By Alana Bleimann
SACRAMENTO – This was a Sacramento County Superior Court case involving a stolen car, a defendant, a prostitute and a victim. And Enterprise Car Rentals. Maybe
In the end, after a preliminary hearing this week, Judge Allen Sumner ruled there was enough evidence to send the case to trial, which would hopefully sort out who was who and who did what to whom.
Lakiva Devore is charged with car theft and joy riding, both felonies, a vehicle originally in possession of Enterprise Rentals, but Assistant Public Defender Addie Young argued that the victim’s alleged relationship with a prostitute was connected to the stolen vehicle.
But it wasn’t clear if she stole the vehicle or received the vehicle as stolen property.
The story begins in the city of Sacramento, on March 23 of this year when SPD officer Kao Saechao received a notification of a reported stolen vehicle through the target alert service system, 
a computer application that receives notifications of license plates that are scanned.
The notification directed him to go to the area of Stockton Blvd. in which a vehicle described as a blue 2018 Hyundai Tucson was reported as stolen.
Initially, the alert did not give the name of the reporting party but once Saechao did a routine records check, the reporting party returned under the victim’s name. Although the name was reported as the victim’s, it was found that the registered owner was actually the popular car rental company, Enterprise Rentals.
Deputy Saechao contacted an employee at Enterprise Rental to confirm the company’s ownership of the vehicle.
Public defender Young charged, however, that “we don’t know who [the employee] is and which database he [the employee] is checking.”
Making a traffic stop of the alleged stolen Hyundai, Saechao found that the woman driving was defendant Devore, who had been on formal probation at the time of the stop. A search of the vehicle located a purse belonging to Devore. Inside, “there were documents from the DMV including release and liability documents.”
Additionally, the “documents were all handwritten with a really low selling price [of the vehicle],” which was suspicious to Saechao, who told the court, “if the vehicle was a rented vehicle the document would not have been handwritten.”
Two applications for transfer of title documents were found and on the first of these the seller, identified as a second party, was listed.
Deputy Saechao was unable to obtain documentation of ownership or rental confirmation of the vehicle in question by the second party.
The second party was “listed as the victim for the vehicle that was supposedly stolen,” according an additional officer witness named Daniel Garcia.
The victim claimed his vehicle was taken from him and that no one else had permission to drive the vehicle. The victim had been staying in a hotel when he and Garcia spoke on the phone.
“I felt there was a little more to the story that he wasn’t able to elaborate on,” Garcia said, adding, “he just sounded upset over the phone.”
Notably, the victim said the keys to the vehicle “were removed from his nightstand and the vehicle was missing as well” when he awoke from a nap.
At this point in the hearing, public defender A. Young brought up prostitution and the fact that the victim was participating in sexual relations before the night the vehicle was stolen.
The female prostitute in question was describedby the victim as “a female… white adult with red hair wearing all black clothing.”
The alleged relationship between this female and the victim was not brought up on the phone conversation between Garcia and the victim.
In fact, the victim only stated that the female in question was a friend.
After all testimonies were taken, public defender Young argued that the defendant did not match the description of the prostitute who was the only person able to steal the vehicle.
Young even made the remark, “does the woman sitting to my left seem to be a white woman or an African American woman?”
Young argued that there was no proof that the victim was actually in ownership of the vehicle other than his word.
Devore has some prior misdemeanor convictions and identity theft-related felonies, but has grown daughters that she raised.
Overall, the defense maintained there was insufficient evidence proving Devore stole the vehicle and that the victim actually owned the car, and although Devore was in possession of the vehicle she was not the one who took it from the hotel.
On the other hand, Deputy District Attorney Nick Karp argued that “we have evidence that the defendant was driving the vehicle” and there was “fraudulent transfer of title” and “the defendant was attempting to sell the car.”
Karp claimed there is sufficient evidence about whether the prostitute took it or Devore took it from the victim.
Judge Sumner found sufficient evidence to hold Devore accountable for the crime. Devore’s trial date is set for early February.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
