Mercedes-Benz ignores two court orders
Thread Starter
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 8,349
Likes: 0
From: QC/FRANCE
Mercedes-Benz ignores two court orders
CENTRAL GLENDALE — Police released the identity of a man Friday who they believe may have been the driver of the car that hit and killed 24-year-old Elizabeth Sandoval Tuesday night.
Ara Grigoryan, 20, was identified as the "person of interest" in the case, and was tracked in part via seven traffic citations issued in Glendale in the past two years — one of which was for failing to yield to a pedestrian, police said.
Police believe Grigoryan may have been driving a black 2003 Mercedes-Benz S430 sedan they say struck Sandoval Tuesday at about 9:45 p.m. as she and a friend jay-walked across South Glendale Avenue about 50 feet south of the East Windsor Road intersection.
The impact reportedly flung Sandoval 75 to 100 feet, where she died of her injuries. Her friend was uninjured.
Coupled with witness descriptions and his Mercedes, Grigoryan was "real close to being a prime suspect," Glendale Police Chief Randy Adams said.
Grigoryan is described as being 5-foot-5, 160 pounds and as having brown eyes and short black hair.
The license plate number registered to the Mercedes is "O7TT777," police said.
At a separate press conference held later the same day, Adams admonished Mercedes-Benz of North America for refusing to comply with a court order to activate the car's standard Global Positioning System so that authorities might pinpoint the sedan's exact location.
"It's one of the most frustrating thing in my 35 years of law enforcement," he told reporters.
A court order police obtained at 2:30 p.m. Friday was faxed to Mercedes-Benz North American headquarters in New Jersey and to the company that provides the global positioning satellite service, Irving, Texas-based Tele-Aid.
Calls made to a Mercedes-Benz representative were not returned as of press time.
"It's absurd," said Jackie Sandoval, Elizabeth's sister. "I mean, what [is Mercedez-Benz] getting out of it?"
The Mercedes, which was likely traveling at up to 60 mph when it hit Sandoval, fled the scene, and police have been encouraging witnesses or anyone who might know the driver to come forward.
"We would very much like to speak with Mr. Grigoryan," Adams said.
Detectives have not been able to track Grigoryan down at any of his previously listed addresses, and Adams would not confirm if police have contacted any of his family.
Police did confirm Friday that the car is registered to one of Grigoryan's family members, but would not say who.
Friday's announcement came two days after Sandoval's family, along with Adams and Mayor Ara Najarian, made a public appeal for those with information about the accident to come forward.
On Wednesday and Thursday, neighbors and strangers alike gathered for impromptu candlelight vigils at a makeshift memorial on South Glendale Avenue near where the accident occurred.
Police credited public involvement to the fast-moving case, as well as support from the city and county in donating a proposed $20,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the driver.
"I think it certainly helps anytime you have the public assist the police department," Adams said.
The City Council and the County Board of Supervisors are expected to approve separate $10,000 rewards at their regular meetings Tuesday night.
It is an unusual move for local government to offer such large rewards, but Sandoval's family "really touched us," Najarian said.
"These criminals need to know that you can run, but you can't hide," he said.
As of May, 62 pedestrians in Glendale had been struck by vehicles, 22 more than the same period last year, according to police reports.
The Glendale Police and Public Works Departments are expected to address the issue before the City Council on Tuesday.
Anyone with information on the hit-and-run can call the Glendale Police Department at (818) 548-4840, or the Crime Stoppers anonymous tip hotline at (818) 507-7867.
Ara Grigoryan, 20, was identified as the "person of interest" in the case, and was tracked in part via seven traffic citations issued in Glendale in the past two years — one of which was for failing to yield to a pedestrian, police said.
Police believe Grigoryan may have been driving a black 2003 Mercedes-Benz S430 sedan they say struck Sandoval Tuesday at about 9:45 p.m. as she and a friend jay-walked across South Glendale Avenue about 50 feet south of the East Windsor Road intersection.
The impact reportedly flung Sandoval 75 to 100 feet, where she died of her injuries. Her friend was uninjured.
Coupled with witness descriptions and his Mercedes, Grigoryan was "real close to being a prime suspect," Glendale Police Chief Randy Adams said.
Grigoryan is described as being 5-foot-5, 160 pounds and as having brown eyes and short black hair.
The license plate number registered to the Mercedes is "O7TT777," police said.
At a separate press conference held later the same day, Adams admonished Mercedes-Benz of North America for refusing to comply with a court order to activate the car's standard Global Positioning System so that authorities might pinpoint the sedan's exact location.
"It's one of the most frustrating thing in my 35 years of law enforcement," he told reporters.
A court order police obtained at 2:30 p.m. Friday was faxed to Mercedes-Benz North American headquarters in New Jersey and to the company that provides the global positioning satellite service, Irving, Texas-based Tele-Aid.
Calls made to a Mercedes-Benz representative were not returned as of press time.
"It's absurd," said Jackie Sandoval, Elizabeth's sister. "I mean, what [is Mercedez-Benz] getting out of it?"
The Mercedes, which was likely traveling at up to 60 mph when it hit Sandoval, fled the scene, and police have been encouraging witnesses or anyone who might know the driver to come forward.
"We would very much like to speak with Mr. Grigoryan," Adams said.
Detectives have not been able to track Grigoryan down at any of his previously listed addresses, and Adams would not confirm if police have contacted any of his family.
Police did confirm Friday that the car is registered to one of Grigoryan's family members, but would not say who.
Friday's announcement came two days after Sandoval's family, along with Adams and Mayor Ara Najarian, made a public appeal for those with information about the accident to come forward.
On Wednesday and Thursday, neighbors and strangers alike gathered for impromptu candlelight vigils at a makeshift memorial on South Glendale Avenue near where the accident occurred.
Police credited public involvement to the fast-moving case, as well as support from the city and county in donating a proposed $20,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the driver.
"I think it certainly helps anytime you have the public assist the police department," Adams said.
The City Council and the County Board of Supervisors are expected to approve separate $10,000 rewards at their regular meetings Tuesday night.
It is an unusual move for local government to offer such large rewards, but Sandoval's family "really touched us," Najarian said.
"These criminals need to know that you can run, but you can't hide," he said.
As of May, 62 pedestrians in Glendale had been struck by vehicles, 22 more than the same period last year, according to police reports.
The Glendale Police and Public Works Departments are expected to address the issue before the City Council on Tuesday.
Anyone with information on the hit-and-run can call the Glendale Police Department at (818) 548-4840, or the Crime Stoppers anonymous tip hotline at (818) 507-7867.
This in one sad story here in SoCal. It's been in the news for a few days now.
Personally, I think that the court order has its merit, but companies should not be forced to become crime-fighters. I hope MB's Tele-Aid system helps, but it should not be their responsibility to be the crime-solver...
Personally, I think that the court order has its merit, but companies should not be forced to become crime-fighters. I hope MB's Tele-Aid system helps, but it should not be their responsibility to be the crime-solver...
a court order is a court order...they are in America so they must abide by the rules set by the gov't. if they can't comply to a simple court order then they should be held accountable for the damages at hand.
it doesnt have anything to do with becoming crime-fighters. they are being advised to help in a matter which resulted in the death of a victim, and allowing such a criminal to get away by ignoring the court order is plain wrong.
i dont understand why having "power" means you can disobey the court rulings. i dont care who you are, from the president down to the common folk...if you purposely ignore the ruling, it deserves the maximum punishment!
it doesnt have anything to do with becoming crime-fighters. they are being advised to help in a matter which resulted in the death of a victim, and allowing such a criminal to get away by ignoring the court order is plain wrong.
i dont understand why having "power" means you can disobey the court rulings. i dont care who you are, from the president down to the common folk...if you purposely ignore the ruling, it deserves the maximum punishment!
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,574
Likes: 265
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
I would support a M-B boycott if enough people in the country would do it.......pledge not to purchase any new M-B vehicles or parts until the company complies. ( I wouldn't buy one anyway, with their reliability records)
Last edited by mmarshall; Jul 16, 2007 at 04:30 PM.
Lead Lap
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: md
No.....can't be sued if you are following a direct court order. The judge takes the responsibility for the "privacy" violation, not the company.
I would support a M-B boycott if enough people in the country would do it.......pledge not to purchase any new M-B vehicles or parts until the company complies. ( I wouldn't buy one anyway, with their reliability records)
I would support a M-B boycott if enough people in the country would do it.......pledge not to purchase any new M-B vehicles or parts until the company complies. ( I wouldn't buy one anyway, with their reliability records)
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,574
Likes: 265
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Well, obviously we can't stop global satellites orbiting at 18,000 MPH. I'm not enough of an electronics expert to know if the access that M-B has to their signals can be shut down, though. And..... even if it CAN, wouldn't that defeat the very purpose of the court orders?
The company can't later change its mind and comply with the order of it doesn't have any GPS access to start with. And, last, the car's owner may be saavy enough to defeat the system.
Trending Topics
I think MB isn't really refusing to track the vehicle, its just that the MB vehicles are so unreliable, that the GPS unit in this one is probably broke, and MB just doesn't wanna admit to it.
ClubLexus Stories
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
Top 10 Most Confusing Things Lexus Has Ever Done!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Lexus ES Review: Lexus Re-Embraces Founding Principles
Michael S. Palmer
10 Lexus Bargains That are Cheaper Than a New Toyota RAV4
Joe Kucinski
8 Weirdest Things Lexus Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
10 Lexus Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
8 Tips for Improving Your Hybrid or Plug-in Hybrid's Efficiency!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Best Lexus Models No One Remembers
Joe Kucinski
TRD Off-Road Premium: Best 2026 4Runner, Except This One Thing
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Lexus & Toyotas to Drive Before You Die!
Joe Kucinski
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,375
Likes: 21
From: California
What you stated is not only true as applied to casual observations (or as a joke), it makes sense in terms of legality as well.
Without endorsing either side in this case, I can imagine that Mercedes probably has been well advised by its corporate counsels not to provide the information requested by the Court. And if I may dare to venture, in my opinion the issue at stake is not about whether Mercedes has the capability, or even the willingness, to help prosecute and track down the alleged suspect.
Instead, these lawyers might be more concerned about "liability" and the release of Clients' private information.
This is so because:
1. Granted, whether it's a court order or not, most of us would probably not want/appreciate a party, whom we've entrusted our confidence upon, to easily disclose this private information to the police without substantial evidence proving our guilt.
2. Just in case there's an issue with product liability that eventually arises from this case, Mercedes does not want to be one of the parties being named in a civil suit.
Obviously, as a tactical reason a party may also refuse to comply with the court order for the simple reason that it would much rather pay for the sanction than to face certain unforeseen consequences. Not to mention the fact that if there were certain ethical breach by disclosing the information, the State Bar will be scrutinizing this case very carefully. And this matter is just not something that most lawyers can easily brush aside.
Hence, we have the company's decision to let the lawyers do what they're being paid for.
Jon
Without endorsing either side in this case, I can imagine that Mercedes probably has been well advised by its corporate counsels not to provide the information requested by the Court. And if I may dare to venture, in my opinion the issue at stake is not about whether Mercedes has the capability, or even the willingness, to help prosecute and track down the alleged suspect.
Instead, these lawyers might be more concerned about "liability" and the release of Clients' private information.
This is so because:
1. Granted, whether it's a court order or not, most of us would probably not want/appreciate a party, whom we've entrusted our confidence upon, to easily disclose this private information to the police without substantial evidence proving our guilt.
2. Just in case there's an issue with product liability that eventually arises from this case, Mercedes does not want to be one of the parties being named in a civil suit.
Obviously, as a tactical reason a party may also refuse to comply with the court order for the simple reason that it would much rather pay for the sanction than to face certain unforeseen consequences. Not to mention the fact that if there were certain ethical breach by disclosing the information, the State Bar will be scrutinizing this case very carefully. And this matter is just not something that most lawyers can easily brush aside.
Hence, we have the company's decision to let the lawyers do what they're being paid for.
Jon
Last edited by Baby ///M3; Jul 16, 2007 at 07:46 PM.
Lead Lap
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: md
Well, obviously we can't stop global satellites orbiting at 18,000 MPH. I'm not enough of an electronics expert to know if the access that M-B has to their signals can be shut down, though. And..... even if it CAN, wouldn't that defeat the very purpose of the court orders? The company can't later change its mind and comply with the order of it doesn't have any GPS access to start with. And, last, the car's owner may be saavy enough to defeat the system.
The company can't later change its mind and comply with the order of it doesn't have any GPS access to start with. And, last, the car's owner may be saavy enough to defeat the system.
CL Community Team
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,335
Likes: 61
From: California
How about when someone uses a credit card? Doesn't the credit companies disclose to the authorities where and when the customer uses the credit card? A court order is a court order as mmarshall stated and someone can get into real big trouble by not complying...
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,375
Likes: 21
From: California
Indeed.
However, disclosing information of credit card users in your example does not expose the credit card company or its attorneys to the same set of unforeseen consequences that Mercedes may have to worry about in this matter.
Here's a good question to ask yourself. If the court orders you to incriminate yourself, does this order override your right to the 5th?
Therefore, keep in mind that a court order can always be challenged. Napster tried to do so back in 2001. The only difference in Napster's case is that back then, Napster was told to NOT operate, and was not compelled to give up private information. There are also other cases where court orders allowing the FBI's review of documents being challenged. Not only that, in some cases it's the "prosecution" that actually challenges the court order. All these said, there's no reason why Mercedes can't do the same.
I am not saying Mercedes has made the right choice to not cooperate with the authority. As a matter of fact, possible "court sanction" is what MB and its lawyers have to worry about. However, when it comes to two bad choices, the lesser evil will be preferred based on the party's discretion.
It would be interesting to see how the Court rules on these issues.
Jon
However, disclosing information of credit card users in your example does not expose the credit card company or its attorneys to the same set of unforeseen consequences that Mercedes may have to worry about in this matter.
Here's a good question to ask yourself. If the court orders you to incriminate yourself, does this order override your right to the 5th?
Therefore, keep in mind that a court order can always be challenged. Napster tried to do so back in 2001. The only difference in Napster's case is that back then, Napster was told to NOT operate, and was not compelled to give up private information. There are also other cases where court orders allowing the FBI's review of documents being challenged. Not only that, in some cases it's the "prosecution" that actually challenges the court order. All these said, there's no reason why Mercedes can't do the same.
I am not saying Mercedes has made the right choice to not cooperate with the authority. As a matter of fact, possible "court sanction" is what MB and its lawyers have to worry about. However, when it comes to two bad choices, the lesser evil will be preferred based on the party's discretion.
It would be interesting to see how the Court rules on these issues.
Jon
Racer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,936
Likes: 0
From: CA
Indeed.
However, disclosing information of credit card users in your example does not expose the credit card company or its attorneys to the same set of unforeseen consequences that Mercedes may have to worry about in this matter.
Here's a good question to ask yourself. If the court orders you to incriminate yourself, does this order override your right to the 5th?
Therefore, keep in mind that a court order can always be challenged. Napster tried to do so back in 2001. The only difference in Napster's case is that back then, Napster was told to NOT operate, and was not compelled to give up private information. There are also other cases where court orders allowing the FBI's review of documents being challenged. Not only that, in some cases it's the "prosecution" that actually challenges the court order. All these said, there's no reason why Mercedes can't do the same.
I am not saying Mercedes has made the right choice to not cooperate with the authority. As a matter of fact, possible "court sanction" is what MB and its lawyers have to worry about. However, when it comes to two bad choices, the lesser evil will be preferred based on the party's discretion.
It would be interesting to see how the Court rules on these issues.
Jon
However, disclosing information of credit card users in your example does not expose the credit card company or its attorneys to the same set of unforeseen consequences that Mercedes may have to worry about in this matter.
Here's a good question to ask yourself. If the court orders you to incriminate yourself, does this order override your right to the 5th?
Therefore, keep in mind that a court order can always be challenged. Napster tried to do so back in 2001. The only difference in Napster's case is that back then, Napster was told to NOT operate, and was not compelled to give up private information. There are also other cases where court orders allowing the FBI's review of documents being challenged. Not only that, in some cases it's the "prosecution" that actually challenges the court order. All these said, there's no reason why Mercedes can't do the same.
I am not saying Mercedes has made the right choice to not cooperate with the authority. As a matter of fact, possible "court sanction" is what MB and its lawyers have to worry about. However, when it comes to two bad choices, the lesser evil will be preferred based on the party's discretion.
It would be interesting to see how the Court rules on these issues.
Jon
Court orders are simply just what the layers want, they are not some holy righteousness, and they are not after your well being either, they don't really care about you just what they want.
Yes, there are cases of reporters, doctors, etc who goes to jail because they refuse to give up information because of their doctor/paitent, attorney/client confidentiality. Because once they do, yes they make the court happy, they are pretty much out of their profession. Because they will never ever get another story simply no source will entrust them. No one will ever go to a doctor who gives out their medical information without censent no matter who asked for it.
Court orders are simply just what the layers want, they are not some holy righteousness, and they are not after your well being either, they don't really care about you just what they want.
Court orders are simply just what the layers want, they are not some holy righteousness, and they are not after your well being either, they don't really care about you just what they want.
what does MB have suffer from disclosing the info? its not like the cops request this type of info from the automakers on a regular basis. this is just one of the exceptions to actually disclosing that info. MB really needs to be dealt with...this is just unexcusable and plain stupid.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 2
From: CA
as easy as it would be to jump on the side of doing the right thing, as a corporation that has to watch for sue happy people, I'm sure they have consulted their corporate counsel on this matter and how to address it. If it were that much of a no brainer they would have assisted already. I'm inclined to say that they're more concerned about the aftermath of divulging such information and what potential affects this could do to them.
Can you imagine they assist in his capture/conviction and then his family turns around and files a civil suit on MBZ?!?!?! it's not too far fetched as some of you that live in socal can remember the hollywood bank shoot out where the family tried to sue the LAPD for letting their son "bleed to death" before paramedics can arrive.
Can you imagine they assist in his capture/conviction and then his family turns around and files a civil suit on MBZ?!?!?! it's not too far fetched as some of you that live in socal can remember the hollywood bank shoot out where the family tried to sue the LAPD for letting their son "bleed to death" before paramedics can arrive.