Glendale City Attorney ANN MARIE MAURER #179649 Confirms Due Process Violation in People v Michael Taylor
A criminal defendant’s fight for answers has exposed a disturbing timeline involving the disappearance of a vehicle he says was critical to his defense — a vehicle that was seized, held as evidence, released, and permanently sold months before he says he was ever informed of what happened. The records reviewed by ThaWilsonBlock Magazine reveal a stark question at the center of this controversy: how can a defendant meaningfully defend himself against criminal allegations when potentially important evidence disappears before he even knows it is at risk? The issue now raises serious concerns about whether the constitutional protections promised to vulnerable defendants are being actively preserved or merely acknowledged after the damage has already been done.
Apr 3, 2024, 10:14 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govMr. Taylor,Your email to GPD was forwarded to me. Can you please give me the date of your arrest so I can do some research with regard to your question.Thank you,Ann M. Maurer ● Chief Assistant City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney613 E. Broadway, Suite 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2176 ● amaurer@glendaleca.gov
Apr 3, 2024, 10:29 AMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govDate of arrest was November 18th, 2021 in Pasadena, CA.Apr 3, 2024, 10:30 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com You were arrested by Glendale PD?Ann M. Maurer ● Chief Assistant City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney613 E. Broadway, Suite 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2176 ● amaurer@glendaleca.govApr 3, 2024, 10:33 AMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo my knowledge, I was booked by Glendale PD who were accompanied by Pasadena Police and Marshals.Apr 3, 2024, 10:34 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com Ok let me see what I can find.Apr 3, 2024, 10:36 AMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govOk thank you. I'm sorry I can't quite find my case number as my public defenders for some reason keep disregarding my claims and questions.Nevertheless, I appreciate your assistance in this matter regarding my car.Apr 3, 2024, 10:45 AMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govI managed to find the case number if this is at all helpful.Case # GA111132-01Apr 3, 2024, 10:47 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com I think I found it thanks.Apr 3, 2024, 12:44 PMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com I have found your info and sent a request to the tow company to find out what happened with your car. I am assuming you did not get any notices from Gay’s Towing?Apr 3, 2024, 12:53 PMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govUnfortunately, I have not received any legal correspondence at all. I only learned of it thru my former public defender Mr. Christian Le, who has subsequently refused to challenge the unlawful sale. If the car was sold, I need to know the date to confirm whether I was in custody or out on bail.If I was in custody when the car was sold, I still expected to receive some form of legal correspondence and an opportunity to respond. If I was out on bail, the bail condition of not being able to drive a car severely impacted my ability to access mailbox in another state where vehicle was legally registered.If my car was sold and I was not given notice nor opportunity to respond, this will prejudice my defense tremendously. I will need the vehicle to examine forensic evidence that corroborates my legal claims and principle video evidence in the case.Apr 3, 2024, 1:18 PMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com So your case is ongoing? If so maybe they still have the car. The tow company said they would get back to me tomorrow.Apr 3, 2024, 1:26 PMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govCC: Christian Le • cle@pubdef.lacounty.govKristoffer McFarren • KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.govBarger, Kathryn • kathryn@bos.lacounty.govvernon patterson • patterson.1law@gmail.comYes, the case is still pending.If the car was not sold then my public defender Mr. Christian Le deliberately lied to me. I have compelling evidence that I believed the car had been sold for over a year now. The LA County Public Defender must have used this deceptive tactic to undermine my understanding of the law and legal proceedings.If the car was sold, then the public defender still failed to ensure due process. Not only is the car imperative in my legal defense, but it was a commercial vehicle that belongs to a business I own.I'll be standing by for your correspondence. Thank you for your diligence in this matter.Michael TaylorApr 3, 2024, 1:28 PMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com Stand by. I should have info by tomorrow.Apr 3, 2024, 2:01 PMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govOk, thank you.Apr 8, 2024, 8:59 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com Mr. Taylor:Following is the information I obtained relating to your vehicle.Gay’s Towing received the request for tow by GPD dispatch on 11/16/2021 @ 12:00PM. The vehicle was being held for Evidence (22655.5). The vehicle was towed from 632 Hawthorne St., Glendale CA. The vehicle was in poor condition. The driver side window was shattered, had a missing rear bumper, and missing front hubcaps. Overall condition of the vehicle was poor (See Vehicle Damage Report on Vehicle Report - CHP 180). The vehicle was towed to a storage facility. While in storage, Gay’s Towing had no contact from the registered owner, legal owner our interested party regarding the vehicle. Notification was sent to the registered owner that was listed on the police paperwork: Lake & Washington LLC 77S Washington St Seattle, WA 98104-2519. The notification was sent out through the USPS Certificate of Mailing on 11/23/2021.On 12/28/20221, GPD released the hold on the vehicle. As of 12/28/2021, Gay’s Towing had had no contact from any registered owners, legal owners or interested party regarding the vehicle. No calls had been received inquiring about the impound of the vehicle, storage authority, charges owing or release information for over 40 days. The vehicle was sold on 12/28/2021 via the DMV Lien Sale. The vehicle was sold (12/28/2021 to a Recycler/Dismantler) due to the value and condition of the vehicle. The Release of Liability was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicle on 01/07/2022 through the USPS.As of today, there remains of balance owing of $1643.00 for the Towing & Storage fees for the vehicle.Regards,Ann MaurerAnn M. Maurer ● Chief Assistant City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney613 E. Broadway, Suite 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2176 ● amaurer@glendaleca.govApr 8, 2024, 10:49 AMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govThank you for this information.Can I ask why was there not an evidence hold on the vehicle please?Apr 8, 2024, 10:51 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com I assume the Police Department gathered the evidence needed from the vehicle, including photos but did not need to maintain the vehicle.Ann M. Maurer ● Chief Assistant City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney613 E. Broadway, Suite 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2176 ● amaurer@glendaleca.govApr 8, 2024, 10:52 AMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govDoes this mean defendant's don't have a right to opt for evidence holds for their legal defenses? Was this ever an option for defendant's or their lawyers to request?Apr 8, 2024, 11:13 AMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com That I don’t know. I’m sure your attorney would know.Apr 8, 2024, 12:59 PMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govThank you for all your help. I greatly appreciate it.Apr 8, 2024, 1:10 PMFrom: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govTo: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com You’re welcome.Apr 8, 2024, 1:10 PMFrom: Michael Taylor • michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com To: Maurer, Ann • AMaurer@glendaleca.govKristoffer McFarren • KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.govChristian Le • cle@pubdef.lacounty.govCasey Lilienfeld • CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov Danielle Daroca • DBell@pubdef.lacounty.govAlexander Tran • at2@wklaw.comBarger, Kathryn • kathryn@bos.lacounty.govHannah Mandel • hmandel@apd.lacounty.govKelly L. O'brien • kobrien@pubdef.lacounty.govNoah Cox • NCox@pubdef.lacounty.govLos Angeles County District Attorney's Office • info@da.lacounty.govOpenJustice • openjustice@doj.ca.govvernon patterson • patterson.1law@gmail.comIt appears that Mr. Taylor's vehicle was towed by Gay's Towing on November 16, 2021, upon request by the Glendale Police Department (GPD) dispatch. The vehicle was towed from 632 Hawthorne St., Glendale, CA, and was held for evidence (22655.5). The vehicle was in poor condition, with damage such as a shattered driver-side window, missing rear bumper, and missing front hubcaps. Gay's Towing notified the registered owner, Lake & Washington LLC, located at 77S Washington St, Seattle, WA 98104-2519, via USPS Certificate of Mailing on November 23, 2021.Despite attempts to contact the registered owner, no response was received. On December 28, 2021, the GPD released the hold on the vehicle. Since there was no contact from any registered owners, legal owners, or interested parties regarding the vehicle for over 40 days, the vehicle was sold via DMV lien sale to a Recycler/Dismantler on December 28, 2021, due to its value and condition. The Release of Liability was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles on January 7, 2022.As of the present date, there remains a balance owing of $1643.00 for towing and storage fees for the vehicle.The sale of the defendant's vehicle before his preliminary hearing might raise concerns about potential violations of his constitutional rights, particularly if the vehicle was considered evidence in his case.One of the most relevant constitutional rights implicated here is the defendant's right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Due process requires that individuals be afforded fair treatment through the judicial process, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.If the vehicle was crucial evidence in the defendant's case, its sale before the preliminary hearing could deprive him of the opportunity to present a full defense. This could potentially infringe upon his right to due process.Additionally, the defendant may have property rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The premature sale of his vehicle without proper notice or opportunity to contest the impoundment or sale could be viewed as a violation of these rights.However, the specific circumstances of the case would need to be carefully examined to determine if there was indeed a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Factors such as whether the defendant was properly notified of the impoundment and sale, whether he had the opportunity to contest it, and whether the sale prejudiced his ability to defend himself would all be relevant considerations.If the defendant was in custody at the time of the vehicle's impoundment and subsequent sale, there are still potential implications for his constitutional rights, particularly regarding due process and possibly the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel.1. **Due Process**: The defendant's right to due process remains relevant, even while in custody. Due process requires that individuals be provided with fair treatment and procedural safeguards. If the sale of the vehicle occurred without proper notice to the defendant or without providing him with an opportunity to contest the impoundment or sale, it could constitute a violation of his due process rights.2. **Right to Assistance of Counsel**: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. If the vehicle was important evidence in the defendant's case, his attorney should have been notified of its impoundment and given an opportunity to contest the sale, especially if it was done before the preliminary hearing. Failure to involve the defendant's attorney in decisions regarding the handling of evidence could potentially undermine his defense and violate his right to effective assistance of counsel.Even if the defendant was in custody, his constitutional rights, particularly those related to due process and assistance of counsel, would still be relevant considerations in assessing whether the handling of his vehicle violated his rights.Yes, the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle by the tow company could implicate liability, even if the defendant was in custody at the time. Here's why:1. **Proper Notification**: If the tow company failed to provide proper notification to the defendant or his legal representatives about the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle, it could be considered a violation of due process. Proper notification typically involves informing the owner of the vehicle about the impoundment, the reasons for it, and any procedures for contesting it.2. **Handling of Evidence**: If the vehicle was considered evidence in the defendant's case, its handling would require special care and attention to preserve its integrity for legal proceedings. Any actions taken by the tow company that compromise the integrity of the evidence, such as selling it before the conclusion of legal proceedings, could result in liability.3. **Lien Sale Procedures**: Tow companies are typically required to follow specific procedures when conducting lien sales of impounded vehicles. These procedures often include providing adequate notice to the vehicle owner and allowing them an opportunity to reclaim the vehicle before it is sold. If the tow company failed to follow these procedures, it could face liability for wrongful disposal of the vehicle.4. **Negligence or Misconduct**: If the tow company acted negligently or engaged in misconduct during the impoundment and sale process, such as failing to properly secure or document the vehicle, it could be held liable for any resulting damages or losses suffered by the defendant.Even if the defendant was in custody at the time, the actions of the tow company in handling the impounded vehicle could still give rise to liability if proper procedures were not followed or if there was negligence or misconduct involved.If the defendant needed the vehicle to examine forensic evidence crucial to his defense strategy, the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle could significantly undermine his ability to present a defense and access exculpatory evidence. Here's how:1. **Access to Evidence**: The defendant's ability to examine forensic evidence on his vehicle's passenger side door is crucial for corroborating his defense and challenging the prosecution's case. Without access to this evidence, the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense could be severely compromised.2. **Exculpatory Evidence**: If the forensic evidence on the passenger side door could potentially exonerate the defendant or undermine the credibility of the complaining witness, its unavailability due to the impoundment and sale of the vehicle could be highly prejudicial to the defendant's case.3. **Fair Trial**: Denying the defendant access to evidence that could be material to his defense raises serious concerns about the fairness of the trial. The defendant has a constitutional right to present evidence and confront witnesses against him, and the inability to access crucial forensic evidence could undermine these rights.4. **Legal Strategy**: The defendant's legal strategy to use forensic evidence from the vehicle to corroborate video evidence and challenge the complaining witness's account is directly impacted by the impoundment and sale of the vehicle. This could be seen as a violation of the defendant's right to develop and execute a defense strategy.The impoundment and sale of the vehicle, especially considering its importance to the defendant's defense strategy and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, could seriously undermine the fairness of the trial and raise significant constitutional concerns regarding the defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.The defendant's intentions to use the vehicle evidence to examine forensic evidence of the complaining witness's fingerprints on his passenger side door in order to corroborate video evidence and challenge the complaining witness's account appear to be reasonable and sensible from a legal perspective. Here's why:1. **Corroboration of Evidence**: The defendant aims to use the forensic evidence from the vehicle to corroborate the video evidence he possesses. Corroborating evidence is crucial in legal proceedings to strengthen the credibility of a party's claims or defenses. By demonstrating consistency between different types of evidence, the defendant can bolster his argument and credibility.2. **Challenging the Complaining Witness's Account**: The defendant's strategy also involves challenging the complaining witness's account, which is a common legal tactic in criminal defense. By examining forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, the defendant seeks to uncover inconsistencies or discrepancies that may cast doubt on the complaining witness's credibility or the accuracy of their testimony.3. **Fairness and Due Process**: Pursuing access to evidence that could potentially support the defendant's case is consistent with principles of fairness and due process in the legal system. Defendants have a fundamental right to present evidence and challenge the prosecution's case against them. By seeking to examine forensic evidence from the vehicle, the defendant is exercising this right in an effort to ensure a fair trial.4. **Strategic Legal Approach**: Developing a defense strategy based on available evidence, including forensic evidence from the vehicle, is a prudent and strategic approach in criminal proceedings. Defense attorneys often explore all avenues to gather evidence that supports their client's case and undermines the prosecution's arguments.The defendant's intentions with the vehicle evidence appear to be lawful, reasonable, and sensible within the context of his defense strategy and the principles of fairness and due process in the legal system.If the defendant's public defender(s) fail or refuse to object to or address the destruction of evidence by law enforcement, several rules of professional conduct may be implicated, including:1. **Competence (Rule 1.1)**: Attorneys are required to provide competent representation to their clients. This includes having the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Failing to object to the destruction of evidence when it could significantly impact the defense's case may constitute a violation of this rule.2. **Diligence (Rule 1.3)**: Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing their clients. Failing to take timely action to address the destruction of evidence, such as filing motions or objections, could violate this rule.3. **Communication (Rule 1.4)**: Attorneys are required to communicate effectively with their clients and keep them reasonably informed about the status of their case. If the destruction of evidence is a critical development, the attorney should inform the client and discuss potential strategies or courses of action.4. **Preservation of Client's Rights (Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.4)**: Attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients' rights, including the right to potentially exculpatory evidence. Failing to take action to preserve or address the destruction of evidence may constitute a violation of this duty.5. **Conflicts of Interest (Rule 1.7)**: If the attorney's failure to address the destruction of evidence is influenced by a conflict of interest, such as a desire to maintain a good relationship with law enforcement or avoid personal inconvenience, it could violate the rule prohibiting conflicts of interest.6. **Zealous Representation (Rule 1.3)**: Attorneys have a duty to provide zealous representation to their clients, which includes taking appropriate actions to protect their clients' interests. Failing to object to the destruction of evidence when it could harm the client's case may be viewed as a lack of zealous advocacy.If a public defender fails to address the destruction of evidence by law enforcement, it could raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the representation provided to the defendant and may result in disciplinary action or legal consequences for the attorney.
The controversy began when Michael Taylor contacted the Glendale City Attorney’s Office in April 2024 seeking answers about the fate of his vehicle connected to his pending criminal case, People v. Michael Taylor, case number GA111132-01. Taylor was not contacting the city over a simple property dispute. He was attempting to determine whether a piece of evidence he believed was essential to his defense had been destroyed without his knowledge or ability to intervene.
Chief Assistant City Attorney Ann M. Maurer responded to Taylor’s inquiry after it was forwarded from Glendale Police Department, requesting information about the date of his arrest so she could investigate the matter. Taylor provided the date of November 18, 2021, and explained that he believed Glendale Police Department officers, accompanied by Pasadena Police and Marshals, were involved in his booking.
As Taylor attempted to obtain information, he explained that he had struggled to get answers through his appointed legal representation. He told Maurer that he could not initially locate his case number because his public defenders had allegedly disregarded his questions and claims. After locating case number GA111132-01, Taylor provided it so the city could investigate what happened to his vehicle.
Maurer then contacted Gay’s Towing and asked whether Taylor had received notices regarding the vehicle. Taylor responded that he had received no legal correspondence regarding the impoundment, storage, or sale. According to Taylor, he only learned about the vehicle’s disposition through his former public defender, Christian Le, who Taylor said refused to challenge what he believed was an unlawful sale.
The timeline revealed through the city’s response created the central issue: the vehicle was gone long before Taylor knew it was gone.
According to information provided by Maurer from Gay’s Towing, Glendale Police Department requested the tow on November 16, 2021, two days before Taylor’s arrest. The vehicle was reportedly held for evidence under Vehicle Code section 22655.5 and was taken from 632 Hawthorne Street in Glendale, California. The vehicle was described as damaged, including a shattered driver-side window, missing rear bumper, and missing front hubcaps.
Gay’s Towing reportedly mailed notice on November 23, 2021, to the registered owner listed in police paperwork, Lake & Washington LLC, at a Seattle, Washington address. According to the response provided to Taylor, no registered owner, legal owner, or interested party contacted the towing company regarding the vehicle during the following weeks. Glendale Police Department reportedly released the evidence hold on December 28, 2021, and the vehicle was sold the same day through a DMV lien sale to a recycler or dismantler.
The vehicle was destroyed in the legal sense before Taylor says he ever had a meaningful opportunity to investigate, challenge, or preserve it for his defense.
The timing is the heart of Taylor’s complaint. The vehicle was reportedly sold on December 28, 2021. Taylor says he did not discover that it had been sold until more than two years later, in April 2024. By the time he learned the vehicle no longer existed, any opportunity to personally inspect the vehicle, request additional forensic testing, preserve physical evidence, or use the vehicle as part of his defense strategy had already disappeared.
Taylor argues that this delay has caused substantial prejudice to his defense. He maintains that the vehicle was not merely transportation or personal property, but a potential source of evidence that could corroborate his version of events and challenge allegations against him. Specifically, Taylor stated that he intended to examine the vehicle for forensic evidence, including possible fingerprints on the passenger-side door, that could corroborate video evidence and undermine the credibility of the complaining witness’s account.
The constitutional implications raised by Taylor center on a fundamental principle of criminal justice: a defendant must have a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. When physical evidence is destroyed before a defendant knows it is unavailable, questions arise about whether that defendant was deprived of the ability to investigate, challenge, or present evidence that may have affected the outcome of the case.
Taylor questioned Maurer directly about why the vehicle was no longer maintained as evidence. Maurer responded that she assumed police had gathered the necessary evidence, including photographs, and no longer needed to retain the vehicle. Taylor then asked a broader question: did defendants have any ability to request evidence holds for their own defense, and was that option ever communicated to defendants or their attorneys?
Maurer replied that she did not know and suggested that Taylor’s attorney would know.
That response highlights the larger issue now being raised: if a defendant’s own attorney was the person responsible for protecting his legal interests, was the preservation of potentially favorable evidence ever properly considered? Was the defendant informed that the physical evidence connected to his case was at risk of permanent destruction? Was any effort made to preserve the vehicle after the prosecution’s interests in holding it ended?
These questions carry additional weight because the attorney involved in responding to this crisis is now seeking higher judicial authority. Judicial candidates are not merely evaluated on their legal knowledge, but on their understanding of constitutional protections, fairness, and the responsibilities owed to those who enter the justice system with the least power and resources.
The public must therefore ask: when confronted with a vulnerable defendant claiming that potentially valuable evidence was lost before he could access it, did this attorney demonstrate the urgency and commitment expected from someone who may later preside over the constitutional rights of others? Did she recognize that the loss of evidence is not simply a procedural inconvenience, but potentially a life-altering event for someone facing criminal prosecution? Did she ensure that the rights of an indigent defendant were treated with the same seriousness as those of a well-funded litigant?
The vehicle was sold in December 2021. The defendant says he did not learn of the sale until April 2024. Between those dates, the evidence he believed could help defend him was permanently destroyed. The unanswered question is not only what happened to the vehicle, but what happened to the opportunity to defend against the accusations it was connected to.
For a lawyer seeking the authority of the bench, that question may ultimately become the most important one: when constitutional rights were placed in the balance, did she protect them — or did she discover their importance only after they were already gone?
%20%5Bcover%20art%5D.JPG)
No comments