Monday, February 15, 2010

Sgt. Michael Mastick Will Not be Charged in Hit and Run Collision

A Torrance police sergeant will not be charged in an off-duty hit-and-run collision, although he admitted he fled because his "judgment was impaired by alcohol," according to prosecutors.

Redondo Beach City Prosecutor Brenda Wells said Tuesday that she declined to file a criminal case against Sgt. Michael Mastick for several reasons.

Among them, Wells said, was the fact that the alleged victim did not want the internal affairs investigator prosecuted. In addition, she said, the driver of the suspect vehicle was not identified by any witnesses at the time of Sept. 26 incident.

However, she noted: "Initially, Michael Mastick claimed that his wife was driving and she confirmed that information. Later, Michael Mastick submitted a statement claiming that he was the driver and he fled because his judgment was impaired by alcohol."

Anderson said Wednesday that there is an open personnel investigation into the matter, but declined to comment further.

Mastick's attorney did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

The Inglewood Police Department investigated the incident to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. A public records request for the police report is pending.

The 19-year department veteran was investigated for causing a collision around 9:45 p.m. on Pacific Coast Highway at Robert Road, near the Hollywood Riviera section of Torrance.

When officers responded to the scene, it was discovered that a department employee was involved, and a supervisor requested assistance from members of the South Bay DUI Task Force, police have said.

Neither police agency would discuss details of the collision, beyond characterizing it as "minor."

Inglewood handled the investigation and submitted the case to the district attorney's Justice System Integrity Division, which recommended it be referred to the city attorney.

Investigators brought the case to Redondo Beach rather than Torrance also to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

No comments: