Death of Innocence: Chapter 3
The
Cover-Up
After compiling evidence that led me to
believe that members of the Lake County,
California Highway Patrol perpetrated an
intentional cover-up, I filed my first
complaint through the internal affairs
division, in Sacramento. The first complaint
I filed resulted in a meeting between myself
and two of the officers who were at the
scene of my son's death. During this first
meeting, I was not aware of Shifflets
criminal history, or the multiple DUI's he
had pending the day of my son's death. The
main reason I filed this complaint, was
because Mark Shiflett was not cited for
driving over the double yellow line. I began
by showing one of the photos that was taken
by the officers the day of my son's death.
The photo is of Shifflets truck straddling
the double yellow line, where he began the
95 foot-long locked wheel skid, that
resulted in my son being struck and killed.
This photo is indisputable proof that Mark
Shiflett was driving over the double yellow
line when the skidding began. It is clearly
not logical to conclude that this vehicle
code violation did not at least, "contribute
to causing my son's death." It is also not
consistent with California Highway Patrol
policy to fail to include these facts in a
fatality collision report. I asked Sergeant
Stark why Shiflett was not cited for this
clear and obvious vehicle code violation?
Sergeant Stark stated," Shiflett had a good
reason for being over the double yellow
line, Shiflett swerved over the double
yellow line at the last minute, in an
attempt to avoid the collision." I asked
Sergeant Stark , why this crucial fact was
not stated in the report? I also asked him
why Shiflett's statement, (his reason for
being over the double yellow line), was not
included in the report. Sergeant Stark
stated to me that it was "not relevant".
Somehow I don't believe he would feel that
way if it was his child who got slaughtered
all over the roadway by a criminal!
Besides that, according to the collision
investigation manual that the CHP is
required to follow, any event that occurs
prior to the collision, is considered by the
Department of the California Highway Patrol
as relevant information, and shall be
disclosed in the report. So if the
Department of the CHP has mandatory rules
regarding any fatality or injury report,
that require the disclosure of all vital and
relevant information, especially vehicle
code violations such as driving over the
double yellow line in a reckless manner, why
is it okay that these officers willfully
failed to disclose this information in the
report? How is it the officers could deem
this information not relevant, when the
Department has deemed it relevant?
I asked officer C. Huhn, why Shiflett was
not asked to give a blood or urine sample?
She said she did not have "probable cause"
to ask him to submit to a blood or urine
test, and did not want to, "violate his
rights". In the years to come, I would
discover that statement was a lie. The fact
is that I have gathered evidence that
proves, Mark Shiflett was a known, habitual,
drug and alcohol offender, and had been for
years in Lake County. Besides being a
well-known drug and alcohol offender, Mark
Shiflett had also received two serious DUI's
just six days before he killed my son. Lake
County court documents prove that on January
27, and on January 29, Mark Shiflett , was
arrested for DUI! The documents go on to
state, Mark Shiflett was under the combined
influence of drugs and high levels of
alcohol. Mark Shiflett had also recently
discharged off parole from his fourth prison
term. In the CHP report, the officer states
that he identified Mark Shiflett as having a
valid license, through DMV paperwork. The
DMV paperwork that the officer was referring
to is a temporary paper license that is
issued by the arresting officer, after a
person gets a DUI. When a person gets a DUI
and their blood alcohol level is higher than
.08, their hard-card license is taken, and
they are issued this temporary license. So
when Mark Shiflett presented this temporary
license to the officer, the officer had to
know that Mark Shiflett had DUI's pending.
This factor in itself is probable cause for
the officers to ask Mark Shiflett to submit
to blood or urine testing, especially in a
fatality collision. But what about Mark
Shiflett being a registered drug and alcohol
offender? That is probable cause to order
Shiflett to submit. I also discovered that
Shiflett had gotten a serious DUI in 1999,
where he drove through Lower Lake at a high
rate of speed nearly hitting several cars. A
concerned citizen called the Lake County
sheriff, who came to the scene and promptly
arrested Shiflett for DUI. The sheriff's
arrest report plainly states that Shiflett
carelessly endangered the lives of many
people by driving in such a reckless manner.
By all means Shiflett should've been on
probation for this serious DUI violation,
the day that he killed my son. So why did
competent California Highway Patrol
officers, fail to take the appropriate
action? Why did they allow him to drive away
to commit more wrongdoing behind the wheel
of a motor vehicle? That's a question I hope
to have answered truthfully, someday. Two
weeks after striking and killing my son,
Mark Shiflett was arrested a third time for
DUI. Lake County court documents prove that
Mark Shiflett was once again under the
influence of alcohol and illegal drugs. His
alcohol level was extremely high, .21,
during this third serious DUI within three
weeks.
Mark Shiflett was finally kept in jail on
this third serious DUI. He was eventually
sentenced to six months in jail for getting
these three serious DUI's in a row. The
judge who sentenced him did not even know
that in between these DUI's, Shiflett had
struck and killed a little boy while driving
over the double yellow line in a reckless
manner. With time off for good behavior,
Mark Shiflett was out driving under the
influence once again, after only spending
less than four months in jail. He was
arrested once again for DUI, and drugs and
alcohol were once again involved. Mark
Shiflett was finally sentenced to nine years
in prison. He was never properly questioned
or cited for his role in my son's death.
The results of the second complaint I
filed through internal affairs, was a
meeting between myself and Lieutenant
Commander Hayward, of the Lake County CHP. I
met Commander Hayward at the scene of my
son's death on Big Canyon Road, a little
over a year after my son's death. Commander
Hayward accused me of being an unnecessary
burden on his Department. I had been told by
several people who knew Shiflett that he was
on parole when he killed my son. I mentioned
this to Commander Hayward and he produced
documents which indicated that Shiflett had
discharged off parole a couple of months
prior to my son's death. Commander Hayward
told me that because Shiflett was not on
parole, the officers did not have the right
to ask Shiflett to give a test. I showed Mr.
Hayward the photo of Shiflett's truck over
the line, and asked why no citation was
issued, and he told me that Shiflett being
over the line was not relevant. At this
point I was still unaware of many facts.
Commander Hayward tried to make me feel
guilty for filing my complaints with
internal affairs. He said because I was
creating an unnecessary burden on his
officers, that one of the officers had to
seek counseling. I wonder how he thinks I
feel. A week after my son's death I went to
mental health to get counseling and was told
that I did not qualify. After a heated
discussion between Commander Hayward and
myself, Commander Hayward asked what it was
I wanted from him? I explained to Commander
Hayward, that Jim Carreker had committed
criminal child endangerment by allowing my
seven-year-old son on a dangerous 55 mph
highway without a helmet, on many different
occasions. I asked Commander Hayward if he
would fill out a report stating these facts
and submit it to the district attorney for
consideration. Commander Hayward stated that
I was trying to place "false blame."
Commander Hayward then told me a story about
how he had lost his 22-year-old stepson, who
lost control of his motorcycle and slid
under the rear of a car and was killed. He
said the grief he suffered from the loss of
his stepson, caused him to place "false
blame" on the driver of the vehicle that his
stepson rear ended. I fail to see any
comparison here! My son was not 22 years
old. A seven-year-old child cannot be held
accountable for his own safety. Commander
Hayward refused to submit any report to the
district attorney, including the CHP report.
The CHP report concluded that my son was
at fault and caused this collision by riding
on the wrong side of the road on his
bicycle, a vehicle code violation. The only
evidence that my son committed this
violation is Shiflett's testimony. The
officers were very quick to conclude that my
son committed this alleged violation. The
photos that the CHP took, prove that
Shiflett was in the commission of a vehicle
code violation, yet they did not even
mention this crucial fact in the report. So
the officers ignored the factual evidence
that they gathered, and drew false
conclusions based on the word of a known
criminal who had every reason to lie to the
officers.
The third complaint I filed with internal
affairs of the CHP got less results than the
first two complaints. The matter was
reviewed by the Commander of the Northern
division out of Redding, California. I
received a letter from the Northern division
commander that stated, there was no reason
to believe that the report was inaccurate.
Well I disagree. The fact is that there is
hard-core evidence that proves the officers
left vital information out of a fatality
collision report.
When I called internal affairs to file my
fourth and final complaint, I requested that
I be able to present my allegations in
person at the internal affairs headquarters
in Sacramento. I began preparing for this
meeting by getting a copy of the CHP 40.50,
which is the collision investigation manual
distributed and used by the CHP. After
studying this manual, I found that according
to the provisions of this manual, the CHP
clearly failed to properly investigate my
son's death. The first chapter of the CHP
manual states," the provisions of the CHP
40.50 collision investigation manual shall
be followed." Now , what this means is that
it is the responsibility and the duty of any
CHP officer, to follow the guidelines that
are in the manual. This chapter goes on to
explain the importance of a collision report
being based on fact, and that, "logical
conclusions shall be drawn based on facts",
and not assumptions. After a heated
discussion with two internal affairs
officers at the Sacramento office, I showed
them time after time, how the officers that
investigated my son's death failed to follow
the provisions of the manual. After proving
that there was clearly evidence of
misconduct, the Sergeant told me that he
would investigate this misconduct and notify
me of his findings. Less than a week later I
got a letter from internal affairs in
Sacramento, stating that "there was no
reason to believe the report was
inaccurate."
The California Highway Patrol maintains a
national database, where the information
that is gathered on collision reports is
analyzed. The manual clearly emphasizes the
importance of every collision investigation
being uniform, in the way that the
information is gathered. If every officer
were allowed to dictate his own policy it
would be chaos. I wonder how the higher ups
in the California Highway Patrol, who work
at the national database to analyze this
information would feel, if they knew that
one whole division, (Lake County) had
submitted a report to the national database,
where vital information was left out of a
fatality collision report? Vital information
that is deemed relevant by the Department!!
How can information that is deemed relevant
by the Department of the California Highway
Patrol, be deemed irrelevant by members of
the Lake County California Highway Patrol?
Especially when these officers are required
by the guidelines of their duty to follow
the provisions of the collision
investigation manual?
The statement that Mark Shiflett gave to
the officers the day of my son's death, is
in the CHP report. In Mark Shiflett's
statement, he tells officers that he saw my
son's brother Jacob on the roadway prior to
striking and killing my son. This
establishes that the officers knew that
Jacob was an eyewitness and on the roadway.
In view of the fact that the collision
investigation manual plainly states that all
witnesses shall be interviewed, especially
in a fatality collision, why did the
officers fail to question Jacob on February
4, 2001? The only reason Jacob's testimony
is in the police report is because I called
and complained to a Sergeant and requested
that an officer come out to interview Jacob,
who in fact was an eyewitness to Mark
Shiflett driving over the double yellow line
in a reckless manner. Two days after the
collision, when officer Huhn obtained
testimony from Jacob, which indicated that
Jacob witnessed Mark Shiflett driving over
the double yellow line, the officers should
have furthered their investigation. If in
fact, there was a valid legitimate reason
for Shiflett being over the line it
should've been addressed in the report. To
fail to include this vital information in a
CHP fatality collision report is blatant
misconduct. I guess in this particular case,
internal affairs concluded that it was
appropriate for the officers to dictate
their own policy, and ignore the provisions
of the CHP collision investigation manual.
Another puzzling fact about the CHP
report, is the conclusion of the skid
analysis done by the California Highway
Patrol on February 4, 2001. Although Mark
Shiflett's truck left a 95 foot long locked
wheel skid on the roadway the day that he
killed my son, the California Highway Patrol
concluded that Mark Shiflett was only going
43 mph when he began skidding! I have been a
professional automotive technician,
registered by the State of California as a
journeyman, since 1979. I have studied
theory, operation and function of all brake
systems on import and domestic cars since
before 1979. I've been to several different
training schools, and completed a course at
LA trade Tech College, which is one of the
finest automotive schools on the West Coast.
I am very familiar with how to analyze skid
marks with the intention of determining the
speed of a vehicle that left those marks on
the highway. One of the best ways to analyze
skid marks from a vehicle that does not have
antilock brakes, is to consult the vehicle
manufacturer. Every vehicle manufacturer is
required by federal law to provide
specifications for every new vehicle. Every
new car manufacturer spends millions of
dollars every year, making accurate
determinations on skid stop specifications,
acceleration specifications, fuel economy,
etc. etc., on each individual vehicle.
Different vehicles have different
specifications. Not every vehicle leaves the
same amount of skid marks on the roadway in
a panic stop situation. I decided to consult
the vehicle manufacturer in an attempt to
determine Mark Shiflett's speed based on the
skid marks that were left on the roadway by
his 73 GMC pickup. After talking with
several GM factory technicians who consulted
these specifications, I was told that Mark
Shiflett was probably going closer to 70.
The California Highway Patrol does not base
their skid analysis on factory
specifications for each individual vehicle.
The method they use is kind of like a
one-size-fits-all method. Personally, based
on many years of experience as a
professional automotive technician, I don't
consider this method a very accurate method.
In view of the fact that vehicle
manufacturer's spend millions of dollars
every year to make accurate determinations
regarding skid stop specifications, on each
individual make and model of vehicle, and
the California Highway Patrol does not, it
is logical to conclude that the vehicle
manufacturer specifications are much more
accurate. In my opinion, the proper and
accurate way to determine Mark Shiflett's
speed, would be to do a proper skid analysis
using a vehicle identical to Mark Shiflett's.
It would be interesting to bring a 73 GMC
pickup, up to 50 mph on the same highway,
and do a locked wheel skid to see just how
far the vehicle would skid.
Three months after my son's death I was
involved in a collision in Lake County on
soda Bay Road. I was driving a vehicle
without antilock brakes. As I came around
the curve doing the speed limit, which was
45 mph, a truck pulling a boat and trailer
made a left turn out of a driveway right in
front of me. I locked up my brakes and
skidded for 45 feet, colliding with the rear
section of the boat. The driver of the truck
accused me of speeding, and called the CHP
on his cell phone, to request an officer
come out to take the report. Officer
Cheeseman arrived a short time later. I
explained to Officer Cheeseman that I was
doing the speed limit which was 45. Officer
Cheeseman got out his roll meter and
measured the skid marks, which were
approximately 45 feet long. The driver of
the truck was disappointed when Officer
Cheeseman told him that 45 feet of locked
wheel skid equals approximately 45 mph!
I questioned Officer Cheeseman about his
analysis. I asked him if he was absolutely
certain about his analysis of the skid
marks. I asked him if it was possible that I
could have been going faster than 45.
Officer Cheeseman was certain about his
accuracy regarding the skid analysis.
Officer Cheeseman concluded that 45 feet of
locked wheel skid equals approximately 45
mph, give or take a few miles per hour.
Officer Cheeseman then told the driver of
the truck that he should not of been making
a left turn on a blind curve pulling a boat
and trailer.
There's a major conflict here regarding
these two skid analysis.
If 45 feet of locked wheel skid equals 45
mph, then how is it that 95 feet of locked
wheel skid equals 43 mph? It doesn't make
sense. The
composition of the roadways were identical.
The road surfaces were clean and dry and it
was a warm day. Neither of the vehicles
involved in these two different skid
analysis had antilock brakes. So how did the
outcome of these two similar skid analysis,
end up being so different?
That is a question that is yet to be
answered!!
Read Chapter
4 |
