel and the collision would not have occurred MAIT concluded that Jannah drove his vehicle ata speed that did not allow him sufficient time and distance to take appropriate ‘evasive action to avoid a collision with Vasquez’s vehicle and therefore his actions were the proximate cause of the collision, in violation of California Penal Code section 192(6)2)." "= MATT fund chat Vasquez was notin violation of Veil Code etn 2180(a, which sate tht he «iver ofa vehicle spprosching a top sig at the enance 9, or within, an intersection shal stop andthe ‘diver sly the right-of-way to any vehicles which ta apeoached rm another bihwy, whieh ‘approaching so closely asto conte ap immediate har and shall comin t yield the righ. ‘way fo those vehicle uti eo she can proceed with reatanale safety. MAIT sated tha since Vasque Tndeated hace dd oc se the patrol veil, he was ened to rely upon apesunpion ht oh ve ‘woul eomply withthe els ofthe rsd nloing the pose speed lini, when determining whether be hud proceed with reasonable sey "altough Jackson indested tat Vasquez dd not comet 2 complete stop athe sop sgn, both Jannah sand Vasqezidiated that he did stop. Tus, MAIT determined tat Vasque? dino iol any tafe ins‘Charge Evaluation Worksheet, SID. Fle #15-0078R CHP. File FSF-085-15 Page B oF 12 Seatbelts MAIT found that Vasquez and Espinosa were wearing their seatbelts a the time ofthe collision. Paynter and Delgadillo were determined not to be wearing their seatbelts asthe Seatbelts did not display signs of loading or use during the collision and both Paynter and Delgadillo were ejected from the back ofthe vehicle, as evidenced by the damage to the liftgate. LEGAL ANAYSIS Vehicular Manslaughter Penal Code section 192(c)(2) provides that vehicular manslaughter isthe unlawful killing of @ human being without malice where a person drives a vehite inthe commission of an unlawful act, not amounting toa felony, but without gross negligence, or drives a vehicle inthe commission ofa lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but ‘without gross negligence, where a death oocurs asa result ofthe act. Penal Code section 193(€)2), provides that this offense is punishable as a misdemeanor. Pursuant to Penal Code section 802(a), prosecution for a misdemeanor offense must be ‘commenced within one year after commission ofthe offense. In this case, a ‘misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter charge, if appropriate, must have been brought no later than December 14,2014, one year from the date ofthe collision. This matter was first presented to the Los Angeles County District Attomey's Office, Justice System Integrity Division, for filing consideration on February 12, 2015, after the statute of limitations had expired, Thus, the filing of criminal charges against Jannah for vehicular ‘manslaughter without gross negligence is time barred. ‘Penal Code section 192(cX1) provides that vehicular manslaughter occurs where a person drives a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, with zr0ss negligence, or drives a vehicle inthe commission ofa lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, with gross negligence, where a death occurs as a result of the act. Penal Code section 193((1) provides that this offense is punishable as 1 felony or a misdemeanor. ‘To prove the crime of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) No, $92 requires the People to establish that 1. Deputy Jannah drove a vehicle; The Nationa Highvay Traffie Safry Administration has found ection om he veces one ofthe mos irons events hat ean happen oa persona rash, In fatal rashes in 2008, 7 percent of [passenger vehicle occupants who were totaly elected om he vehicle were led. Seatbelts aeeetve In preventing otal ejections only one percent of occupants pared to have been using restraints were oly jee conpared wid 31 percent of Ue est aied capa‘Charge Evaluation Worksheet SID. File #15-0078R CHP. File #SF-055-13 Page 9 of 12 2. While driving that vehicle, Deputy Jannah committed a misdemeanor or infraction (speeding) oF an otherwise lawl act that might cause death; 53. Deputy Janneh committed the speeding violation or otherwise awful act that ‘might eause death with gross negligence, and 4. Deputy Jannah’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person. CCALCRIM No. $92 provides that gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgement. A person acts with gross negligence wher: 1, He cts in areckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury, and 2. Areasonable person would have known that aeting in that way would create such a risk. Regarding causation, the same jury instruction provides: “Am act causes death if the death isthe direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen ifnothing unusual intervenes.” “There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if itis a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is mote than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need tobe the only factor that causes the death.” Speeding ‘Vehicle Code section 22349, the maximum speed law, provides that “no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.” Vehicle Code section 22350, also referred to as the basic speed law, provides that “no ‘person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway ata speed greater than is reasonable or ‘ident having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width ‘of, the highway, and in no event at speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.” Vehicle Code section 22351 essentially provides thatthe speed ofa vehicle notin excess of the posted speed limit is lawful unless proven otherwise. The lawfulness ofa vehicle's speed in excess ofthe posted speed limit is therefore determined by reference to the basic speed law, ie. whether the speed was reasonable under the cireumstances ‘Vehicle Code section 2105S provides an exemption from the rules ofthe road for ‘emergency vehicles where the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency callCharge Evaluation Worksheet JSUD. File #100788 CHP. File #SF-OSS-13 Page 10 of 12 and the driver sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and displays alighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians. ‘The posted speed limit on East Avenue R is $0 mph. Jannah was driving 3 miles over the speed limit without his front facing overhead emergency lights or sien activated and therefore the Vehicle Code section 21055 exemption does not apply. However, in order ta prove that Tanah operated his vehicle in a grossly negligent manner, the People would 'be required o prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jannah not only committed the speeding violation but that he did so with gross negligence, creating a hig risk of death ‘or great bodily injury. In People v. Von Staden (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1423 at 1427, the court held that the gross negligence element required for a conviction of gross vehicular marslaughter while intoxicated, “cannot be shown by the mere fact of driving under the influence or violating trafic laws, otherwise gross and simple vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated would be identical erimes with diferent punishments.” In People v. MeNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048 at 1058, the court stated, “If the legislature had intended that the elements required to support a finding of driving under the influence and violating the traffic laws were sufficient in themselves to support a finding of gross negligence, the two subdivisions would become a duplication. ‘Obviously, gross negligence requires something in addition.” ‘The court in People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal* 1199, followed the reasoning ofthe Van ‘Staden court. There they found that the ease involved more than a “mere” trafic violation ‘while intoxicated. Id, at 1207. The evidence in Ochoa “contained facts from which the ‘tier of fact reasonably could infer that defendant, (1) having suffered a prior convietion for driving under the influence of alcohol, (2) having been placed on protation, 3) having attended traffic schoo, including an alcohol awareness class, and ‘4 being fully aware ofthe risks of such activity, nonetheless (5) drove while highly intoxicated, (6) at high, unsafe speeds, (7) weaving in and out of adjoining lanes, (8) making abrupt and dangerous lane changes, (9) without signaling, and (10) without braking to avoid colliding with his victim's vehicle. I. at 1208. Thus, “the trier of fact could conclude from defendant's course of conduct and preexisting knowledge of the risk, that he exereised 50 slight a degree of care as to exhibit a conscious indifference, or ‘I don’t care attitude’ concerning the ultimate consequences of his actions. Applying the objective test for gross negligence, any reasonable person in defendants position would have been aware ofthe risks presented by his conduc.” Jd. at 1208. Although the above cited cases involved gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the discussion of what amounts to gross negligence as opposed to simple negligence is instructive. In this case, while the evidence is clear that Jannah was driving at an excessive rate of speed at the time ofthe collision without activating his overhead lights and siren to serve as a warning to other motorists, he was responding to acall for assistance and therefore engaged in the performance of his duties asa pesce officer. The(Charge Evaluation Worksheet, SID. File#15-0078R CHP. File #SF-055-13 Page 1 of 2 call did not require a code 3 response, but it appeared from the dispatch communications that a volunteer unit was involved in a domestic violence incident and therefore the call ‘was possibly urgent. Aside from speeding, there is uo evidence that Jannah ran any red lights or top signs, that he weaved in and out of traffic or drove erratically, that he was distracted by engaging in other activities while driving, such as sing a cell phone, or that he was otherwise engaged in any reckless act while driving."? Infact, the evidence shows that Jannah was attentive to the road having observed Vasquez’s vehicle stopped atthe stop sign on the south side of 17 Street Eat ashe approached the intersection, Although the evidence of speeding at 33 miles per hour in excess of the speed limit may have been sufficient fora finding of simple negligence, without something more than the speeding violation, there is insufficient evidence to prove that Jannah did “something in addition," so as to justify a finding of gross negligence. Causation Furthermore, a reasonable trier of fact may also find that it cannot be established as required under CALCRIM No. 593, that death was the “direct, natural and probable consequence” of driving 33 miles over the speed limit on East Avenue R under the circumstances described. ‘CALCRIM No. 593 states tha a reasonable person must know that death is ikely under the circumstances without something unusual intervening. However, there were several intervening circumstances that significantly contributed to this accident. First, Kuchon ‘Jackson indicated he observed Janna’s vehicle traveling eastbound on Avenue R, nearing the 17° Street East intersection while Vasquez was looking to his right and suddenly entered the roadway in Jannah's path of travel. Jacsson believed Vasquez moved far enough away from the stop sign tobe abe to see the patrol vehicle traveling eastbound in ‘Vasquez’s direction. According to Jackson, Vasquez not only filed to yield to the ‘oncoming patrol vehicle but he also failed to yield 1 Jackson who was traveling inthe ‘westbound lanes. Jackson believed that had the collision not occured and had he not ‘come fo an abrupt stop, he would have been in danger of colliding with Vasquez, Thus, a reasonable trier of fact may find that Vasquez bore some culpability in the collision, ‘notwithstanding Jannah's speed. In addition, a significant factor that may have contibuted to Delgadillo and Paynter's ‘death was ther violation of Vehicle Code section 27315, which provides that “A person shall not operate a motor vehicle ona highvvay unless that person and all passengers 16 ‘yeats of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt” Only the front end ofthe Explorer sustained major contact collision related damage. Vasquez and Espinosa, who ‘were seated in the driver and front passenger seats, were wearing their seatbelts and ‘emerged from the collision with litle too significant injury. While itis not cetai that "5 Jagna’s el phone wasnt esined follwing the collision and his service providers unknown, ‘Verizon Wireless ha the longest reeton period for cel phan records and preserves the record for only ‘ne year. Since thie mater nas prevented othe Disst Aterey's Office over oe year afer the date of ‘he colon, Janna’ cell phone record re not avaliable(Charge Evaluation Worksheet ISID. Fie #150788 CHP, Fie ¥SP-OSS-I3 Page 2 of 12 Delgadillo and Paynter would have survived the collision had they been wearing their seatbelts and they are certainly not to blame for ths tragic ozcurrenee, had they been ‘wearing ther seatbelts, itis arguable that they would not have sufered any greater injury than the passengers who were in closer proximity tothe frort of the vehicle. Moreover, it is also reasonably likely that they would not have been ejected from the vehicle, thereby ‘mitigating any injury they may have sustained. Their failure to use their seatbelts increased the likelihood that they would be seriously injured and even killed in any type ‘of collision, Thus, their violation of Vehicle Code section 27315 is a circumstance that should be given some consideration in determining the likel hood of convietion should ‘charges be filed against Jannah CONCLUSION Due tothe expiration of the statue of limitations on the charge of vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, the only available charge is vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Based upon the foregoing analysis, we find thatthe People cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubs that Kamal Jannah committed the erime of gross vehicular manslaughter, As such, we declin to initiate criminal proceedings against him, We are closing our file and will take no further action inthis matter.