TS Judge dismisses three charges facing Gundersen
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles dismissed three of the 33 charges facing former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen in a written ruling issued Monday.
Miles dismissed two of the 26 spousal rape charges as well as the charge of transporting a second victim for the purpose of rape. She left room for District Attorney Paul Gallegos to file a lesser charge, saying evidence presented during Gundersen's preliminary hearing supports a charge of forcible rape with a firearm enhancement.
After reading Miles' decision, Gallegos notified the court of his intent to add the forcible rape charge to his case against the former police chief.
Gundersen, who was arrested Feb. 8, will now face 31 charges, including 29 felonies, assuming Gallegos adds the forcible rape charge. He has pleaded not guilty and remains held in the Humboldt County jail on $1.25 million bail.
In a motion filed with the court June 27, Gundersen's attorney Russell Clanton sought the dismissal of all the charges facing his client, arguing there was not enough evidence presented during Gundersen's preliminary hearing to support them.
In her ruling, Miles agreed on two of the counts, finding the prosecution failed to present evidence to warrant holding Gundersen to stand trial on charges that he raped his wife with the use of an intoxicant in January 2008 and on Feb. 7, 2008. Miles found sufficient evidence to hold Gundersen to stand trial on the other 24 counts of spousal rape, one count for every month in 2006 and 2007.
After Gundersen's preliminary hearing, Judge John Feeney reduced the charge of kidnapping or transporting a second victim for the purpose of rape to forcible rape, but Gallegos said he respectfully disagreed with the court's decision and re-filed the count as initially charged. In her ruling Monday, Miles agreed with Feeney.
”The court finds that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing does not show such a state of facts as would leave a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the defendant of an aggravated kidnapping,” Miles states in the ruling. “The court agrees with the magistrate that the evidence is sufficient to support a charge of forcible rape under Penal Code section 261(a)(2), and the firearm enhancement.”
If Gallegos files the new charge, Gundersen will face a total of 31 counts: 24 charges of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, forcible rape of a second victim, attempting to dissuade a witness, violating a court order, acting unlawfully with department records, possessing a controlled substance without a prescription and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with a silencer attached.
Clanton said Monday he felt Miles' ruling was accurate regarding the actions she took, but that he obviously felt there were other actions she could have taken but did not. For his part, Gallegos said he agreed with the ruling.
Jury selection, which was slated to begin Monday, was also pushed back a day and is scheduled to begin this morning.
The case was moved to Judge Bruce Watson's courtroom because Miles' courtroom is currently occupied with an ongoing trial.
The court suggested having Judge Timothy Cissna hear the case, but Clanton issued a preemptory challenge on the grounds that Cissna is prejudiced against he or his client, leaving the case in Watson's hands.
That means Watson will also be left to rule on two motions filed by Clanton late last month seeking a change of venue and to have the spousal rape charges tried separately from the count concerning a second victim.
Generally, courts wait to hear change of venue motions until the jury selection process begins and potential jurors are questioned for possible bias. Gallegos said he expects jury selection to begin today with jurors filling out hardship forms and questionnaires regarding media coverage and other issues that may create bias toward the case.
Gallegos said he expects jury selection to take around one month.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/15/2008 01:27:41 AM PDT
***
Same day ER Two charges against Gundersen dismissed
Related coverage, with links to all stories
7.14.2008
TS Gallegos: Doing 'more with less' Jan 18, 2006
Posted on Gallegos' campaign site, contains all the Gallegos talking points including glossing over the loss of prosecutors. Now we know that he hasn't been able to fill those vacant positions, and, we also know a bit more about why those prosecutors left.
Currently, seven deputy district attorneys have been with the office longer than three years: Andrew Isaac, Maggie Flemming, Max Cardoza, Stacey Eades, Wes Keat, Worth Dikeman and Zachary Bird. was the statement then. Who is left now? Maggie Fleming, Max Cardoza, and Wes Keat.
Gallegos: Doing 'more with less'
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos recently lost his seventh attorney since taking office in January 2003, but he said it hasn't affected prosecutions.
”In fact, since I've been in office, Humboldt County has experienced the lowest rate of violent crime since 1990,” Gallegos stated in an e-mail. “In addition, based on the information I have from the Department of Corrections, we also have had Humboldt County's highest level of prison commitments since I've been in office.”
There are currently two open positions, which Gallegos anticipates filling “relatively soon.”
Currently, seven deputy district attorneys have been with the office longer than three years: Andrew Isaac, Maggie Flemming, Max Cardoza, Stacey Eades, Wes Keat, Worth Dikeman and Zachary Bird.
Four deputy district attorneys have been in the office less than three years: Amanda Penny, Jeff Schwartz, Jose Mendes and Nicole Hanson, although Hanson is on two-month leave studying to become a solicitor in England.
Of the five deputies who have quit -- Rob Wade, Heather Gimle, Ed Borg, Tim Stoen and Shane Hauschild -- four took jobs as prosecutors in other counties and one went into private practice. Wade took a job in Napa County, and Borg and Hauschild now work in Lake County. In June of last year, Stoen accepted a position as the financial crime prosecutor in Mendocino County.
Another attorney, Allison Jackson, was fired from the office in June 2004. Gimle and Jackson now work for the Harlan Law Firm. In May 2003, Gloria Albin Sheets was laid off from the office.
”We don't have a problem with attorneys wanting to stay,” Gallegos wrote. “Most district attorney's offices, just like most large- and medium-sized law firms, experience and expect a certain amount of attrition.”
Gallegos said the reasons for attorneys leaving include that they can make more money in private practice and as prosecutors elsewhere.
”Deputies that leave our office to practice as prosecutors elsewhere make more money and have significantly reduced caseloads,” Gallegos wrote.
He did write that it's hard to attract younger attorneys to the area.
”A challenge we face with younger attorneys is that they are far from home and/or friends from college and/or law school and there are few of the attractions that a larger urban area provides,” Gallegos said.
from The Times-Standard | News Articles | by Chris Durant | Jan 18, 2006
Related:
They tried to tell you
Seeking excellence?
Whistling in the dark
Gallegos Loses FOUR More
And so it goes...
Question, really, is "Who's left?" w/update
Lost another one...
Tuesday's BOS meeting w/UPDATE
Currently, seven deputy district attorneys have been with the office longer than three years: Andrew Isaac, Maggie Flemming, Max Cardoza, Stacey Eades, Wes Keat, Worth Dikeman and Zachary Bird. was the statement then. Who is left now? Maggie Fleming, Max Cardoza, and Wes Keat.
Gallegos: Doing 'more with less'
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos recently lost his seventh attorney since taking office in January 2003, but he said it hasn't affected prosecutions.
”In fact, since I've been in office, Humboldt County has experienced the lowest rate of violent crime since 1990,” Gallegos stated in an e-mail. “In addition, based on the information I have from the Department of Corrections, we also have had Humboldt County's highest level of prison commitments since I've been in office.”
There are currently two open positions, which Gallegos anticipates filling “relatively soon.”
Currently, seven deputy district attorneys have been with the office longer than three years: Andrew Isaac, Maggie Flemming, Max Cardoza, Stacey Eades, Wes Keat, Worth Dikeman and Zachary Bird.
Four deputy district attorneys have been in the office less than three years: Amanda Penny, Jeff Schwartz, Jose Mendes and Nicole Hanson, although Hanson is on two-month leave studying to become a solicitor in England.
Of the five deputies who have quit -- Rob Wade, Heather Gimle, Ed Borg, Tim Stoen and Shane Hauschild -- four took jobs as prosecutors in other counties and one went into private practice. Wade took a job in Napa County, and Borg and Hauschild now work in Lake County. In June of last year, Stoen accepted a position as the financial crime prosecutor in Mendocino County.
Another attorney, Allison Jackson, was fired from the office in June 2004. Gimle and Jackson now work for the Harlan Law Firm. In May 2003, Gloria Albin Sheets was laid off from the office.
”We don't have a problem with attorneys wanting to stay,” Gallegos wrote. “Most district attorney's offices, just like most large- and medium-sized law firms, experience and expect a certain amount of attrition.”
Gallegos said the reasons for attorneys leaving include that they can make more money in private practice and as prosecutors elsewhere.
”Deputies that leave our office to practice as prosecutors elsewhere make more money and have significantly reduced caseloads,” Gallegos wrote.
He did write that it's hard to attract younger attorneys to the area.
”A challenge we face with younger attorneys is that they are far from home and/or friends from college and/or law school and there are few of the attractions that a larger urban area provides,” Gallegos said.
from The Times-Standard | News Articles | by Chris Durant | Jan 18, 2006
Related:
They tried to tell you
Seeking excellence?
Whistling in the dark
Gallegos Loses FOUR More
And so it goes...
Question, really, is "Who's left?" w/update
Lost another one...
Tuesday's BOS meeting w/UPDATE
TS - Gundersen trial jury selection slated to begin
TS Gundersen trial jury selection slated to begin
Jury selection is slated to start today in former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's rape trial, and it's expected to be a long, thorough process.
”It would be mind-boggling if it only took two weeks,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said Friday, adding that he expects the selection process to last about a month.
Gundersen, who was arrested Feb. 8, faces 30 felony charges, including 26 counts of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, kidnapping or transporting a second victim with the purpose of rape, attempting to dissuade a victim of a crime, violating a court order and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with a an attached silencer.
Gundersen pleaded not guilty to all counts and remains held in the Humboldt County jail on $1.25 million bail.
After Gundersen's attorney, Russell Clanton, recently filed a motion seeking a change of venue for the trial, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles deferred any decision on the motion until the start of jury selection, but said she would allow Clanton to question jurors for potential bias.
Gallegos said he and Clanton likely will work together to craft a jury questionnaire to pass out in addition to the hardship questionnaire that will be given out to potential jurors because the trial is expected to last longer than a month.
Clanton was not immediately available for comment.
In his motion for a change of venue, Clanton argues that Gundersen's and the alleged victim's stature in the community, the sordid nature of the allegations and the intense media coverage of the case combine to necessitate a change of venue to ensure a fair hearing.
The questionnaires are likely to follow those lines and ask questions about potential jurors' views of law enforcement, their personal history with rape, what newspapers they read, how closely they've followed the case and if they have an opinion as to Gundersen's guilt or innocence.
Responses to the last question likely will hold the key to whether Miles grants the change of venue, according to University of California Hastings School of Law professor David Levine.
”Just because you heard a little bit about (the case) doesn't mean you can't hear the case,” Levine said in a previous interview with the Times-Standard. “The question is, can you put aside what you've heard and judge the case solely on the evidence?”
Gallegos said the first stages of jury selection will likely just consist of streams of potential jurors coming in and filling out the questionnaires, which the prosecution and defense will then pore through to determine if an unbiased jury can be formed.
It's also possible Miles could issue a ruling today on the defense's motion to have some of the charges facing Gundersen dismissed.
After hearing brief arguments on the motion from both sides at a hearing last week, Miles took the matter under submission and said she would issue a ruling before the trial begins. It remains unclear if she intends to file the ruling before the start of jury selection or the start of the actual trial.
Miles may also issue a ruling Monday on the defense's motions to have the charge of transporting or kidnapping a second victim with the purpose of rape tried separately from the spousal rape charges.
In his motion, Clanton argued that the charges are unrelated and that trying them together would strengthen the prosecution's case. In his opposition, Gallegos countered that even if the cases were tried separately, the testimony of both alleged victims would be admissible in both trials according to the California Evidence Code.
Timeline
November 1999 -- David Gundersen is hired on as the chief of police in Blue Lake.
Feb. 8, 2008 -- Gundersen is arrested on suspicion of raping his spouse, who at the time was a sergeant with the Blue Lake Police Department.
Feb. 12, 2008 -- Gundersen's attorney, Russell Clanton, decries the investigation into his client as a witch hunt, says it stems out of Gundersen's custody dispute with his ex-wife and accuses the state of sticking its nose into Gundersen's bedroom.
Feb. 13, 2008 -- The District Attorney's Office charges Gundersen with 12 counts of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, as well as charges of dissuading a witness, violating a court order and possessing a controlled substance without a prescription. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Feb. 27, 2008 -- The DA's Office files four new charges against Gundersen, including kidnapping or transporting a second victim for the purpose of rape and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with an attached silencer.
April 30, 2008 -- Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney holds Gundersen to stand trial on 19 charges after his preliminary hearing.
May 5, 2008 -- The City of Blue Lake officially terminates its contract with Gundersen as the city's chief of police after a unanimous vote by the City Council.
May 12, 2008 -- Gundersen is re-arraigned on 33 charges, including 30 felonies, after the DA's Office files additional counts
based on information presented in the preliminary hearing. Gundersen pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Today -- Jury selection is scheduled to begin in Gundersen's trial.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/14/2008 01:31:34 AM PDT
Related coverage, with links
Jury selection is slated to start today in former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's rape trial, and it's expected to be a long, thorough process.
”It would be mind-boggling if it only took two weeks,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said Friday, adding that he expects the selection process to last about a month.
Gundersen, who was arrested Feb. 8, faces 30 felony charges, including 26 counts of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, kidnapping or transporting a second victim with the purpose of rape, attempting to dissuade a victim of a crime, violating a court order and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with a an attached silencer.
Gundersen pleaded not guilty to all counts and remains held in the Humboldt County jail on $1.25 million bail.
After Gundersen's attorney, Russell Clanton, recently filed a motion seeking a change of venue for the trial, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles deferred any decision on the motion until the start of jury selection, but said she would allow Clanton to question jurors for potential bias.
Gallegos said he and Clanton likely will work together to craft a jury questionnaire to pass out in addition to the hardship questionnaire that will be given out to potential jurors because the trial is expected to last longer than a month.
Clanton was not immediately available for comment.
In his motion for a change of venue, Clanton argues that Gundersen's and the alleged victim's stature in the community, the sordid nature of the allegations and the intense media coverage of the case combine to necessitate a change of venue to ensure a fair hearing.
The questionnaires are likely to follow those lines and ask questions about potential jurors' views of law enforcement, their personal history with rape, what newspapers they read, how closely they've followed the case and if they have an opinion as to Gundersen's guilt or innocence.
Responses to the last question likely will hold the key to whether Miles grants the change of venue, according to University of California Hastings School of Law professor David Levine.
”Just because you heard a little bit about (the case) doesn't mean you can't hear the case,” Levine said in a previous interview with the Times-Standard. “The question is, can you put aside what you've heard and judge the case solely on the evidence?”
Gallegos said the first stages of jury selection will likely just consist of streams of potential jurors coming in and filling out the questionnaires, which the prosecution and defense will then pore through to determine if an unbiased jury can be formed.
It's also possible Miles could issue a ruling today on the defense's motion to have some of the charges facing Gundersen dismissed.
After hearing brief arguments on the motion from both sides at a hearing last week, Miles took the matter under submission and said she would issue a ruling before the trial begins. It remains unclear if she intends to file the ruling before the start of jury selection or the start of the actual trial.
Miles may also issue a ruling Monday on the defense's motions to have the charge of transporting or kidnapping a second victim with the purpose of rape tried separately from the spousal rape charges.
In his motion, Clanton argued that the charges are unrelated and that trying them together would strengthen the prosecution's case. In his opposition, Gallegos countered that even if the cases were tried separately, the testimony of both alleged victims would be admissible in both trials according to the California Evidence Code.
Timeline
November 1999 -- David Gundersen is hired on as the chief of police in Blue Lake.
Feb. 8, 2008 -- Gundersen is arrested on suspicion of raping his spouse, who at the time was a sergeant with the Blue Lake Police Department.
Feb. 12, 2008 -- Gundersen's attorney, Russell Clanton, decries the investigation into his client as a witch hunt, says it stems out of Gundersen's custody dispute with his ex-wife and accuses the state of sticking its nose into Gundersen's bedroom.
Feb. 13, 2008 -- The District Attorney's Office charges Gundersen with 12 counts of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, as well as charges of dissuading a witness, violating a court order and possessing a controlled substance without a prescription. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Feb. 27, 2008 -- The DA's Office files four new charges against Gundersen, including kidnapping or transporting a second victim for the purpose of rape and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with an attached silencer.
April 30, 2008 -- Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney holds Gundersen to stand trial on 19 charges after his preliminary hearing.
May 5, 2008 -- The City of Blue Lake officially terminates its contract with Gundersen as the city's chief of police after a unanimous vote by the City Council.
May 12, 2008 -- Gundersen is re-arraigned on 33 charges, including 30 felonies, after the DA's Office files additional counts
based on information presented in the preliminary hearing. Gundersen pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Today -- Jury selection is scheduled to begin in Gundersen's trial.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/14/2008 01:31:34 AM PDT
Related coverage, with links
7.13.2008
MendoMate info
Corp Number Date Filed Status Corporation Name Agent for Service of Process
C2724054
1/19/2005
active
MENDOCINO BEVERAGE CORPORATION
KITE I FEATHER
Corporation
MENDOCINO BEVERAGE CORPORATION
Number: C2724054
Date Filed: 1/19/2005
Status: active
Jurisdiction: NEVADA
Address
9001 N. STATE STREET
REDWOOD VALLEY, CA 95470
Agent for Service of Process
KITE I FEATHER
9001 N. STATE ST. #C
REDWOOD VALLEY, CA 95470
Corp Number
Date Filed
Status
Corporation Name
Agent for Service of Process
C2623497
2/3/2004
active
KUMBA INCORPORATED
HETAL GANDHI
AQUARIUS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
C6497-2000
Revoked
Domestic Corporation
AQUARIUS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Business Entity Information
Status: Revoked on 4/1/2005 File Date: 3/9/2000
Type: Domestic Corporation Corp Number: C6497-2000
Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 3/31/2004
Managed By: Expiration Date:
Resident Agent Information
Resident Agent resigned
Financial Information
No Par Share Count: 0 Capital Amount: $ 25,000.00
Par Share Count: 25,000,000.00 Par Share Value: $ 0.001
Officers Include Inactive Officers
Treasurer - KITE FINDS THE FEATHER
Address 1: PO BOX 27740 Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89126 Country:
Status: Active Email:
President - AMANDA WOOD
Address 1: PO BOX 27740 Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89126 Country:
Status: Active Email:
Secretary - AMANDA WOOD
Address 1: PO BOX 27740 Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89126 Country:
Status: Active
C2724054
1/19/2005
active
MENDOCINO BEVERAGE CORPORATION
KITE I FEATHER
Corporation
MENDOCINO BEVERAGE CORPORATION
Number: C2724054
Date Filed: 1/19/2005
Status: active
Jurisdiction: NEVADA
Address
9001 N. STATE STREET
REDWOOD VALLEY, CA 95470
Agent for Service of Process
KITE I FEATHER
9001 N. STATE ST. #C
REDWOOD VALLEY, CA 95470
Corp Number
Date Filed
Status
Corporation Name
Agent for Service of Process
C2623497
2/3/2004
active
KUMBA INCORPORATED
HETAL GANDHI
AQUARIUS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
C6497-2000
Revoked
Domestic Corporation
AQUARIUS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Business Entity Information
Status: Revoked on 4/1/2005 File Date: 3/9/2000
Type: Domestic Corporation Corp Number: C6497-2000
Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 3/31/2004
Managed By: Expiration Date:
Resident Agent Information
Resident Agent resigned
Financial Information
No Par Share Count: 0 Capital Amount: $ 25,000.00
Par Share Count: 25,000,000.00 Par Share Value: $ 0.001
Officers Include Inactive Officers
Treasurer - KITE FINDS THE FEATHER
Address 1: PO BOX 27740 Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89126 Country:
Status: Active Email:
President - AMANDA WOOD
Address 1: PO BOX 27740 Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89126 Country:
Status: Active Email:
Secretary - AMANDA WOOD
Address 1: PO BOX 27740 Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89126 Country:
Status: Active
7.12.2008
Gallegos bemoans lack of authority over code enforcement
Gallegos bemoans lack of authority over code enforcement
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos told the Code Enforcement Task Force Friday that he is no longer comfortable with deputizing code enforcement investigators if they are not his employees.
He and his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop reviewed the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office's involvement in the code enforcement process, which has been at the heart of a political firestorm in recent months.
Code enforcement investigators are deputized under his office, but Gallegos told the task force that because they are not his employees, he has little authority over them.
”I see it as analogous to the Sheriff's Department and the tribal police,” Gallegos said.
Tribal police officers are deputized by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, but are not department employees, and are therefore not supervised by the department command structure.
When the code enforcement investigators set up an operation, they submit a “raid plan” to Hislop that delineates how many officers will be on site, contingency plans and other surface details. That plan is reviewed and approved by him, but it does not outline the manner in which the raid will be conducted, Hislop said.
Prior to his arrival at the District Attorney's Office two years ago, there wasn't even that level of oversight from the office, Hislop said.
After such operations are completed, there are no reviews by the office of how the action went down.
Gallegos said he'd be willing to accept oversight of the program, and thereby take it away from the County Counsel's Office, if the Board of Supervisors requested it and if he were given the resources to meet the demand.
”I cannot afford to subsidize code enforcement by pulling people off of other law enforcement responsibilities,” he said.
Gallegos has temporarily suspended the deputization of code enforcement investigators while the task force looks into alleged excesses, including the unnecessary drawing of weapons.
Asked under what circumstances Gallegos would be comfortable deputizing those investigators again, Gallegos said that they would need to be his employees.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said that the current formulation of the code enforcement program, with the responsibility emanating from the County Counsel's Office, preserves the Board of Supervisors' nuisance abatement process and helps keep violations out of the realm of law enforcement.
The solution to the county's code enforcement conundrum will likely have to be a hybrid approach to preserve that process, and therefore not a wholesale transferring of the code enforcement authority to the District Attorney's Office, she said.
”The board recognizes that there were ... some deficiencies in this program,” she said, adding that the board is committed to working out the kinks, so the program can function as intended.
Toward the end of the meeting, Liz Davidson, one of three members of the task force from the Redway-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, asked fellow task force member -- and former code enforcement investigator -- Jack Bernstein if the investigators could effectively do their jobs without deputization.
Given the various roles code enforcement investigators play in this county, Bernstein said, the answer is no.
”For your safety, you have to have the police authority,” he said.
The assertion was vehemently challenged by task force member Bonnie Blackberry, also of the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project: “We need guns here ... because why?”
Code enforcement investigators can ask for assistance at any time from the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, she said, so why do they need guns?
”I don't think I could say anything to you that would convince you that anyone should ever carry a gun,” he said.
But given the role the investigators play -- and the often dangerous situations they find themselves in -- they need to be able to protect themselves, he said.
James Faulk can be reached at jfaulk@times-standard.com or by calling 441-0511.
Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/12/2008 01:30:41 AM PDT
James Faulk/The Times-Standard
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos told the Code Enforcement Task Force Friday that he is no longer comfortable with deputizing code enforcement investigators if they are not his employees.
He and his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop reviewed the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office's involvement in the code enforcement process, which has been at the heart of a political firestorm in recent months.
Code enforcement investigators are deputized under his office, but Gallegos told the task force that because they are not his employees, he has little authority over them.
”I see it as analogous to the Sheriff's Department and the tribal police,” Gallegos said.
Tribal police officers are deputized by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, but are not department employees, and are therefore not supervised by the department command structure.
When the code enforcement investigators set up an operation, they submit a “raid plan” to Hislop that delineates how many officers will be on site, contingency plans and other surface details. That plan is reviewed and approved by him, but it does not outline the manner in which the raid will be conducted, Hislop said.
Prior to his arrival at the District Attorney's Office two years ago, there wasn't even that level of oversight from the office, Hislop said.
After such operations are completed, there are no reviews by the office of how the action went down.
Gallegos said he'd be willing to accept oversight of the program, and thereby take it away from the County Counsel's Office, if the Board of Supervisors requested it and if he were given the resources to meet the demand.
”I cannot afford to subsidize code enforcement by pulling people off of other law enforcement responsibilities,” he said.
Gallegos has temporarily suspended the deputization of code enforcement investigators while the task force looks into alleged excesses, including the unnecessary drawing of weapons.
Asked under what circumstances Gallegos would be comfortable deputizing those investigators again, Gallegos said that they would need to be his employees.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said that the current formulation of the code enforcement program, with the responsibility emanating from the County Counsel's Office, preserves the Board of Supervisors' nuisance abatement process and helps keep violations out of the realm of law enforcement.
The solution to the county's code enforcement conundrum will likely have to be a hybrid approach to preserve that process, and therefore not a wholesale transferring of the code enforcement authority to the District Attorney's Office, she said.
”The board recognizes that there were ... some deficiencies in this program,” she said, adding that the board is committed to working out the kinks, so the program can function as intended.
Toward the end of the meeting, Liz Davidson, one of three members of the task force from the Redway-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, asked fellow task force member -- and former code enforcement investigator -- Jack Bernstein if the investigators could effectively do their jobs without deputization.
Given the various roles code enforcement investigators play in this county, Bernstein said, the answer is no.
”For your safety, you have to have the police authority,” he said.
The assertion was vehemently challenged by task force member Bonnie Blackberry, also of the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project: “We need guns here ... because why?”
Code enforcement investigators can ask for assistance at any time from the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, she said, so why do they need guns?
”I don't think I could say anything to you that would convince you that anyone should ever carry a gun,” he said.
But given the role the investigators play -- and the often dangerous situations they find themselves in -- they need to be able to protect themselves, he said.
James Faulk can be reached at jfaulk@times-standard.com or by calling 441-0511.
Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/12/2008 01:30:41 AM PDT
James Faulk/The Times-Standard
ER District attorney frustrated about lack of authority over code enforcement officers
District attorney frustrated about lack of authority over code enforcement officers
Unless the Code Enforcement Unit packs up and moves to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ office, he won’t be deputizing Code Enforcement Unit officers anytime soon.
During testimony at the code enforcement task force meeting Friday, Gallegos shared his frustrations about a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field.
“The problem I’ve had, no matter where (code enforcement officers) go,” he said, “is that the existing structure is something I personally don’t want to operate under.”
Whether code enforcement officers even need the police powers given to them by the District Attorney’s Office was brought up during the meeting, as well. Those powers don’t exist for code enforcement officers in other rural counties in the state.
Who has authority?
One of the problems with the Code Enforcement Unit’s procedures identified by the task force so far revolves around just who has authority over code enforcement officers at any given time.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said at a previous meeting that when officers investigate cases, they fall under her authority, but when they enter the field, they’re under the capacity of the District Attorney’s Office.
The problem: Gallegos said he has no direct authority over the officers in the field, even though he deputizes them. Until he does, he said he won’t deputize code enforcement officers, whose police powers he rescinded in April.
“They would have to be my employees,” he said.
Mike Hislop, who also attended the task force meeting, said that when he took over as chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office two years ago, he noticed a “lack of law enforcement supervision” over code enforcement officers in the field.
As a way to exert more oversight over code enforcement officers after hearing complaints about what was happening in the field, Gallegos said his office set up a review process in which code enforcement officers had to get their operational plans approved before serving a warrant.
“We wanted to make sure not only the officers were safe,” Gallegos said, “but that they were acting in a way that was safe for everyone.”
Those operational plans include the personnel involved in executing a warrant.
Hislop reviewed, and approved, the operational plans for the series of warrants executed in the Wood Ranch Road area earlier this year, but not the inspection warrants.
In fact, nobody reviewed those no-notice inspection warrants, and testimony at the meeting revealed they were obtained without the knowledge of the county counsel.
Those inspection warrants were written, and executed, by former Code Enforcement Unit Officer John Desadier.
He since voluntarily transferred back to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 for pay reasons, he told The Eureka Reporter in a past interview.
Gallegos was open to the idea of bringing the Code Enforcement Unit under his authority, but warned that he would need more staffing to adequately run the program. Otherwise, his office would only be able to handle the most “extreme” cases.
“We would like the resources to do it,” he said, “so it’s not an empty assignment.”
On deputizing code enforcement officers
Some members of the task force have debated the issue of deputizing code enforcement officers and, as a result, arming them.
Code enforcement officers can request assistance from other law enforcement agencies, such as the HCSO, which usually occurs when officers execute inspection warrants in the field.
Task force member Bonnie Blackberry questioned why code enforcement officers needed to carry guns in the first place if they still bring backup from other law enforcement agencies.
“We need guns here because why?” she asked.
She also wondered why building and environmental inspectors don’t carry guns in the field if code enforcement officers do.
Task force member and former code enforcement officer Jack Bernstein said that code enforcement officers need those police powers to ensure their safety in the field.
“I don’t think you’d be able to adequately complete the tasks necessary (otherwise),” he said. “It’s better safe than sorry.”
According to a survey conducted by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, 46.5 percent of officers have police powers, 6 percent carry a weapon and 11 percent wear a bullet-proof vest.
On the issue of officer safety, 63 percent experienced an incident that involved their safety in the field.
Not all code enforcement units in rural California counties deputize their officers.
Del Norte Code Enforcement Officer Dave Mason said in an interview that Del Norte County code enforcement officers are not sworn in and don’t carry firearms, but it would be nice.
“I would feel better if I was armed, so I wouldn’t have to hide behind people,” he said.
About three times a year, Del Norte County code enforcement officers call in the assistance of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office.
Del Norte County code enforcement officers face problems similar to those dealt with by their counterparts in Humboldt County, such as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles and substandard housing. They also deal with methamphetamine labs in trailers.
When the Del Norte County unit was first formed, the county decided that the officers shouldn’t be deputized, Mason said. That could change at some point, as there are still people who want officers to be armed, he said.
Madera County, a rural county of similar size to Humboldt County, doesn’t deputize its code enforcement officers either.
“It’s basically that the county decided at this point not to do it,” said Madera County Code Enforcement Officer Eric Yancy.
Also facing problems with junk and abandoned vehicles, the Madera County unit, which has a 90 percent compliance rate, has never issued a no-notice inspection warrant.
Code enforcement officers in Humboldt County, who use inspection warrants for only 8 percent of their cases, give no notice 65 percent of the time in those cases.
When backup is needed, the Madera County unit coordinates with the sheriff’s office. Yancy said the operation can be shut down at anytime.
“We do what they say,” he said. “They’re the ones that are going to save us.”
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 12 2008, 12:09 AM · Updated: Jul 12 2008, 4:39 AM
Category: Local News
Unless the Code Enforcement Unit packs up and moves to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ office, he won’t be deputizing Code Enforcement Unit officers anytime soon.
During testimony at the code enforcement task force meeting Friday, Gallegos shared his frustrations about a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field.
“The problem I’ve had, no matter where (code enforcement officers) go,” he said, “is that the existing structure is something I personally don’t want to operate under.”
Whether code enforcement officers even need the police powers given to them by the District Attorney’s Office was brought up during the meeting, as well. Those powers don’t exist for code enforcement officers in other rural counties in the state.
Who has authority?
One of the problems with the Code Enforcement Unit’s procedures identified by the task force so far revolves around just who has authority over code enforcement officers at any given time.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said at a previous meeting that when officers investigate cases, they fall under her authority, but when they enter the field, they’re under the capacity of the District Attorney’s Office.
The problem: Gallegos said he has no direct authority over the officers in the field, even though he deputizes them. Until he does, he said he won’t deputize code enforcement officers, whose police powers he rescinded in April.
“They would have to be my employees,” he said.
Mike Hislop, who also attended the task force meeting, said that when he took over as chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office two years ago, he noticed a “lack of law enforcement supervision” over code enforcement officers in the field.
As a way to exert more oversight over code enforcement officers after hearing complaints about what was happening in the field, Gallegos said his office set up a review process in which code enforcement officers had to get their operational plans approved before serving a warrant.
“We wanted to make sure not only the officers were safe,” Gallegos said, “but that they were acting in a way that was safe for everyone.”
Those operational plans include the personnel involved in executing a warrant.
Hislop reviewed, and approved, the operational plans for the series of warrants executed in the Wood Ranch Road area earlier this year, but not the inspection warrants.
In fact, nobody reviewed those no-notice inspection warrants, and testimony at the meeting revealed they were obtained without the knowledge of the county counsel.
Those inspection warrants were written, and executed, by former Code Enforcement Unit Officer John Desadier.
He since voluntarily transferred back to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 for pay reasons, he told The Eureka Reporter in a past interview.
Gallegos was open to the idea of bringing the Code Enforcement Unit under his authority, but warned that he would need more staffing to adequately run the program. Otherwise, his office would only be able to handle the most “extreme” cases.
“We would like the resources to do it,” he said, “so it’s not an empty assignment.”
On deputizing code enforcement officers
Some members of the task force have debated the issue of deputizing code enforcement officers and, as a result, arming them.
Code enforcement officers can request assistance from other law enforcement agencies, such as the HCSO, which usually occurs when officers execute inspection warrants in the field.
Task force member Bonnie Blackberry questioned why code enforcement officers needed to carry guns in the first place if they still bring backup from other law enforcement agencies.
“We need guns here because why?” she asked.
She also wondered why building and environmental inspectors don’t carry guns in the field if code enforcement officers do.
Task force member and former code enforcement officer Jack Bernstein said that code enforcement officers need those police powers to ensure their safety in the field.
“I don’t think you’d be able to adequately complete the tasks necessary (otherwise),” he said. “It’s better safe than sorry.”
According to a survey conducted by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, 46.5 percent of officers have police powers, 6 percent carry a weapon and 11 percent wear a bullet-proof vest.
On the issue of officer safety, 63 percent experienced an incident that involved their safety in the field.
Not all code enforcement units in rural California counties deputize their officers.
Del Norte Code Enforcement Officer Dave Mason said in an interview that Del Norte County code enforcement officers are not sworn in and don’t carry firearms, but it would be nice.
“I would feel better if I was armed, so I wouldn’t have to hide behind people,” he said.
About three times a year, Del Norte County code enforcement officers call in the assistance of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office.
Del Norte County code enforcement officers face problems similar to those dealt with by their counterparts in Humboldt County, such as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles and substandard housing. They also deal with methamphetamine labs in trailers.
When the Del Norte County unit was first formed, the county decided that the officers shouldn’t be deputized, Mason said. That could change at some point, as there are still people who want officers to be armed, he said.
Madera County, a rural county of similar size to Humboldt County, doesn’t deputize its code enforcement officers either.
“It’s basically that the county decided at this point not to do it,” said Madera County Code Enforcement Officer Eric Yancy.
Also facing problems with junk and abandoned vehicles, the Madera County unit, which has a 90 percent compliance rate, has never issued a no-notice inspection warrant.
Code enforcement officers in Humboldt County, who use inspection warrants for only 8 percent of their cases, give no notice 65 percent of the time in those cases.
When backup is needed, the Madera County unit coordinates with the sheriff’s office. Yancy said the operation can be shut down at anytime.
“We do what they say,” he said. “They’re the ones that are going to save us.”
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 12 2008, 12:09 AM · Updated: Jul 12 2008, 4:39 AM
Category: Local News
7.11.2008
Motion to dismiss Douglas-Zanotti charges is inching forward
Motion to dismiss Douglas-Zanotti charges is inching forward
A Humboldt County Superior Court on Thursday set a timeline to consider a defense motion to dismiss involuntary manslaughter charges against former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti.
The two police commanders were indicted by a criminal grand jury in December 2007 for their decision-making roles in the April 14, 2006 police shooting death of Cheri Lyn Moore. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges in April.
Douglas and Zanotti's defense team filed two separate motions seeking to dismiss the charges on June 18, arguing that District Attorney Paul Gallegos improperly represented the law to the jury and that he failed to present evidence that would have backed up Douglas and Zanotti's decisions that day.
”In this case, the preceding resulted in a travesty of justice -- a due process violation -- that must be corrected by the court,” one of the motions states.
Prior to Thursday's hearing on the motions, Gallegos and the defense agreed to a timeline for the motions to be heard. They set a July 21 deadline for Gallegos to submit an opposition to the defense motion and a July 31 deadline for the defense to respond.
Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard before Judge John Feeney on a yet-to-be-determined date in August.
Many law enforcement and legal experts have called the indictments handed up to Douglas and Zanotti unprecedented, as they charged the incident's decision makers and not the officers who fired the fatal gunshots.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness and was reportedly distraught over the anniversary of her son's death, brandished a flare gun at officers, threw items out of the window of her second-story apartment and threatened to burn the building down during the more than two-hour standoff.
Officers have said they believed Moore put the flare gun down when the decision was made to storm her apartment, but SWAT team members said Moore pointed the weapon at them when they entered. She was shot nine times.
In making his case to the grand jury, Gallegos argued that Douglas and Zanotti should have obtained a Ramey warrant before the SWAT team entered Moore's apartment and that the commanders acted with criminal negligence by failing to “adequately supervise” police, SWAT team members and the negotiating team during the standoff.
The defense motions filed last month argue that Gallegos knew of expert witnesses who felt the standoff was handled correctly, but didn't call them to testify before the jury, and that Gallegos failed to properly instruct the grand jury on the law.
”There were numerous serious errors and omissions in the prosecutor's instructions to the grand jury in this case; together and separately, they permitted the grand jury to indict on a legally improper basis and on less than probable cause,” one of the motions states.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/11/2008 01:27:11
A Humboldt County Superior Court on Thursday set a timeline to consider a defense motion to dismiss involuntary manslaughter charges against former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti.
The two police commanders were indicted by a criminal grand jury in December 2007 for their decision-making roles in the April 14, 2006 police shooting death of Cheri Lyn Moore. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges in April.
Douglas and Zanotti's defense team filed two separate motions seeking to dismiss the charges on June 18, arguing that District Attorney Paul Gallegos improperly represented the law to the jury and that he failed to present evidence that would have backed up Douglas and Zanotti's decisions that day.
”In this case, the preceding resulted in a travesty of justice -- a due process violation -- that must be corrected by the court,” one of the motions states.
Prior to Thursday's hearing on the motions, Gallegos and the defense agreed to a timeline for the motions to be heard. They set a July 21 deadline for Gallegos to submit an opposition to the defense motion and a July 31 deadline for the defense to respond.
Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard before Judge John Feeney on a yet-to-be-determined date in August.
Many law enforcement and legal experts have called the indictments handed up to Douglas and Zanotti unprecedented, as they charged the incident's decision makers and not the officers who fired the fatal gunshots.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness and was reportedly distraught over the anniversary of her son's death, brandished a flare gun at officers, threw items out of the window of her second-story apartment and threatened to burn the building down during the more than two-hour standoff.
Officers have said they believed Moore put the flare gun down when the decision was made to storm her apartment, but SWAT team members said Moore pointed the weapon at them when they entered. She was shot nine times.
In making his case to the grand jury, Gallegos argued that Douglas and Zanotti should have obtained a Ramey warrant before the SWAT team entered Moore's apartment and that the commanders acted with criminal negligence by failing to “adequately supervise” police, SWAT team members and the negotiating team during the standoff.
The defense motions filed last month argue that Gallegos knew of expert witnesses who felt the standoff was handled correctly, but didn't call them to testify before the jury, and that Gallegos failed to properly instruct the grand jury on the law.
”There were numerous serious errors and omissions in the prosecutor's instructions to the grand jury in this case; together and separately, they permitted the grand jury to indict on a legally improper basis and on less than probable cause,” one of the motions states.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/11/2008 01:27:11