Freddy Pacheco, a 31-year-old suspected of being the hit-and-run driver who injured a two-year-old girl on Saturday, September 13, called the investigator looking into the accident and came in for questioning, said Santa Barbara Police spokesperson Sgt. Lorenzo Duarte on Wednesday. Though Duarte did not say that Pacheco confessed to hitting the girl, Pacheco came into the police station on Tuesday, September 16, and brought with him his 1997 Chevrolet SUV, which matched the description of the car that witnesses described. Pacheco has not been arrested and his car has been released to him, but the matter is now in the hands of the district attorney’s office, which will decide whether to file charges against him for felony hit and run and also for driving with a suspended license.
Around 6:15 p.m. on September 13, the two-year-old ran out into the roadway on the 700 block of San Pascual Street. According to police reports, a Chevy Tahoe hit her. The man driving the car stepped out, picked the child up, and began searching for her mother. Once he found the mother, he drove both her and her injured child to Cottage Hospital, but then fled without leaving any contact information.
Upon examining the child at the hospital, doctors found that she had suffered broken ribs and lacerations to her head.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
It is extremely impressive that he came forward with the way that so many people don't. Although the situation is not great with him driving on a suspended license, he didn't actually run from the scene of the crime but instead he was responsible and found the mother and got them to the hospital. That leads me to believe that he wasn't under the influence at least. He shouldn't have been driving with a suspended license and that is what he should be charged with. In my opinion this does not sound anything like a felony hit & run! It seems weird that they are considering that as the charge!
Sounds like the parents should be charged right along side of him for negligence, what the heck was a 2 year old doing in the street and why on earth did he have to go find the mother? If I was driving and a little kid suddenly ran in the road in front of me and I hit them, I would be so traumatized, especially if they were seriously hurt or killed! Everyone should feel very lucky that this child did not get more than a few small wounds, considering what could have happened.
I hope that they change the charges for the driver to a more appropriate charge of driving with a suspended license...
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
September 18, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, what kind of parents let their kid(s) run around unsupervised??? Apparently the child was unsupervised if the driver had to go search for the mother. Sure the driver had a suspended license and should be charged accordingly.. but he did not "hit & run". It'll be outrageous if this driver gets jail time, while someone like Heather Hulsey-- who KILLED someone while driving drunk, hid the fact that she killed someone & then had no remorse by partying it up right after the incident-- gets "probation" for her horrendous actions!!!!
mcm (anonymous profile)
September 18, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, it would be interesting to see how this case is handled vs. the Hulsey case.
Someone please set the record straight for me: Am I right in my understanding that Judge Frank Ochoa had the choice to send Heather Hulsey to jail and that his hands were NOT tied in this issue? Because if that is the case, why has there been no movement to recall Ochoa?
People are saying Ochoa's decision sets a dangerous precedent. If that is the case, isn't NOT recalling Ochoa setting a dangerous precedent per allowing judges to make wrong decisions where people who get drunk, hit and kill people, try to cover up their crimes, then continue to behave irresponsibly, get off the hook?
What am I missing?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 18, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree Bill, it sets a very bad precedent! We are seeing rich kids get away with murder, literally... I hope that the Indy follows this case & lets us know that this man's charges get changed. Felony hit n run to me is when someone hits a person, seriously injuring or killing them, and then flees. The only reason that this case has any charges is because the driver didn't have a license. It could just have easily happened to any one of us who are licensed and driving down the road. I live about 2 blocks from where it happened and I'm appalled by how people in my neighborhood allow their very young children to play out on the sidewalks unsupervised. Backing out of my driveway is a scary experience sometimes because there are tiny little kids running around. Before I even get into my car I go do a visual of the sidewalk & street!
Hopefully this man will be charged accordingly and not punished for the negligence of the parents. If they charge the parents for their part I think that could send a serious message to other parents that they need to keep tabs on their young children, making sure that they are kept out of harms way. Maybe it would make me feel safer backing out of my own driveway!
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's hope that the DA's office sees fit to actually be judicious and not simply go in for the kill because "they can".
Sounds like the PD sure exercised restraint.
Hmm the parents? Hard to say, but I have little doubt that CPS is already looking into it. Hopefully all wind up in good shape as the dust settles on this.
david3 (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Once he found the mother, he drove both her and her injured child to Cottage Hospital, but then fled without leaving any contact information."
Um, 'fled' or 'left'? Did he actually run away, or did he think his involvement was over with? His actions don't seem to indicate someone trying to shirk their responsobility, save for that one word choice.
Rich (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When you get behind the wheel of an automobile you are responsible for what ever happens. If you hit a child it is not the child's parent who is responsible or the child no matter what the circumstances. If there are children playing in the middle of an intersection you cant run over them and then blame the parents for being irresponsible. I am sure the D.A. will decide if a crime has been committed and take proper measures.
pappy (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad for this guy that only women can get pregnant or he wouldn't have to worry about going to jail.
faerydragon (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment