Tiger escapes and kills 1, hurts 2 in San Francisco
 

This happened yesterday:(

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNABU4Q5T.DTL
San Francisco Chronicle
Investigation continues into fatal tiger attack at S.F. zoo
Kevin Fagan, Jaxon VanDerbeken, John Koopman,Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writers

Wednesday, December 26, 2007
12-26) 15:42 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Police are treating the San Francisco Zoo as a crime scene this afternoon, one day after a 350-pound tiger escaped and attacked three San Jose boys, killing a 17-year-old before hunting down and seriously injuring two of his friends.

Carlos Sousa Jr was killed Christmas evening outside the tiger grotto, which is protected by a 15-foot-wide moat and 20-foot high wall. Tatiana, a 350-pound Siberian tiger that also attacked a zookeeper almost exactly a year ago, was shot by police as it mauled one of the survivors 300 yards away from the grotto.

Zoo officials are still unsure how the tiger escaped the enclosure. Authorities believe it initially attacked all three victims, killing Sousa. Officials believe the cat then followed blood trails to Terrace Cafe where it cornered the other boys, brothers ages 19 and 23.

San Francisco police Lt. Leroy Lindo said police currently have no reason to believe the three men taunted the tiger prior to the attack, which happened shortly after the zoo's 5 p.m. closing time. Dozens of visitors and some employees were still inside the zoo at the time.

Authorities were called to the scene after receiving a call that said an unspecified animal may be loose in the zoo and that a visitor had been bitten.

When police arrived, they first found Sousa, who was pronounced dead at the scene. The officers began a search and found the 23-year-old victim lying on the ground with cuts on his face. He was cornered by the tiger. As the officers approached, police said, the tiger jumped back on top of the man and resumed its attack. The animal then became distracted by the four officers, who were yelling, and advanced toward the officers. All four fired their .40-caliber handguns, hitting the tiger an unknown number of times.

Gittens said the officers did not want to shoot the animal while it was sitting next to the victim.

"I can only imagine the patrons walking around, and suddenly seeing this tiger," he said. "It was probably surreal."

The officers then found the third victim, the 19-year-old man, near his brother.

The brothers were in stable condition today after surgeries at San Francisco General Hospital.

John Sousa said he learned of his nephew's death this morning.

"This is very rough, very hard on us. There's nothing much we can do. This will be investigated, it's going to take some time," he said. "He was a great kid, he took off on Christmas with friends, we're not sure what happened."

San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo said the zoo has a response team that is armed with tranquilizers and firearms, but that the scene unfolded "so quickly that the officers found (Tatiana) first."

The zoo does not have video surveillance, police said, so the investigation will be based on physical evidence collected at the zoo, witness statements, the autopsy of the dead man and the necropsy of the tiger.

Police officers, along with fire department and zoo personnel, conducted four searches of the zoo grounds between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning to ensure no other people had been attacked, said police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens. Authorities used a California Highway Patrol helicopter with thermal imaging and floodlights to comb the zoo for additional victims or escaped animals when it was still dark, he said.

At one point, police said, zoo officials feared that the four other tigers that belong to the zoo were on the loose. Authorities said one zookeeper wanted to go into the large cat grotto to account for the remaining animals, and police had to physically restrain him.

Rochelle Dicker, an emergency room surgeon at San Francisco General Hospital who operated on the victims, said today that the two unnamed brothers were recovering remarkably well. Doctors are focusing on preventing infection from the bacteria that may be present in the men's wounds, she said. That bacteria is similar to the type found in the common house cat, officials said.

Dicker said the men were in critical condition when they arrived at the hospital Tuesday but that emergency crews had managed to stabilize the victims and clean their wounds. Both men underwent multiple surgeries with several different teams of doctors through the night, she said. The surgeries mostly consisted of cleaning the wounds more thoroughly and stitching the gashes, Dicker said.

Doctors will keep the men at the hospital today to monitor them, she said. Dicker attributed their recovery to the fact that both are young and in good health.

The zoo, which is closed today for the first time in years, was eerily quiet this morning. The cafe where the attack victims were found is shuttered and still. A dozen police officers gathered with zoo officials just west of the cafe earlier this morning, poring over maps and handing out equipment. This afternoon, a handful of visitors continued to filter up tot the entrance, unaware of what had happened.

"Oh my gosh! I hadn't heard anything about a tiger," said one visitor, Komer Poodari, of San Jose. "I guess we'll go to Fisherman's Wharf."

Mollinedo said that officials hope to reopen the zoo Thursday, but plan on keeping the outdoor big cat exhibit closed indefinitely. Police are treating the area as a crime scene, collecting physical evidence and taking statements from any witnesses, Police Chief Heather Fong said.

Lora LaMarca, a zoo spokeswoman, said this morning that officials still have no idea how the animal escaped from its grotto. Police refused to rule out the possibility of carelessness or criminal activity, and zoo officials said the tiger did not escape through the grotto's only door.

"We don't know at this point if somebody let the tiger out or it climbed out," Gittens said, adding that if someone did let the animal out it would be considered a crime.

The zoo held a staff meeting this morning, LaMarca said, and authorities there are offering grief counselors to its employees.

"The zoo offers its sincerest sympathies to the people affected," she said.

This is the second time in just over a year that Tatiana attacked a human.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the tiger chewed the flesh off zookeeper Lori Komejan's arm after a public feeding demonstration. A state investigation later ruled that the zoo was at fault for the attack because of the way the cages were configured.

A June report from the state Division of Occupation Safety and Health blamed the San Francisco Zoo for the 2006 attack, stating that the tiger cages were configured in a way that made it possible for Tatiana to bite the zookeeper's arm. The state found that Komejan was attacked after she reached through a drain trough to retrieve an item near the tiger's side of the cage. The tiger reached under the cage bars and grabbed her right arm, but the zookeeper tried to push the tiger away using her other arm, the report found.

Both of her arms were under the cage at that point and her face was pressed against the cage bars, according to the report. Another employee grabbed a long-handled squeegee and hit the tiger in the head until it released the injured zookeeper.

"There was never any consideration for putting her down - the tiger was acting like a normal tiger," Mollinedo said today.

The public feedings at the Lion House resumed in September after about $250,000 in safety upgrades. The city, which helps fund the zoo, is currently facing a lawsuit from Komejan and is assessing today whether it is at all liable for the Christmas Day mauling, officials said.

Mayor Gavin Newsom is in Hawaii for a Christmas vacation; Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the acting mayor, has not commented publicly.

Mollinedo said today that he has brought in colleagues from other accredited zoos to do a thorough analysis of the big cat exhibits.

"We want to make sure they are safe, and see what kind of modifications should be done to ensure the safety of (people and animals)," he said.

Anyone who witnessed the tiger's escape Tuesday or the attacks is asked to call authorities at (415) 553-1141.

Chronicle staff writers Meredith May, Cecilia Vega and Steve Rubenstein contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at kfagan@sfchronicle.com, jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com, jkoopman@sfchronicle.com and mlagos@sfchronicle.com.

They're now saying that they think the tiger jumped out, and didn't get out through an open cage door. It sounds like Tatiana was not a very socialized tiger, but she just might have been an edgy one.

Tatiana was born at the Denver Zoo.

My money is on a door being left open or someone helping her out of her cage, rather than her jumping over a 20-foot moat and up the 18 foot wall on the other side. That would be a HUGE leap.

It's a shame...the tiger was just being a normal tiger.

:(

Parents saw coverage, but didn't know tiger victim was their son
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNO6U4U72.DTL

AND

Trail of blood apparently led escaped tiger to victims
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...4SVN.DTL&tsp=1

For crying out loud, this is what wild animals do, they are not tame no matter where they are born.

Seigried and Roy for example!

There is a place in Kansas where wild animals are and high school kids would come and have pictures taken until one bit a Senior there to get a picture taken! Oops do not do that any more.

If the zoo was closed, what were they doing there anyway? How did the cat get loose? Well, they are very athletic, but that tall a wall, and that wide a moat, come on!:confused:

Never run from a wild animal, they go for the chase. They are preditors and they hunt from insinct. Watch you home kitty stalk something!:):rolleyes:

Tom, the zoo was open for the day and this happened around 5 pm when the closing sweep was about to happen.

There is some speculation that zoo visiters were taunting the tiger.

That doesn't answer the question of how she got out, though.

True, on the news (local channel 4 KRON) they had commented that it was possible that the kids were taunting the animal and might have climbed into the moat. I haven’t checked for any updates (5:07pmPST) recently but I’m sure they police and zoo officials will come up with something.

I really feel bad for the young man's family. Hopefully, more information will come from the two survivors.
******************
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNFFU5G80.DTL
Tiger grotto wall shorter than thought, may have contributed to escape and fatal attack
Kevin Fagan, Cecilia M. Vega, John Coté,Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, December 27, 2007
12-27) 14:51 PST San Francisco - --

The wall of a moat that surrounds the San Francisco Zoo's tiger enclosure is far shorter than officials thought and also below national standards, authorities said today.

Zoo officials have gone back and forth on the grotto's measurements since a 350-pound tiger escaped on Christmas Day, killing 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and seriously injuring two of his friends. The survivors were identified by relatives and public records as brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23. The three young men were from San Jose.

Earlier this week, zoo officials said the moat's wall was at least 20 feet tall. Today, they said it was little over 12 feet. Since the investigation began Tuesday, officials have given at least five different measurements for the enclosure, which is surrounded by a moat, two walls on either side of the moat, a small patch of grass and then another waist-high fence. Experts say that the depth of the moat and height of the walls could have a large impact on the animal's ability to escape the enclosure.

Read the rest at the website...

NBC Nightly News reported the difference in heights of the wall tonight.

I'd say the zoo has some real problems ahead.

The boys have lawyered up - hired the guy who defended Scott Peterson - and are going to sue the zoo. It looks like the kids were taunting the tiger. I just saw on CNN that they found rocks and branches and other things in the tiger grotto that wouldn't have gotten in there without being thrown. It's also a pretty good indicator of something fishy going on given that the boys are refusing to cooperate with investigators. Anyway, if it turns out that the tiger was provoked, then I think the zoo should sue the boys for the loss of their tiger.

That was my initial thought. I've been to that exhibit and have seen it up close. It's a lot of concrete and no brush in the moat area. My other thought too was why was there no supervision of the tigers? At least one person for the exhibit for those type of animals. I hate zoos anyway. I was never kin' to the idea of caged animals that shouldn't be there. Just me.

I agree 100%

Cosign KKCat and NinjaPoodle......I hope for their sake, they didn't provoke the tiger...b/c there's gonna be an outcry if they did

They hired the guy that defended Scott Peterson? Yeah, that one didn't exactly go Scott's way.

And I agree about the taunting. If they were taunting the tiger, then they do owe the zoo a new one. Who goes to the zoo to taunt animals anyway?

There are now also reports that in the two surviving kids' car there was an empty bottle of vodka, and that slingshots were found on them....we'll see.

Now the SF zoo is putting up signs saying "Be respectful of the animals", it's a damn zoo, don't people know that anyhow??? Hmm, let's see, 350lb tiger, with big teeth and scary claws, I think I'll taunt it, yeah! Great idea! In a certain respect, if these three were taunting the tiger this may be Darwinism at work.

I felt bad that they had to shoot the tiger...Tatiana was just doing what tigers do.

Why do I have a feeling that the lawyer offered his services to them. He is all about being a media lawyer! :mad: Has anyone heard what he said about the incident yesterday to the media?

High-profile lawyer representing the tiger attack victims

Animals have instincts. That animal, most likely, INSTINCTIVELY protected itself. It doesn't look good for those two boys...

Seriously....If I were an administrator/board member/lawyer for this zoo, I would say..."bring it on" to any sort of lawsuit.

This zoo has been around for how long and no other big cat has gotten out...now a witness talks about their taunting activities toward the animal...and these guys are there after hours.

The zoo should definitely be filing a suit against the families for all sorts of criminal actions (tresspassing, criminal mischief, etc) and civil litigation for the loss of an important animal.

They weren't there after hours; it was around closing time...they had been at the zoo all afternoon according to what I read. I'm guessing the zoo just wasn't very busy at around 5pm on Christmas day.

As for whether the boys are liable for the death of the tiger if they taunted her, I don't think they'll be held accountable for that. It's the zoo's responsibility to protect its visitors, especially from its animals. Haven't you all ever been to a zoo? Half the kids there could be considered as "taunting" the animals. Waving to a tiger and yelling its name could be considered taunting, and I see kids do that all the time at the zoo. The tiger's wall wasn't high enough, so she apparently jumped out; really, whatever the reason for how she got out, it's the zoo's liability.

Was just watching Jack Hanna on TV talk about this. I believe he said something like 2.5 billion people have walked through US zoos in some time frame (don't remember the exact years he used) with none of them getting hurt. The tiger area at the zoo in question had the same structure for 30+ years without a single, solitary incident.

Sorry, I just don't believe at all that this was some random, sporadic deal and that it is the zoo's fault.

My favorite Jack Hanna quote in all of this is "A wild animal is like a loaded weapon".

An dto think that the last time I went to the zoo all I saw was a male giraffe trying to mate with a female giraffe. Try and explain what was going on to a five-year old-- "Mommy why is that giraffe jumping on the other one's back??"

So they were drunk and high....
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22719922/

Nice...I hope the zoo sues and gets a new tiger. Dumbasses.:mad::mad:

What a bunch of dumbasses. You reap what you sow.

Yes, and 1 person is dead because of it.:(

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNEIUH4B9.DTL

Mauling survivor said he yelled at tiger
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

01-17) 18:05 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- One of the two survivors of the San Francisco Zoo tiger attack that left a 17-year-old dead told the victim's father that the three had yelled and waved at the animal while standing atop the railing of the tiger's exhibit, police said in court documents filed Thursday.

Paul Dhaliwal, 19, denied throwing anything into the enclosure or otherwise antagonizing the animal, according to an account contained in police investigators' request for a search warrant in connection with the Christmas Day attack that killed Carlos Sousa Jr. of San Jose.

Police armed with the warrant and seeking evidence that the men had taunted the tiger searched the 2002 BMW belonging to Dhaliwal's 23-year-old brother, Kulbir, on Wednesday. They also reviewed the brothers' cell phones for any photos they might have taken before the tiger attacked.

Police said they had recovered messages and images but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack. Investigators seized a small amount of marijuana as well as a partially filled bottle of Grey Goose vodka from the car, according to the inventory that police submitted from the search.

They also found a kit commonly used to defeat drug testing, which included a vial of unisex synthetic urine, police said. Paul Dhaliwal was on probation stemming from a drunken driving incident that occurred before the attack.

The search warrant affidavit was prepared Tuesday by police Inspector Valerie Matthews, the lead investigator in the case, and was filed in San Francisco Superior Court late Thursday.

It cites multiple reports of a group of young men taunting animals at the zoo as basis for a court to grant police the right to search the cell phones and BMW, where police said they had seen the partially full bottle vodka bottle in the front passenger seat.

Both Dhaliwal brothers were hospitalized with head wounds after the maulings. Matthews said in the warrant application that Paul Dhaliwal's blood alcohol level had been measured after the attack at 0.16 percent, twice the legal level for drunkenness. She did not indicate exactly when the test had been conducted.

Kulbir Dhaliwal's blood alcohol level was 0.04 percent, and Sousa's was 0.02 percent, Matthews said.

All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. The drug can stay in blood for several days, but Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked marijuana and had each had "a couple shots of vodka" Christmas Day before leaving the brothers' home in San Jose, the affidavit said.

Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., is quoted in the affidavit as saying he spoke by telephone with Paul Dhaliwal after the attack. Sousa Sr. declined to comment Thursday.

According to the elder Sousa's account to police, Dhaliwal told him that he, his brother and the younger Sousa had been "waving their hands and yelling at the tiger" just before the animal bounded up a 12 1/2-foot wall from its dry moat and attacked them.

Paul Dhaliwal - referred to in affidavit by his formal name, Amritpal - "said the three of them were standing on the railing looking at the tiger," Sousa told police.

The 3-foot-tall metal railing is a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat.

Dhaliwal told Sousa that "when they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes" on Paul Dhaliwal, the affidavit said.

"Sousa Sr. said he asked Amritpal Dhaliwal if they were dangling their legs, or throwing things taunting the tiger," the affidavit said. "Sousa Sr. said Amritpal Dhaliwal said they did not."

Matthews said police had found a partial shoe print on top of the railing and concluded that it matched a shoe worn by Paul Dhaliwal.

"This shoe print is a possible indication of Amritpal Dhaliwal standing on the railing to photo, taunt, view or tease the tiger," Matthews said in the affidavit.

Earlier this month, the younger Sousa's mother, Marilza Sousa, said in an interview that Paul Dhaliwal had told her, "We didn't do nothing. We were just normal kids in the zoo."

She added, "That's what happened - just dancing, talking, laughing like normal kids."

It is unclear what Paul Dhaliwal told police as there is no summary of his account in the search warrant affidavit. Police have said they interviewed both brothers.

Paul Dhaliwal apparently was reluctant to talk immediately after the attack, according to Matthews' affidavit.

One of the paramedics who rode with him in an ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital told police she had tried to interview him but that he had said only, "I don't want anyone to know," Matthews wrote.

When the unidentified paramedic persisted, Dhaliwal told her to "just shut up," the affidavit said.

He also denied having a cell phone after first asking the paramedic if she wanted his phone number and laughing, the affidavit said.

The Dhaliwal brothers have hired an attorney, Mark Geragos, who did not return a call Thursday.

Last week, the San Francisco city attorney referred to the police investigation of the attack as inactive. Now, the police search indicates that investigators believe the young men taunted the tiger, a misdemeanor. In seeking the warrant, police said they were investigating whether an unspecified felony had been committed.

"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," Matthews wrote in the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.

An autopsy conducted by a zoo veterinarian on the Siberian tiger after police shot it to death showed that the animal had been "very determined to get out," Matthews said. Its claws were broken and splintered by clambering up the concrete moat wall, Matthews quoted the veterinarian as saying.

"This behavior may be consistent with a tiger that has been agitated and/or taunted," Matthews said.

Police found a pine cone and a tree branch in the tiger's outdoor grotto when they searched it soon after the attack, but Matthews said investigators could not determine how long those items had been there, because the zoo's operations director, Jesse Vargas, "told me that they could not answer any questions regarding the tiger and/or the tiger exhibit per their attorney's request."

Sam Singer, a spokesman for the zoo, has said Vargas merely wanted to have attorneys present during any questioning related to the tiger attack. He denied that Vargas or any other zoo official had refused to cooperate with police.


E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

dumb.asses.

While I think they were idiots for agitating a tiger, I still think that it's the zoo's responsibility to ensure that the tiger can't get out, no matter how agitated it is.

I agree. I also stand by what I said earlier: that most of what people do at the zoo could be seen as "taunting" or "agitating" according to what these kids said they did. Most kids I see at the zoo are waving at animals or shouting out things like, "HI TIGER!" - sometimes at the encouragement of their parents. People don't think of it as taunting then, so why is it suddenly bad now? The zoo has a responsibility to reasonably protect people on its property from what people would consider harmful. And I think it goes without saying that people assume a zoo has taken the steps necessary to keep its dangerous animals away from the visitors; if they didn't think so, they wouldn't go!

Sorry PeppyGPhiB but I have to disagree here because of one important bit mentioned in the article - the fact that the "tools" in question and the evidence shows that they where both in violation of the Zoo's safety warnings (by standing on the railing), and that this also suggests that they were doing far more than "waving at it" or saying "Hi, Tiger"... I'm pretty confident that they were baiting the tiger by dangling their legs or something in stupid drunken/high bravado - and the fact that the tiger was pissed off or agitated enough that it shredded it's claws getting out at them sorta backs that up I think... or shows evidence that the tiger made more than one leap and claw at the wall for some reason (looking at the claws I mean).

Is it wrong that the living thing I feel the most sympathy for in this whole story is the tiger?

No, you don't tempt a tiger, ever. But the fact that concerns me most is that when the tiger was good and ready, regardless of the cause, it could get out. That is the scariest part.
Okay so normally it would stay in there, but let it get some extra adrenaline on any given day... then what?! NO tiger should be able to get out of one that is considered a safe enclosure for both its safety and my own. Luckily, it only attacked those who were "taunting" it. However, what if someone else had been harmed too? They would have been just standing around.
Now imagine if it was just a normal day and kids were waving and yelling or a school group was there and everyone's standing around and they're being loud and tiger gets a bit fussy...It's not supposed to come out. PERIOD. I go to the zoo to look, not interact.
Unfortunately, people probably tease animals all the time, hwoever, the zoo needs to be responsible for watching their animals, particularly their dangerous ones, for their health and our safety. Yes, it happens, but the thing is at probably almost any other zoo (at least one that is on the ball), no one would have died because tiger would have been pissed off yes, but pissed off inside the enclosure. End of story.

I feel the same way.

That would make me wrong, too.

I'd be curious to know if any of these boys' parents believed in Darwin's theory.

No. I feel sorry for the tiger too!

I feel sorry for the cat as well, but it appears, to me at least, that she may have been pre-disposed to violence:

"This is the second time in just over a year that Tatiana attacked a human.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the tiger chewed the flesh off zookeeper Lori Komejan's arm after a public feeding demonstration. A state investigation later ruled that the zoo was at fault for the attack because of the way the cages were configured."

You're kidding, right?

Ah! Finally someone gets to the root of the issue! Thank you, Jen. And co-sign to those who feel sorry for the tiger (not that it's not sad someone died, that's never an "ok" result of anything). But really, not only does this great animal have a limited, sucky existence on display in an unnatural environment, she has to spend her Christmas getting taunted by bored, inebriated teenagers. Every living being has its limits; hers were met that day. Don't mess with mother nature, people! Nature always finds a way.

I agree.

Even people have limits.... sometimes people just snap.

Regarding the whole "the tiger must have been subjected to violence thing"... it's an animal. It really doesn't know any better...

No, not really.

I don't know much about animal psychology, but I don't hear a lot about zoo tigers attacking humans, and this particular animal has done it twice in a couple of years.

It seems to me, uninformed as it may be, that like some humans are more prone to violence, that may be the case with this tiger.

I'm not defending zoos or their conditions. Nor am I defending keeping wild animals in captivity.

My premise may be entirely wrong, but that's the way it appears to me.

Police: Investigation into tiger attack on hold
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/30/tig....ap/index.html
Police: Investigation into tiger attack on hold



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Police have suspended their investigation into the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that killed a teenager as they wait for new witnesses or evidence to emerge.
The investigation has been put on hold "pending new witnesses being interviewed and/or new evidence being produced," city police said in a statement Tuesday. No criminal charges have been filed.

An escaped 250-pound Siberian tiger fatally mauled 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and wounded his friends, brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal, after apparently climbing or leaping from its enclosure December 25.

"We didn't have, obviously, enough to move forward with anything," said San Francisco police Inspector Valerie Matthews, lead investigator.

Police were not actively pursuing new leads but have not closed the investigation in case new information arises, Matthews said. Police will probably decide in late February whether a probe should continue.

Investigators have not brought prosecutors any investigation results or recommended any charges, said Erica Terry Derryck, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office.

Police said in court documents that they believed the attack was in part triggered by the victims provoking the animal. They did not specify what, if any, crimes they thought had been committed.

Matthews declined to detail the nature of the potential crimes police were investigating.

A search warrant affidavit filed January 17 said the victims had marijuana in their systems, and toxicology results showed the blood alcohol level for Paul Dhaliwal, 19, was 0.16 percent -- twice the legal limit for driving.

His 24-year-old brother and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood, but within the legal driving limit, Matthews wrote.

Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, said Tuesday he believed the city had pressured police to unnecessarily prolong their investigation as part of a "smear campaign" against his clients. Geragos said they had done nothing wrong.

A police spokesman declined to comment on whether the department had been pressured.

Michael Cardoza, a lawyer for Sousa's parents, said that he does not understand why police would pause the investigation instead of closing it for good.

"They have had plenty of time to bring this case to an investigative conclusion," Cardoza said