Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

634 S. Spring St. Suite 821

Los Angeles, CA 90014
Phone 213.629.2142
Facsimile 213.629.2259
www.la-bike.org




September 3, 2014

The Honorable Jackie Lacey
District Attorney
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, California 90012-3210

Request to Reconsider Charges in Death of Bicyclist Milt Olin
DA Case #34210485

Dear Ms. Lacey,

Yours is a most difficult job and we understand that, on some occasions, filing decisions are made
without the full benefit of all the available information. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
(LACBC) requests that you please reconsider the charges currently pending against Deputy
Andrew Wood in the death of Milt Olin (DA Case No. 34210485). Many of us were encouraged by
your campaign, two years ago, and your commitment to the fair, thoughtful, and even handed
prosecution of all who violate our laws. We are convinced that the decision not to file charges
against Deputy Wood was premature and that a thorough review of this matter will result in a
different conclusion.

Milt Olin was entirely obeying the law on Sunday, December 8, 2013. He was riding his 20-pound
bicycle, properly clothed and helmeted. He was traveling fully inside a designated bicycle lane. He
was neither speeding, nor swerving, nor texting, nor doing anything else which might have
endangered his safety or the well being of those around him.

Unbeknownst to Milt, Deputy Wood was not so careful. Instead, Deputy Wood was driving a multi-
ton vehicle, too fast, while alternately both texting and working his Mobile Digital Computer (MDC)
screen. Deputy Wood's conduct, and patent negligence, resulted in his vehicle leaving its traffic
lane and entering the bicycle lane, with Milt then ending up on the windshield of Deputy Wood's
vehicle.

At the scene, Deputy Wood initially lied to the police, and claimed that Milt had swerved into his
path. Fortunately, there were witnesses who knew this to be a lie, and they immediately
contradicted Deputy Wood's falsehoods. Next, Deputy Wood would provide a second version of
events, this time claiming never to have seen Milt, and to not remember what actually happened.

CA Penal Code Section 148 declares that Deputy Wood's statements at the scene were an
additional crime. All of the elements of CALCRIM 2656 are met.

CA Vehicle Code Section 23103 declares that Deputy Wood's conduct reflected a conscious and
reckless disregard for the safety of others. All of the elements of CALCRIM 2200 are met.
Page 2 of 3

Multiple additional sections of the CA Vehicle Code were also violated by Deputy Wood, including
his unsafe speed, his failure to remain in his traffic lane, his entry into the bicycle lane, his failure to
signal, and his failure to proceed only when it was safe to do so.

For some reason, the filing review initially conducted by a member of your office placed undue and
unnecessary emphasis on Deputy Wood's use of the computer terminal in his vehicle. Whether
such use was allowed, by law, is irrelevant and not determinative. Police officers are allowed to
carry and to discharge loaded service weapons. But, when they do so, that is never the extent of
the inquiry. Rather, the investigation then focuses on whether the use, in this case, was
appropriate or not. That Deputy Wood was engaging in repeated conversations with his family, and
that he decided to respond to a non-emergency message on his computer, may have been
technically allowable under the statutory sections, but that did not render them safe, necessary,
prudent, or advisable.

In fact, Deputy Wood was specifically trained not to engage in this type of conduct. The Sheriffs
Department training manual clearly points out, in its introductory paragraph on mobile computer
use and training, that such use is inherently unsafe. (Isnt that obvious?) Thus, Deputy Wood was
specifically advised, and trained, in advance, that the use of his mobile computer while driving
could result in just this type of incident. The Sheriffs Department policy manual also specifically
and understandably prohibits the use of cellular telephones in the patrol car, except in exigent
circumstances, and then only when the driver has taken every measure necessary to mitigate the
unsafe nature of his actions. Department policies further dictate that employees shall always
employ defensive driving techniques and an operator shall avail himself of every reasonable
means to avoid or prevent a collision/incident (3-01/090.10). None of us would expect anything
less.

Nothing prevented Deputy Wood from simply stopping his car on the side of the road and
responding to whatever message he had received. Milt would be alive today had he simply
followed department protocol.

Five years ago your office prosecuted, very successfully, a doctor in Brentwood whose illegal
actions against two bicycle riders had less serious consequences than Deputy Wood's. That doctor
ended up in state prison, based largely on false statements that he made at the scene. All of us
who ride bicycles were greatly encouraged by that prosecution, and we assumed that we now
might be protected from drivers who view bicycles as a nuisance, and bicycle lanes as fair game.
Throughout the City and County of Los Angeles, local governments have enacted ordinances that
encourage safety and responsibility. The state has even recently enacted legislation requiring extra
vigilance by drivers while passing bicyclists. Deputy Wood ignored all of that.

As you know, CA Penal Code Sections 192(c)(1) and (2) prohibit a driver in CA from causing death
while driving in an illegal manner, or in an otherwise legal manner which might produce death.
Deputy Wood is guilty of both. The distinction between the two sections is that subsection
192(c)(1) requires a finding of gross negligence, while subsection 192(c)(2) does not. Here is how
CALCRIM 592 describes gross negligence: "In other words a person acts with gross negligence
Page 3 of 3
when the way he acts is so different from how an ordinarily careful person would act in the same
situation that his act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of
that act." That is precisely what Deputy Wood did, knowingly, and in violation of his training.

But even if one chose to ignore the gross negligence standard, CALCRIM 593 lowers the standard
to the following: "A person is negligent if he does something that a reasonably careful person
would not do in the same situation OR fails to do something that a reasonably careful person
would do in the same situation." Please name the litigator in your office who would argue that
speeding on a Sunday afternoon, while not looking up the road, and then driving into a bicycle
lane, again without paying attention, is something that any "ordinarily careful person" would do?
Or, conversely, that would suggest that a driver need not slow down, look forward, and avoid the
bicycle lane when driving? Isn't that precisely why bicycle lanes have been designated? Should not
all drivers be careful to avoid driving into those lanes? Should not all drivers proceed at safe
speeds? And, should not all drivers look forward while driving?

Again, yours is a difficult job. But what needs to be done here is clear, and we have no doubt that
once you review this matter thoroughly, multiple criminal charges will be filed against Deputy
Wood. That is only fair and just. In every courtroom in Los Angeles, on every day of the week,
defendants convicted of DUI are specifically read the WATSON advisement, and told that if they
ever drive under the influence again and kill someone they will be charged with murder. Deputy
Wood was not only advised, he was trained, and he had to pass a proficiency test in order to even
use the mobile computer system. He clearly knew the danger inherent in his conduct and he chose
to disregard that danger. Milt and the rest of us who ride bicycles should not pay the ultimate price
for Deputy Wood's criminal behavior.

LACBC urges you, on behalf of the millions of people who ride bikes in Los Angeles County, to
hold those who commit negligent acts behind the wheel of a motor vehicle accountable for their
actions. Only through proper prosecution of negligent individuals can we hope to change a culture
that too willingly dismisses traffic violence and provide some degree of closure to the victims of
that violence.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



Jennifer Klausner
Executive Director