New York Times Covers Former Davis Police Chief

Even if the article in Sunday's New York Times were not about our old friend, former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde it would be pretty fascinating.

That is because in a lot of ways there is tremendous change going on in American society, equivalent perhaps to the changes that occurred in the 20th century when large numbers of African-Americans fled from the south to northern cities which in turn spawned a flight of white city dwellars to the suburbs. Now the rising cost of urban housing is causing almost a reverse migration with many whites moving back to the cities and many African-Americans fleeing to the more affordable suburbs aided at times by programs like the Section 8 federal housing program.

Writes the New York Times:

"Under the Section 8 federal housing voucher program, thousands of poor, urban and often African-American residents have left hardscrabble neighborhoods in the nation’s largest cities and resettled in the suburbs.

Law enforcement experts and housing researchers argue that rising crime rates follow Section 8 recipients to their new homes, while other experts discount any direct link. But there is little doubt that cultural shock waves have followed the migration. Social and racial tensions between newcomers and their neighbors have increased, forcing suburban communities like Antioch to re-evaluate their civic identities along with their methods of dealing with the new residents."

In addition to these forces, the foreclosure crisis plays a role as well:

"The foreclosure crisis gnawing away at overbuilt suburbs has accelerated that migration, and the problems. Antioch is one of many suburbs in the midst of a full-blown mortgage meltdown that has seen property owners seeking out low-income renters to fill vacant homes."

Like I said, this would be an interesting story even without the presence of the formerly polarizing police chief of Davis in the story. The issue of "overbuilt suburbs" could probably keep us going for a week with talks about new waves in smart development and questions about what will happen to suburbs as towns struggle to redevelop their cores in hopes of cutting down on the need to consume gasoline in commutes.

For all the talk about racial reconciliation, it appears that the presence of African-Americans in a town like Antioch is just as explosive today as the notion of forced busing and integration was in the 1970s. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

On the front lines of these kinds of cultural struggles is often the face of law enforcement and it is here where our old friend rears his head once again and plants himself firmly in the conscience this time not just of Davis but apparently the entire nation.

The action filed as Antioch last month claims discrimination, intimidation, and illegal property searches. Police allegedly routinely questioned and harassed Section 8 residents about their housing status, writing letters to the county's housing authority recommending termination of subsidies.

According to the Times article:

"A December 2007 study of Antioch police records by Public Advocates, a law firm in San Francisco, counted 67 investigations of black households, compared with 59 of white families; black households, it found, are four times as likely to be searched based on noncriminal complaints and to be contacted by the police in the first place."

Like any profiling claim, the contentions are difficult to sustain even with such statistics--for all statistics can be a matter of coincidence as well as intent.

For their part, Chief Jim Hyde of the Antioch Police Department denies these claims.

But here is a very telling statement in the New York Times article:

"Chief Hyde also said that the local housing authority was not meeting its obligation to screen tenants properly, and that as his department focused on nuisance issues, the police had become a de facto enforcement arm of the federal government."

The question that immediately jumps to my mind is whether this an appropriate role for the police department to play. I understand the frustration that the police may have if the federal government is being negligent in its duties to enforce its own laws, but at the same time, if the police have gone beyond their own charge, they invite these sorts of complaints and law suits.

The Times article tells a number of stories about white residents complaining about the problems that the Section 8 housing has brought.

There is clear conflict within these stories on the one hand fear and on the other hand a recognition that there is a racial component to that fear and wondering if that is an appropriate response.

Laura Reynolds, 36, an emergency room nurse, said that she often came home to her Country Hills development tract after working a late-shift to find young black teenagers strolling through her neighborhood.

“I know it sounds horrible, but they’re scary. I’m sorry,” said Ms. Reynolds, who like her two friends said she was conflicted about her newfound fear of black youths. “Sometimes I question myself, and I think, Would I feel this way if they were Mexican or white?”

Is this is a legitimate fear and concern or is it being overblown by cultural and racial stereotypes? The problem that I fear is that some are playing on the legitimate fears of residents to their own political advantage. This is far from a new phenomena.

Brad Seligman is a lawyer with a nonprofit civil rights advocacy group based in San Francisco, the Impact Fund. They are one of the groups along with the ACLU, Public Advocates, and the NAACP that have accused the city's police department of racial profiling.

Mr. Seligman is quoted in the New York Times saying:

“Instead of driving while black, it’s renting while black.”

The New York Times talks about an African-American couple, Thomas and Karen Coleman, two of the plaintiffs.

In June 2007, a neighbor told the police that Mr. Coleman had threatened him. Officers from the police community action team visited the house and demanded to be allowed in.

“I cracked the door open, but they pushed me out of the way,” Ms. Coleman said.

The officers searched the house even though they did not have a warrant, said the Colemans, who are now part of the class-action suit against the department. The police questioned Mr. Coleman, a parolee at the time, about his living arrangement. He explained that he and his wife were separated but in the process of reconciling. The police accused the family of violating a Section 8 rule that only listed tenants can live in a subsidized home.

After the raid, officers made repeated visits to the Coleman home and to Mr. Coleman’s job at a movie theater. They also sent a letter to the county housing department recommending that the Colemans be removed from federal housing assistance, a recommendation the authority rejected.

“They kept harassing me until I was off parole,” Mr. Coleman said.

If the account of the Colemans is accurate, we see a number of problems with not only the police's conduct, but their role in this process.

First, even as a parolee, police cannot enter a person's residence without a warrant and without permission to enter.

Second, the police accused the family of violating a Section 8 rule but the family's situation was obviously more complicated than that. Frankly it is not the police's authority to enforce Section 8 rules which are federal. Moreover, by inserting themselves into the process they probably overstepped their boundaries.

Unexplained in this story is the fact that obviously there was no evidence that Mr. Coleman threatened anyone, otherwise they could have simply arrested him and revoked his parole.

Even if the authorities in Antioch technically acted appropriate here, a questionable contention at best, their insertion into this process is part of the problem. Instead of calming the situation down, they seem to be throwing fuel on the fire.

This is part of the problem I had with the Police Chief while he was in Davis. Two years ago, I obtained public records that show that Chief Hyde in response to citizen complaints about police conduct and in response to the HRC pressing the issue, instead of diffusing the situation, launched a PR campaign against the HRC from the police station. Emails show efforts by the police chief to drum up opposition to the HRC. Emails show derogatory statements made by the police chief to the HRC, its chair, and others in this community. While the Chief perhaps had every right to mobilize a counter response to the HRC's complaints, the method in which it was undertaken was polarizing and increased the heat and the tensions.

Moreover the police chief chose to finally take a new position in Antioch, a move he had been looking to make for some time, long before disagreements with the HRC arose. He chose that opportunity to throw the final fuel to the fire, further inciting tensions as he left the scene and forced those who stayed in Davis to clean up his mess including a number of lawsuits that the city currently faces from actions, which took place under his command.

These patterns seem to be reemerging in Antioch. Thus far, it seems that the police chief has the backing of the Antioch Mayor and City Council who also gave him a raise this month. The next question will be how much teeth this lawsuit has and whether the findings by the court, which figures to be a long and drawn out process, will vindicate or indict his current practices.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Former Davis Police Chief Finds New Department Subject of Federal Class Action Lawsuit

Police Allegedly Targeting African-American Tenants in Antioch

According to a lawsuit filed by Antioch Community Members and four Bay Area non-profit civil rights organizations, the City of Antioch and its police department are engaged in a concerted campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination against citizens, specifically African-American residents, who receive federally funded Section 8 housing rent assistance.

This is the apparent culmination of a long and controversial dispute in Antioch between longer term residents and those who have moved their families to Antioch in search of more affordable housing.

The city of Antioch rejected the lawsuit's claims, arguing that

"any objective review of our city's policing efforts will reveal that these efforts are focused exclusively on criminal and/or dangerous behavior."

However, according to Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, one of the four groups to file the lawsuit on behalf of community members in Antioch:

“There is no question that the City and its police department are targeting Section 8 families, particularly African American recipients... The Police have a deliberate policy of coercion, intimidation and threats that target these Section 8 families and their landlords. The City’s goal is to force these families to move out of town.”

According to a release from the ACLU:

Plaintiff Alyce Payne moved to Antioch with her children to show her family they could “make it” outside of Oakland and so that her children could attend public schools there. But after her landlord received several letters from the police department, her tenancy was terminated. Ms. Payne relocated her family out of the City.

“Everyone should have the right to live in peace in the community they choose,” said Payne, who testified before the Antioch City Council about the discrimination she encountered from police officers. “We all want to live in a place where our families and our rights are respected.”

The suit alleges among other things that the Antioch Police Deparment:

- Established a special unit in 2006, the Community Action Team (CAT) for the purpose of targeting Section 8 residents, and the unit has directed the majority of its activities at African American families.

- Frequently searches the homes of African American families in the Section 8 program (or those erroneously believed to participate in the program) without their consent and without a warrant in an attempt to gather evidence to be used against Section 8 participants.

- Engages in a pattern of informing neighbors of African-American Section 8 households that the household is receiving Section 8 housing assistance and suggesting that neighbors file nuisance or disturbance reports against the Section 8 household.

- Threatens landlords with letters and visits by suggesting that landlords will be held liable for the activities of Section 8 tenants, and police officers actively encourage landlords to evict Section 8 tenants.

- Attempts to pressure the local Housing Authority in charge of the Section 8 program to terminate the voucher benefits of tenants whom the police department has targeted. Over 70% of these attempts have been directed at African Americans. A majority of these complaints were not sustained by the Housing Authority.

According to the complaint filed, in July of 2006, the City and the Antioch Police Department created a unit called the "Community Action Team" or "CAT" within the department. The CAT has disproportionately focused on Section 8 voucher participants, particularly on those residing in the more affluent neighborhoods of Antioch. "The city and APD [Antioch Police Department] have specifically targeted African-Americans they believe hold Section 8 vouchers."

During this time, former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde had become Chief of Police for the City of Antioch. While these processes were underway, he was clearly in the position to facilitate the program, and in addition "he is responsible for the administration of APD and the training and supervision of its officers." Furthermore, "Defendant City, APD and Police Chief Hyde are, and at all times material to this complaint were, responsible for the employment, training, supervision, and discipline" of three named officers.

Former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde remains the subject of another federal lawsuit, this one stemming from the 2005 arrest of then-16 year old Halema Buzayan stemming from a disputed hit-and-run accident in a Safeway parking lot and allegations of unlawful arrest, poor police procedures, and violations of Miranda Rights. A judge in April of 2006 dismissed the charges against Ms. Buzayan. The Buzayan federal lawsuit is moving slowly through the court process, having survived efforts from multiple defendants to drop the complaint.

When Police Chief Jim Hyde resigned from the city of Davis, the city was rife with turmoil and complaints against the police department. The Buzayan case was the most publicized and notable. However, in February of 2006, a large number of African-American students and faculty, came before the Davis City Council to complain about racial profiling. In May of the same year, several hundred mostly African-American students marched from the Memorial Union on campus to the Davis Police Department.

While it was the efforts of the Human Relations Commission and my wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, in pushing for police oversight and reform, that earned widespread media attention and criticism by many suggesting they had gone too far in their demands, it was the anger of these separate groups that contributed to an overall sense that the police department under Jim Hyde's leadership was under siege.

In June, following the 2006 elections, Jim Hyde abruptly resigned from his position at the Davis Police Department to take the same position for more pay in the City of Antioch.

As he left, he threw more fuel on the fire, blaming my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and the HRC.

"In my 27 years of government service, 10 years of clinical psychology and 16 years of working with nonprofit organizations, the HRC is the most dysfunctional and incestuous group I have ever witnessed. I hope that (the) City Council will correct this community problem."

The Davis City Council would act quickly before newly elected Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong ally of the HRC and supporter of reform, could be seated. On June 26, 2006, the Davis City Council voted by a 4-1 margin to disband the Human Relations Commission.

To be very honest, this blog would likely not exist had it not been for the events in the Spring of 2006 and the actions by Chief Jim Hyde that led the HRC being disbanded.

Even two years later on the campaign trail, I ran into a number of individuals who still hold anger for the fact that Chief Jim Hyde was perceived to have been run off by Cecilia and the HRC.

And yet at the same time, it seems to me that Chief Jim Hyde was a huge precipitator of both the underlying problems in the Davis Police Department as well as an instigator to many of the tensions that arose in the Spring of 2006. When he left, overnight, tension plummeted. Even more than the hiring of a police ombudsman, the hiring of Chief Landy Black in the spring of 2007 served to cut down on the public complaints. I am not suggesting that things are perfect, I still think things could be better, but we have also not had public marches in the streets the last two years. We have not had hundreds of young African-American students coming into city council complaining about police tactics. In my dealings with Chief Black, he has always been willing to listen and has been completely professional, even on those occasions when we have disagreed.

As Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald said to Davis Enterprise reporter Claire St. John during her run for City Council in a Davis Enterprise article:

"I think we all learned from that process," she said. "How communications, situations, can be improved. It's those experiences that make us better people."

Escamilla-Greenwald said the things that came of that time have improved the city. The City Council, although it rejected an independent police oversight commission, did appoint a police advisory commission and hired an ombudsman. The new police chief, Landy Black, is a good fit for the city, Escamilla-Greenwald said.

"We have a new chief of police who is doing a great job as far as I've seen," she said. "I've met with him, I did a ride-along with the police, that was an eye-opener. People are happy, from what I hear. There's now a process in place."

While the situation in Antioch may be somewhat different from that in Davis, the basic scenario seems to follow a similar pattern. The police are alleged to take an overly broad approach to law enforcement. It is unclear the extent to which Section 8 Voucher recipients are being perceived to be causing problems or if they are actually causing those problems. But irrespective of that point, the response by the police in Antioch seems to be to allegedly harass all African-Americans, regardless of their Section 8 status. This is the heart of the racial-profiling allegation.

What we see then is a pattern of behavior not only in terms of police profiling, or perceptions thereof, but in terms of the handling of the matter.

Throughout the Buzayan case, a more honest and forthright approach really could have avoided many of the lawsuits and legal remedies that ultimately resulted.

The acrimony between the police and the HRC did not necessarily have to result from events.

As Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald wrote in 2006 in response to Jim Hyde's parting words:

"After many months of hearing from members of the public, last summer we met with the police chief over concerns about the growing number of complaints about police misconduct. These meetings and interactions quickly turned adversarial as the police chief became defensive. Instead of engaging in public dialogue over these very serious issues, Chief Hyde retreated--he cut off communications with the HRC, he pulled his liaisons to the commission, and began a concerted public campaign to discredit the efforts of the HRC to reach common ground on reforms that could be done within the department."

Furthermore:

"The Human Relations Commission, after hearing repeated accounts from credible citizens in our community, recommended the formation of a Citizen's Review Board of the police department. The Police Chief reacted negatively and with attacks upon the HRC as well myself and members of the community for even suggesting such a body. Once again, Chief Hyde reacted defensively and inappropriately instead of working with the community to resolve these problems."

The situation could have been diffused, perhaps by both sides. The City Council could have approached this by simply acknowledging a potential problem but suggesting that the civilian oversight board would be problematic in Davis. Instead the city endured attacks and allegations and heated rhetoric. No doubt everyone involved could have handled things better.

But we what see now is a pattern. That pattern has repeated itself in Antioch, far away from Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, the HRC or even the Vanguard.

At the same time, the response from the Antioch City Council is eerily similar to that in Davis.

Former Councilmember Ted Puntillo at the time of Hyde resignation called Hyde

"a very talented and probably one of the best chiefs that we could ever hope to have."

On Wednesday, the Contra Costa Times reports similar comments from the Mayor of Antioch as well as City Councilmembers.

On Tuesday, the Antioch City Council approved a nearly $17,000 per year raise for the Police Chief.

Antioch Mayor Donald Freitas:

"The salary increase has more to do with salary compaction but it also reflects an endorsement of Chief Hyde and the outstanding job he's doing. He has performed exemplary in the last two years, and has moved the department into the 21st century with the use of new technology. He's well-respected by the men and women under his command, as well as the community."

Councilmember Arne Simonsen:

"I'm sure there are other cities that would like a police chief like Jim Hyde... but I think the majority of people in Antioch would like him to stay."

I think the Davis Police Department is far better without Chief Jim Hyde here. Much work remains to be done, but so far, Landy Black's tenure as Police Chief has gone off without major incident. The city has been relatively calm since the departure of Jim Hyde. That and subsequent law suits in Antioch simply cannot be mere coincidence.

The Vanguard will continue to monitor the situation in Antioch and in the coming weeks, we will be speaking with some of the attorneys involved in the lawsuit down there and also possibly updating the public on the ongoing Buzayan Federal Lawsuit that is currently working its way through the Federal Court in Sacramento.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commission Finds Blacks Disportionately Face Death Penalty

In recent weeks, Yolo County has seen the conviction of one man in a death penalty case for killing a police officer. Just three days after that sentence was handed down, another man gunned down a Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy. The Vanguard at the time had had a lengthy discussion on the death penalty. Now, we look into the findings of a study on California's Death Penalty by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (CCFAJ), a nonpartisan statewide advisory board.

What began as a simple question has evolved into a lengthy study about California's death penalty, the results of which would be startlingly were it not for the fact that most people have known or at least suspected this problem all along.

Why is it that 87 percent of first-degree murders in California could be prosecuted as death-penalty case--but most are not? A state commission that attempt to discover whether race has played an inappropriate determining factor as to who gets the death penalty and who does not. The answer is that that data is not available. However, the commission, led by former Attorney General John Van de Kamp is now calling on legislation that requires prosecutors to collect and report all information on their decisions whether to seek the death penalty.

Here is what we do know about the death penalty in California and these findings are chilling.

• Of 12,000 first-degree murders now in prison, only 5.6 percent of them have been sentenced to death.
  
  
• Five times the percentage of blacks are on death row to their actual share of the state population. The national average is three to one.
  
  
• Since 1977, when the death penalty was reinstated, death sentences have been disproportionate for black defendants to their overall population, to the rate of homicide convictions, to victim data, and to sentencing patterns of other states.
  
  
• Blacks make up just under one-quarter of those arrested for homicide, yet blacks make up 36 percent of the current death row population. Compare that even to Latinos and you find, Latinos make up 46 percent of those arrested for homicide but only 20 percent of the current death row population.
  
  
• It turns out, one of the biggest determinants of whether one faces the death penalty is the race of the victim. 59% of victims in death penalty cases are white. However, only 22 percent of homicide victims are white. This is true across the country--those who murder white victims are most likely to be sentenced to death nationally.

The report makes it clear that none of these numbers prove that race is the reason why some convicted of first degree murder receive a death sentence but others do not.

One possible explanation arises at the law enforcement level, where some have suggested that police investigators work harder to collect evidence in cases involving the deaths of white victims.

In fact this but one problem cited in the 116 page report from the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

One of the other stunning findings is that the state spends an additional $117 million per year as the result of just 673 people on death row. That translates to nearly $175,000 per inmate, per year. On June 10th, the California State Auditor revealed that a proposed new death row facility will cost at least $395 million to build, and more than $1 billion to operate over the next 20 years.

The reports also faults the state for failing to provide adequate council.

"The appointment and performance of qualified trial counsel, and the resources available to counsel to adequately investigate and prepare the case, are subjects of serious concern in the administration of California’s death penalty law."

Naturally groups such as the ACLU who have long fought against the death penalty for precisely the reasons highlighted in the report have had a strong reaction to this report.

Several groups have suggested that the death penalty actually makes it more difficult to fight crime because it saps resources that otherwise could be used toward more effective violence prevention programs.

Natasha Minsker from the ACLU who the Vanguard interviewed regarding the Topete Case a few weeks ago issued a statement on the ACLU website.

“We are pleased that the Commission has revealed the honest truth about the excessively high costs of California’s death penalty, and the many costly reforms that are still needed... But we are very disappointed that the Commission failed to call for immediate action to remedy racial and ethnic disparities in death sentencing in this state. Californians expect and demand a criminal justice system that treats all people equally, regardless of race and class... We cannot continue to ignore the evidence that our death penalty is not fairly applied.”

If there is a weakness in this report, it is that the commission did not provide for any remedies toward the immediate problem of apparent racial discrepancies in the rate of death penalty convictions. Instead it focused its recommendations on more expansive data collection in order to determine why some individuals are sentenced to death but others are not.

As the Sacramento Bee reported last week, even these remedies are being opposed by police, prosecutors, victims' representatives.

These groups claim that there is no evidence found in the report to suggest abuse by prosecutors.

"The critics also don't want prosecutors to adopt formal, written, public policies on when they'll seek the death penalty, as the commission has recommended. Such documents would serve primarily to create new grounds for condemned prisoners to challenge their convictions, the critics say."

However, those critics are missing a bigger picture here. The public's support for the death penalty has been trending downward over the last decade. States like Illinois had stopped executing death row inmates while reviewing their system, others like New Jersey have outright abolished the death penalty altogether.

New Jersey's death penalty study "recommended that the death penalty be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole."

High costs of prosecuting death penalty cases, lack of evidence that the death penalty deters future crime, in addition to discrepancies in the racial component of death row inmates, have led many to begin questioning the effectiveness and ethical nature of a practice when alternatives such as life imprisonment without parole have been shown to be just as effective at getting dangerous criminals off the streets and away from places where they pose a threat to the public.

Unfortunately, as the ACLU points out, the California commission stopped short of the recommendations by the New Jersey Death Penalty study. However, these findings may renew efforts to either reform or abolish the death penalty in California in the coming years.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Yolo County ACLU Requests Change of Venue for Topete Case

Many who read the Davis Enterprise on Sunday, undoubtedly saw the story that the Yolo County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called "upon the Yolo County Court to quickly secure a change in venue for the trial of Marco Topete, the accused killer of Sheriff's officer and former court baliff Tony Diaz."

Yolo County ACLU President Natlie Wormeli makes the argument based on the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State..."

The Sixth Amendment, many people do not realize, guarantees the right not only to a speedy trial, to have the right to face the accuser, and to the right to an attorney, but also the right to a public trial.

The ACLU is making a different argument than that of the media, who have argued that this is a First Amendment issue, a freedom of press. And whose primary concern naturally was that the press corps were excluded from the arraignment of a high profile case of public interest.

According to Ms. Wormeli:

"This change [of venue] is necessary to assure basic rights to the accused as guaranteed under the United States Constitution."

She continued:

"The Sheriff's Office forgot the basic charge of the Sixth Amendment... Everyone can understand the emotion the bailiffs must feel at the loss of their comrade. This is no excuse, however, for unprofessional and constitutionally prohibited conduct."

Natasha Minsker, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California added:

"The right to a public trial is a fundamental human right, protected by numerous international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An open courthouse is the hallmark of a free society." A public trial concurrently protects both the rights of the defendant and the greater right of the people to know.

The Vanguard had Natasha Minsker on its June 25, 2008 Radio Show which discussed this issue as a whole. [You can catch that show by clicking here, the conversation with Natasha Minsker begins around the 35 minute mark]

Natalie Wormeli believes that this violation raises concerns about who controls the legal procedures in Yolo County--the Sheriff or the Judges.

She wonders "whether the judge of the court can conduct a proper and fair trial in such an atmosphere."

"Those who attended last Saturday's funeral for Officer Diaz, including representatives of the YCACLU, were moved by the obvious suffering of Tony Diaz' family and the heartwarming support from his fellow officers in the face of this heinous crime. It is at these times that the criminal justice system, beginning with the trial court, faces its greatest challenge. When justice is pursued with every attention to fair procedure, even under these exceptional circumstances, then all citizens can be assured that the system is credible, reliable, and fair. The sacrifice of Officer Diaz demands that nothing interfere with a speedy and impartial public trial for his accused killer. The ability of the Yolo County Court to provide such proper procedures is in serious question. To remove any taint or threat of a procedural challenge later, the best thing to do is move the trial to another county."

The Vanguard continues to believe that the best course of action in this case is to move the trial to another county to insure that Mr. Topete receives a fair trial and that if he is indeed found guilty of this crime and is indeed the perpetrator of this callous and horrific act upon a peace officer, who attempted to rescue a baby, then Mr. Topete should spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

However, above all else, the constitution must be adhered to. The right to a fair and public trial must be afforded to the defendant in this case.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Gang Injunction Reinstatement Announcement Misleading

If you have read the news, almost all of it coming directly from the spin machines at the Yolo County District Attorney's office, you will have heard that the District Attorney and West Sacramento has won a huge victory with the gang injunction.

In a press release last weekend, the District Attorney Jeff Resig announced:

"A Yolo County Superior Court Judge has re-issued a permanent injunction against specific members of the Broderick Boys criminal street gang operating in West Sacramento, CA. Judge Timothy Fall issued the permanent injunction against nine Broderick Boys gang members on December 19, 2007. The court order creates a “Safety Zone” in the City of West Sacramento in which the named members are prohibited from associating with other gang members in public, trespassing, possessing weapons, possessing graffiti tools, possessing drugs and/or alcohol and/or intimidating witnesses. The named members are also subject to a curfew within the Safety Zone from 10 p.m. until sunrise."

District Attorney Jeff Reisig stated:

“It is impossible to ignore the devastating impact gang activity has in our communities. An effective response must focus on prevention, intervention, education and enforcement. In the big picture, gang injunctions are merely part of this equation. However, when sanctioned and monitored by the courts, gang injunctions are a lawful and powerful tool that responsible civic leaders should consider in appropriate situations. By persistently pursuing this case, City leaders have demonstrated their commitment to public safety in West Sacramento.”

As the Sacramento Bee reported on December 31, 2007:

The nine alleged members – whom prosecutors called "the worst of the worst" – did not appear in civil court earlier to defend themselves against a request for restrictions on their activities. So on Dec. 19, Yolo Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall granted the injunction against them.

"They never showed up," Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden said Sunday.

"They're never going to show up," said Linden, who is handling the Broderick Boys case. "And we've done what we can by personally serving them and getting the court order against them."

Sounds good right?

And now the rest of the story, that was not reported in the newspapers or at least not completely.

The case of Victor Dazo, one of the named Broderick Boys defendants. He is one of the nine who did not show up to contest the gang injunction. Now why did he not show up to contest it? He is in prison and probably because of that, is not able to go to court to fight the injunction.

Fine you say, maybe he is a bad guy and deserves to stay in prison. Maybe so, but in most cases in these sorts of cases, courts routinely continue cases due to "good cause" being found when defendants are not in court because they are in prison, rather than issue default rulings against them as we saw in this case.

A default judgment basically means that the individual did not fight the factual allegations of being a gang member, or the gang existing, or the serving of the injunction being proper, etc. In other words, the judge had no other side to look at in this case.

Where am I going with this you might ask?

Well the Sacramento Bee reports:

"On Jan. 31, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be in court again, arguing whether to apply the new injunction to a dozen other individuals.

The hearing will also determine whether the injunction should be broadened – enforced against the Broderick Boys as a criminal street gang and to hundreds of other alleged, unnamed gang members."

What is actually happening on January 31, 2008, is that those defendants who are fighting the injunction will respond in court against the injunction. And if they are successful, the injunction may fall apart against Mr. Dazo and the other eight people who did not respond.

On Jan. 31, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be in court again, arguing whether to apply the new injunction to a dozen other individuals.

The hearing will also determine whether the injunction should be broadened – enforced against the Broderick Boys as a criminal street gang and to hundreds of other alleged, unnamed gang members.

The Bee goes on to report:

"In the meantime, Linden said there was no need to wait to enforce restrictions against those who hadn't bothered to defend themselves – most of whom, the prosecutor said, are previously convicted criminals."

They can start enforcing restriction on these individuals, if the rest of them are not in jail. However, the idea that these individuals did not bother to defend themselves is misleading at best. And the idea that the DA is home free on them, is accurate as well. That will depend on whether the judge upholds the gang injunction this time.

I know a lot of people think we are better off for having gang members or alleged gang members denied their constitutional rights to defend themselves, but from my perspective we have adhere to those rights. It puts all of us at risk of an overzealous prosecutor if we do not.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Debate Continues Over the Gang Injunction in West Sacramento

Earlier in the week, we criticized West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon for his lack of leadership in the gang injunction case by failing to appear at a town meeting to discuss the subject.

The Woodland Daily Democrat reported Friday on an angry exchange at the West Sacramento City Council Meeting, where frustrated opponents of the gang injunction confronted the Mayor who is running for the State Assembly.

"Meanwhile, the opponents of the injunction pleaded their case to the West Sacramento City Council Wednesday night, taking particular aim at the city's mayor, Christopher Cabaldon, who conspicuously missed Monday's town hall meeting organized by the city's residents regarding the injunction.

"There was an open letter to you, Mr. Cabaldon," said Rebecca Sandoval of the local council of the League of United Latin American Citizens at the meeting. "I can't believe you didn't show up."

Sandoval noted that the Monday town hall meeting was attended by representatives from state Sen. Mike Machado and Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, and personally attended by Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, who is challenging Cabaldon for a state Assembly seat.

"Your opponent showed up, but where were you?" Sandoval asked."

Furthermore:

"Cabaldon tried to assure the angry residents that the injunction was necessary to curb what he called a very dangerous and menacing street gang.

"The injunction will be limited specifically to those with recent and criminal histories," Cabaldon said. "The injunction has been effective in reducing crime and violent crime particular in Broderick and Bryte, (and) to an extent greater than rest of the city."

Cabaldon pointed the finger back at opponents, stating that their denial of the existence of the Broderick Boys gang has hampered the dialogue between them and the city.

"Part of the challenge to the conversation had been the fundamental contention that there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys," Cabaldon said. "It does exist and it is a problem and neighborhoods have been under siege as a result of those criminal activities for far too long and we are taking action to ensure they don't occur."

Opponents left the meeting angered by the mayor's pronouncement.

"The mayor is a liar and a fool," said Ashiya Odeye, director of the Justice Reform Coalition, a Sacramento-based civil rights advocacy group, at the City Council meeting. "And he's part of the problem."

"All of that stuff he is talking about is a lie. I know he has further political aspirations, but I think his aspirations in politics are over because the community is tired. They have never proven there is a Broderick Boys gang period."

The newly written injunction does in fact appear to have been much more specific than the previous injunction that was thrown out due to lack of notification and a spurious use of state law defining unincorporated associations.

However, there still appear to be problems with the current law. While last time, then Deputy District Attorney (now the newly elected DA) Jeff Reisig, noticed a single accused gang member, who no longer even resided in West Sacramento, this one had a much more broadly noticed target. However, because the injunction is a "civil injunction," defendants are still not entitled to a court-appointed attorney--and therefore in practice, there may not be much difference in terms of those individuals, who are targeted for the injunction, ability to defend themselves against such charges by the District Attorney.

Now you have case where individuals will go to jail if they violate the law but are not being allowed representation because they cannot afford to pay a private attorney. A lot of these people are indigent and cannot afford counsel, so how are they going to be able to have their rights protected in this case?

So now there is an argument before Judge Fall as to whether they are entitled to court appointed counsel. Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden is arguing no and several attorney's who wish to be appointed by the court as arguing that they are.

"They asked to be appointed as if this was a criminal case," Linden said. "The fact that we are enjoining criminals does not mean they have the right to get their attorneys any differently."

How difficult would it actually be to allow people to get proper representation here? What is the District Attorney's office afraid of? If you believe that you have good solid reason to name these individuals, allow them to have counsel, it only seems right.

Since I have been following this story, people have argued that this is necessary to prevent horrific crime in West Sacramento. If that's true, then what harm would it do to allow people to follow the due process of the law? I still believe that people ought to be punished for what they do criminally, not what they potentially might do criminally. And an injunction is a punishment, it denies people the right to do things that ordinary people have the right to do. If that's the case, then people should have the right to an attorney, the right to due process of the law, but from the very start, this process has been bent on denying people those very basic of all rights, and it comes to the point where I have to ask, why?

This is primarily directed toward the inevitable ten people who will come on here and tell me how terrible the gang is and how horrible the people involved. My response to you is that by denying people their right to fight these accusations, you are turning these people that you consider criminals and thugs into at least partial victims. The only way you can regain your moral high ground is by granting them their rights to at least face their accuser and challenge the punishment. If they are guilty as you say they are, then what are you afraid?

The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that it is because they cannot prove anything, that they are imposing blanket punishments in a sense of panic, and when you do that you end up harming innocent people. The US Constitution does not provide exceptions to the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to street gangs. The US Constitution does not allow due process of the law for law abiding citizens, but deny it to people who are in gangs or more to the point suspected of being in a gang. You want to enjoin gang members, fine, prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is in fact a gang member and provide him counsel to defend himself. Then this all goes away. Until then, I see this as a ploy to deny people their right to due process because essentially there are a lot of really bad people out there, who do a lot of bad things to other people, and we're scared. And if that is the standard, then we will eventually be able to reason away all of our rights and then where will be be?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Know Your Rights Even if You Are Completely Innocent

There is a popular myth that floats through some segments of the population that disparages the notion of constitutional protections for the rights of the accused. According to that line of thinking, if you didn't do anything, you have nothing to hide.

However that misses the fundamental nature of human character embodied in Federalist 51 by James Madison:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Indeed time and time again, people's failure to understand and exercise their constitutional rights, even when they believe they are innocent or are in fact innocent, pervades this culture. Time and time again, people end up with their lives altered or their liberties curtailed because they failed to heed very simple maxims when dealing with police and authority--the fallibility of human nature. I'm not even necessarily talking about maliciousness, although that certainly enters the picture. I am also speaking simply of human error committed by well intentioned individuals in authority. In the long run, perhaps you can say that people will be vindicated by the truth, but it may be a long process and costly in terms of time, energy, and resources. Innocent people have served decades in jail before release--decades that can never be returned to them. And if you are unfortunate and lack the resources to fight those charges, it may further impair your ability to live life as you once knew it.

The most basic of rights granted by the US Constitution are the right against searches and seizures without a warrant, the right against self-incrimination, which takes the form of the right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney represent their interests.

Simply put people need to understand that they have the right to refuse to a search of their vehicle without probable cause and they have a right to prevent a search or even entry into their home without a warrant.

Moreover, while some people know that they have these very rights, they sometimes fail to exercise their rights. Just recently I was told a story where a man consented to the search of his vehicle. Why did he do this? Because he knew he had nothing to hide. And yet the police found something and he ended up arrested. Why? Because unbeknownst to him, someone innocently placed something into his vehicle that ended up getting him arrested. I am not at liberty to belabor the details of this incident, although it is interesting in its own right. The larger point is that this individual now faces charges and jail time for something that they had no knowledge of being in their vehicle. And yet, it could have been avoided by simply refusing to grant the police permission to search his vehicle.

Is this an extreme example? Probably. But allowing a police officer to search your vehicle when you have the right not to be searched only allows for the possibility that you will be found with something that maybe you failed to even consider or had no knowledge of. It also opens the door for potentially other more nefarious problems. The bottom line however is use your rights even when you think you do not have to.

To further illustrate this point, I will pick on the recent example in the Buzayan Case. Jamal Buzayan allowed police officers into his home. They gained entry based on a simple request to come in. Now Dr. Buzayan's attorneys will argue in a civil suit that when Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly asked to come in with the clear verbal intention of only talking, but in fact intended to make an arrest, Officer Ly violated the rights of Dr. Buzayan and his daughter by using subterfuge in order to gain entry to a property. This point will be played out in the courts and is the basis for the entire discussion on what an officer can and cannot do without a warrant in cases involving minors.

However, Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home. In the Flex Your Right video, which is also linked on the side column, there is a scenario that is played out twice where officers arrive at a home during a party called out on a noise complaint. In the first version, the officers are allowed into the home, spot illegal activity and then arrest the party goers even though the original complaint was not about drug use but rather noise. In the second and correctly handled version from the citizen's standpoint, the resident walks outside to talk to the police officer, closing the door behind them thereby preventing the officer entry or vision into the home. The people inside are not arrested in this version.

Had Dr. Buzayan spoken with Officer Ly and Officer Hartz outside of his home, Officer Ly would have needed to have acquired a warrant in order to arrest Dr. Buzayan's daughter. More likely, he would have simply asked Dr. Buzayan to bring his daughter to the police station in the morning for questioning. This would have avoided many of the problems that ensued from Officer Ly's arrest of the minor and subsequent interrogation of the minor.

Speaking of which, from the police interview tape we see that the minor in the Buzayan case seems to ask for an attorney upon being read her rights by Officer Ly. Officer Ly should have at the very least ceased the interview until he clarified that the request was indeed one for an attorney. However, the minor also erred here. Now, obviously being a minor we have to give her latitude, and this certainly should not be read as a criticism, but rather a point of learning how to better handle such a situation.

Once the minor requested an attorney, she should have stop speaking and insisted that an attorney be called. At that point, the officer would have again been forced to comply and he would have not have been able to attempt to gain a confession from the minor.

It is often amazing to me how many people in situations such as these do not request to have a lawyer present during questioning. It is my view as a layman that no one should ever enter a situation with the police interrogating you without requesting an attorney be present with the caveat being, as long as it is clear that you are or may at some point be considered a target for the investigation rather than merely a witness. This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: "Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest."

Here are some resources available that will illustrate some of these points as well.

• ACLU: Know Your Rights: What to Do If You're Stopped by the Police
  

• ACLU: Know Your Rights PDF
  

• Flex Your Rights Quiz on Police Stops

The final point here that I will reiterate because there is so much confusion. You can be perfectly innocent and yet end up getting into trouble simply because you failed to exercise your constitutional rights. But even if you are not innocent, knowing your rights will only aid you in having a strong defense. It is amazing to me how many problems could be avoided if people simply took heed of their rights.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Column: View From West Davis

This is my weekly column of thoughts and tidbits from the week that has passed. A little bit lighter and more playful than the usual serious and hard-hitting coverage.

Flying at Half-Staff

As much as I complain about City Staff doing a poor job in this community, there are some things that just make me scratch my head and blow my hair back.

Such was the case on Thursday Night at the Davis Human Relations Commission Meeting. Last month, a representative from the ACLU had requested the HRC place an item on the agenda to discuss the possibility of recommending to the city council that they pass a resolution to support SB 1019. SB 1019, as the regulars on this blog know, would enable police oversight commissions to conduct their hearings once again in public and report the results of sustained complaints to the public.

The membership of the HRC apparently agreed to the request by the ACLU and placed the item on the agenda for the June Meeting of the HRC on Thursday.

Well I go to the meeting to watch this, and the city staffer Kelly Stachowicz, acknowledges that she has not prepared a staff report for the meeting. She tells the commission some of the basics of the bill but leaves out key details.

I am only a member of the public, so I am not allowed to speak and have to listen for about 20 minutes as the commission goes back and forth with incorrect and incomplete details. Police Chief Landy Black for instance suggests that he doesn't think that Davis needs another layer of oversight.

Well, no one explains to them that this bill has no impact on Davis. All it does is restore local control on the issue, it does not impose any changes on communities that do not already have civilian oversight boards. So it would not impose another layer of oversight on Davis. All it would do, is if Davis in the future wanted a civilian review board, it would allow Davis to report the findings in public.

The ultimate decision made by the commission was that they needed more information. I cannot blame them for that. So they are bringing it back for their July 26, 2007 meeting--which is fine, but it might be moot by then at least for this legislative term as the Assembly Committee is meeting again on July 3.

There were two major problems with this meeting. First, the staffer failed to do a staff report and of course no one on the commission questioned that. Second, in the past, chairs have allowed members of the public with specific knowledge about the issue to speak more informally, but this chair did not. Commissions by design are supposed to be considerably less rigid in structure precisely for this type of scenario.

Moving Left

Two weeks ago in this space, we told you that Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor was heavily promoting the movie "SiCKO" from *Roger* Moore. Well I get word from the health care rally, that Mr. Saylor once again showed up and tried to get his picture taken with everyone holding up a health care sign--people that are not his allies and people that he has attacked in public and private. Must be election time and in Davis that means you move hard to the left to show that you are indeed a liberal.

People just need to remember his voting record while on council. I'm waiting for him to renounce his support for Target, Covell Village, 3rd and B, the lowering of the Anderson Bank Building Windows, his opposition to the HRC and civilian oversight of the police, his refusal to vote on an anti-war resolution, etc. You cannot run from your voting record.

And of course when everyone else was enthusiastically cheering for the speeches, Mr. Saylor was looking rather stoic. You can't fool us.

Outrage

We were at Farmer's Market on Saturday getting the pulse of the town. The pulse of the town is outrage at the proposed development along I-80. It is outrage at the 3rd and B project. And it is outrage at the prospect of water rates tripling over the next decade.

The water issue is particularly pernicious because most people simply have no idea that their rates are going up. The water supply issue is particularly complicated because the people advising the city on the issue have a financial interest in the city constructing a bypass of Sacramento River water.

There is no such confusion on the Stem Cell Research Facility on I-80--no one we met was in favor of it. This is the classic Tskaopoulos approach, he's giving the carrot in the form of the research facility, but the real proposal is housing and commercial development on a massive scale. Other communities have seen right through the scheme, so Yolo is going to fall for it?

This would be DOA if Davis' representatives on the Board of Supervisors were doing their jobs of representing the needs and desires of Davis. Yolo County Supervisors Matt Rexroad and Duane Chamberlain are opposing this. And yet, we may have to fight this because Davis' two county supervisors Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson favor it. Davis better look long and hard at the next Supervisor for the 4th District this coming election to insure that they will oppose development on the periphery of Davis. It is that simple.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Reisig Cowardly Passes the Buck After Setback

The decision by California's 3rd District Court of Appeal struck down an overly broad injunction against a West Sacramento Gang this week. This is not generally a court known for its activism or its liberalism. However, the violation of due process was obvious even to the more callous and cautious members of the community.

Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig intentionally attempted to circumvent due process requirements in order to get the injunction imposed by only serving one single individual. The fact that Yolo County Judge Thomas Warriner allowed it to stand after the initial challenge on the grounds that the individuals had no standing to contest the law, since they would not acknowledge that they were gang members, speaks volumes about his own judgment.

The attack on civil liberties here is clear--the court struck down the law based on a narrow issue--the lack of proper notification to affected parties. Reisig in his haste and attempt to impose the curfew on a broad range of individuals without anyone to contest the order, served merely one individual with a notice to appear. While he defended his decision based on a notion that they would relay the message through their informal network, the court easily threw that defense aside.

Due process of the law is paramount in any society governed by the rule of law and this policy imposed by Reisig when he was a Deputy District Attorney blatantly violated those norms.

Moreover there was not a requirement that anyone had to be convicted of a crime in order to be labeled a gang member. That combined with the failure to notice individuals about a court hearing created a clear violation of state and federal due process requirements. This was clearly a policy that threatened to sweep a number of innocent people in with hardened gang members. Those decrying this ruling have failed to take into account that a number of the individuals served here have strong evidence that they are not in fact gang members at all.

However, by far the most shocking and appalling act of cowardice was the buck that Reisig passed after the decision--for he promptly dumped the entire mess that he had created through his own laziness and attempt to circumvent due process, into the lap of the city officials of West Sacramento most particularly Mayor Christopher Cabaldon.

Reisig told reporters after the Monday decision that he would seek another injunction only if West Sacramento city leaders, including Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, wanted it.

Mayor Cabaldon of course has been a supporter of the gang injunction. He was quoted in Wednesday's Sacramento Bee as saying:

West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon said evidence from residents and police indicates crime is down since the injunction was enforced.

"From the beginning it has all been about achieving a balance between assuring public safety in the community and to protect the constitutional rights for all of our residents," Cabaldon said.

However, the measure is very polarizing. Many Latinos feel that the measure unduly singles out Latinos regardless of whether or not they are gang members--giving police broad discretion to harass any Latino in the gang injunction zone. Residents feel that it has a chilling effect on social and community activities. And some have accused the police of forcing gang confessions on them, placing them under the lifelong ban with no legal recourse or means to fight the charges.

On the other hand, many residents feel the opposite, that the gangs are a menace and that this is the only way to fight them.

Thus no matter what the Mayor does at this point, he will anger a large constituency as he faces a nomination fight in the Democratic Party for the 8th Assembly District. Reisig has done him no favors here by passing the decision making to Cabaldon. Cabaldon would be well served by dumping it right back into Reisig's lap by criticizing the District Attorney for trying to cut corners with the initial injunction and recognizing to the public that Reisig is the county's chief law enforcement officer and that Reisig himself makes such decisions.

Whatever one feels about Cabaldon here, there an issue of fairness and it was simply not fair for Reisig to dump this into the lap of the Mayor. Reisig is the one that made several crucial mistakes in the application of this policy that would be controversial enough even with proper notification. In other words, the court decision to strike down this injunction was completely and totally on District Attorney Jeff Reisig watch and instead of making a decision as to whether or not he should attempt to rewrite the injunction and properly notice individuals he dumped it on Mayor Cabaldon.

District Attorney Jeff Reisig was just seated this January as Yolo County's first new District Attorney in over 20 years. He was elected with near unanimous support from law enforcement and yet promised to make reforms and do things differently. However, this policy and the handling of this decision demonstrate that in fact it is still business as usual in the Yolo County criminal justice system. Civil liberties are still violated and responsibility and accountability skirted. At the end of the day, Yolo County needed a clean break in the District Attorney's office and Reisig will not provide that.

The Sacramento Bee had their own scathing editorial for the District Attorney who less than one year ago they had endorsed:

After the ruling, a disappointed Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig cited the brutal attack on an Amtrak conductor last week allegedly by members of the Broderick Boys as proof of the need for the gang injunction. But Reisig overlooks the obvious: The injunction was in place and had been for more than two years when the attack took place. It did not prevent that crime.

As the court's opinion makes clear, the injunction was too blunt an instrument. The order lacked necessary safeguards for those affected. In the tight-knit communities of working-class Broderick, the injunction posed the risk of sweeping too many innocent people into a very wide net.

The next time Reisig moves against gangs, he should consult first with local officials and residents to get their advice and their support, both of which appeared noticeably absent the first time around.

This was a point that was made yesterday in the comments section--the gang injunction did nothing to protect the Amtrak employee from being beaten. It is nice to see the Sacramento Bee call Reisig on that aspect.

However, it remains even more appalling to me that it took an appellate court to strike down this rather obvious and blatant violation of the constitutional right to due process which seems to shape the entire Yolo County criminal justice system.

It is Reisig who needs to make the decision to revisit the injunction and not Mayor Cabaldon. Proper noticing will require great effort on the part of the prosecutor's office and then it will involve a lengthy court challenge as the defendants and the ACLU challenge the constitutionality of the gang injunction itself. The court explicitly left open that possibility, however, the proper process will take time and expense. It would seem to us that there would be other ways to combat gang activity that do not infringe upon the rights of potentially innocent people without the possiblity of due process of law.

This entire episode has left an unfortunate smudge on Yolo County law enforcement, but even more unfortunately represents only the tip of the iceberg. Someone needs to come in and clean up Yolo County and unfortunately this case confirms what we already suspected, Jeff Reisig is not the man to do it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday Briefs

County Proposals For Joint Study Areas

The County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday to approve the following (courtesy of an email from Katherine Hess to the Davis City Council):

1. Meet with the City of Davis through the 2x2 process to allow for joint exploration of revenue producing uses and opportunities regarding development adjoining the City.

2. Designate a joint “special study area” in the area north of Covell Boulevard and west of State Highway 113 (the Northwest Quadrant), by both the County and the City of Davis, to allow for joint exploration of revenue generating opportunities and “special needs housing” (such as housing for seniors), to take advantage of the proximity to the University, University Retirement Community, Sutter-Davis Hospital, and other nearby social services.

3. Add 383 acres of commercial and mixed uses at the northwest corner of the intersection of Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road, through the use of a joint “special study area” overlay by both the County and the City of Davis to allow for joint exploration of revenue producing uses and opportunities, as well as to allow for coordinated planning with the adjoining Hunt-Wesson cannery property

For the areas along I-80 east of Davis:

4. Add 30 acres of highway commercial use at the interchange of Chiles Road and Interstate-80 and 13 acres of commercial use at the interchange of Mace Road and Interstate-80, south of County Road 32A. (County staff recommendation)

5. Look at the entirety of the I-80 corridor for research, science park, and biotech businesses.

More on the Joint Study Areas

In response to yesterday's blog entry, Mayor Sue Greenwald told me that she was concerned that Don Saylor while opposing the joint study area on I-80, made comments that indicated that he was not opposed to it for the Covell Property and Northwest Quadrant.

This would indicate that both Councilmember Saylor and Souza have both expressed some measure of support for "joint study areas" with the city and county.

There is concern expressed by several people that this means that the council majority was trying to use the county general plan update process and the county's support for joint study sessions to force growth on the periphery of the City of Davis.

Dunning Goes After ACLU

In early March, we reported that the ACLU had written a letter to the Davis Joint Unified School District supporting the Valley Oak Elementary School remaining open based on concerns about it being the sole minority-majority school in the district.

As we reported then:

"The ACLUNC is deeply concerned that a decision to close VOES [Valley Oak Elementary School will violate the constitutional rights of its students." Furthermore they suggest "Because VOES is the only elementary school in the Davis Unified School District where students of color represent a majority of the student body, we believe that a decision to close VOES would have a racially disparate impact on students of color."

"It is also our understanding that closing Valley Oak School will seriously disadvantage those students who would otherwise have attended VOES. Such a closure will deny its students equal access to education in at least two ways. First, the lack of transportation to different schools will result in many children missing early morning classes because of their long walk, thus significantly limiting their class time and increasing their truancy. Second, there is no guarantee that English Language Learner programs will be provided for students who need them at their new schools. English language teachers assert that even an interruption in class time, let alone depriving students of the class altogether, will result in a harmful impact, which will obviously be aggravated if the students are sent to a school without an ELL program."

Yesterday Bob Dunning weighed in this letter from the ACLU that was subsequently withdrawn. In fact, I would suggest that the issues raised by the initial letter indeed had merit. There are concerns about the closing of Valley Oak Elementary School will seriously disadvantage those students. There are concerns about the transportation issue. There are concerns about the EL program's ability to move without seriously disrupting the positive education provided to many students. So in fact, it would potentially have a harmful impact.

Contrary to Mr. Dunning who just over a month ago laid out his liberal credentials for me (or at least asserted them), I think the ACLU's original letter was right on the mark. These are essentially the arguments made by the Davis OPEN folks that Mr. Dunning has strongly and rightly supported. And their only mistake in my opinion, was that they withdrew the letter under apparent pressure from some in the community.

However, I think reasonable people can disagree on this point. Mr. Dunning has every right to disagree with the ACLU and as he has shown in the past, dislike the ACLU (look no further than last spring's long drawn out feud with former Mayor Bill Kopper).

What I think is less defensible is this point:

Although no one knows quite how it happened — and all the locals swear they had nothing to do with it — the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California inserted itself into the Valley Oak controversy at the last possible moment by firing off a letter to the Davis school board that pretty much sealed Valley Oak's fate for good.

What evidence does Mr. Dunning have that the letter from the ACLU "sealed Valley Oak's fate for good?" The letter was not discussed by the board. The letter was not mentioned in private by the members of the board who voted to close Valley Oak. The conversations I had with some of those members focused on finances and declining enrollment as did their public statements. If Mr. Dunning has evidence to the contrary, please step forward with it because I see none and he offers none. He says nothing as to back up that claim. Offers no further comments even on that sweeping assertion.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Tuesday Briefs

ACLU Becomes Involved in Valley Oak Closure Controversy

In a letter to the Davis Unified School Board on March 1, 2007, the ACLU Northern California Division expressed concern about the impact of the closure of Valley Oak Elementary School on the rights and welfare of the predominantly minority student population at Valley Oak.

"The ACLUNC is deeply concerned that a decision to close VOES [Valley Oak Elementary School will violate the constitutional rights of its students." Furthermore they suggest "Because VOES is the only elementary school in the Davis Unified School District where students of color represent a majority of the student body, we believe that a decision to close VOES would have a racially disparate impact on students of color."

"It is also our understanding that closing Valley Oak School will seriously disadvantage those students who would otherwise have attended VOES. Such a closure will deny its students equal access to education in at least two ways. First, the lack of transportation to different schools will result in many children missing early morning classes because of their long walk, thus significantly limiting their class time and increasing their truancy. Second, there is no guarantee that English Language Learner programs will be provided for students who need them at their new schools. English language teachers assert that even an interruption in class time, let alone depriving students of the class altogether, will result in a harmful impact, which will obviously be aggravated if the students are sent to a school without an ELL program."

Finally, they make the point that "the Valley Oak community was not represented on the Task Force making the recommendation to close its school."

City Council To Review the Performance of the City Manager

Tomorrow evening at a special meeting, the Davis City Council will meet behind close doors to perform their annual performance evaluation of the city manager. As a personnel matter such evaluations are of course confidential.

However, as I suggested on Sunday with regards to Superintendent David Murphy, it seems one thing to keep personnel records of rank and file employees confidential, however, when dealing with public records of employees who are high profile and very public such as the city manager such a rule makes much less sense. It seems to me that laws protecting City Managers, Superintendents, Police Chiefs and the like do not serve the best interest of the public by keeping highly paid public employees accountable for their actions by the public.

This is of course an issue not within the control of the city council, but it is something that I would like to see gain more attention--transparency in government does not work well when unelected employees who are in public leadership positions that affect the entire community are exempt from having public input and public scrutiny.

HRC Seeks Nominations for Thong Hy Huynh Memorial Awards

"The City of Davis Human Relations Commission is seeking nominations for this year's Thong Hy Huynh Memorial Awards. The Commission will honor individuals and community organizations that have made significant contributions in resolving or improving civil and human rights issues in the City of Davis. The Commission encourages groups and individuals to submit award nominations prior to the deadline of Friday, April 6, 2007 at 4:00 p.m."

For further information and for nomination forms please click here.

Homeless Awareness Day at UC Davis

Dear Doug Paul Davis,

I am writing to inform readers of the Davis Vanguard about the outcome of the Homeless Awareness Day at UC Davis sponsored by The Associated Students at UC Davis (ASUCD). The event took place on the 27th of Feb. at the Memorial Union at the University of California, Davis campus. A little background behind the event is needed.

The Homeless Awareness Day at UC Davis was inspired by the death of Jesse Newberry, a 24 year old youth who died by being hit by an Amtrak train around Freeborn Hall near the UC Davis campus. Activists took the idea of a homeless awareness day to the Associated Students at UC Davis and the Associated Students went to work on a senate resolution.The senate resolution designated a Homeless Awareness Week at the UC Davis campus and it called on other bodies of local government to pass resolutions that observed the homeless awareness week at UC Davis. With the passing of the resolution, we were able to finalize the logistics for a Homeless Awareness Day event at UC Davis.

The kick off of the event was a clothing drive where we were able to collect numerous clothing donations from students at the campus as well as from concerned community members. Besides the clothing drive that we had for the homeless, we planned a resource fair and invited the attendance of social service agencies from the community that provide service to the poor and the homeless of our community. Having the organizations at the fair served two functions. The first function for the resource fair was so that the homeless and other disenfranchised groups attending the rally would become more aware of resources that are available to them in the community. The second function of the resource fair was to give students interested in social issues an avenue to volunteer for a social service agency. We also invited several speakers to the event.

We invited Steve Jerome Wyatt, an ex-homeless individual and current community college student and homeless activist to read from a pre-written script authored by Jesse Newberry's mother. Jesse's mother was very happy to have the community recognize the life of her son. We invited Lawson Snipes, a homeless man and Editor-in-Chief of the homeless publication and journal - The Spare Changer. Lawson spoke about his experience of being homeless at UC Davis in the early 1970's as a UC Davis student.

We had two UC Davis students present poetry on homelessness and poverty.

Another speaker at the event was Davis City Council member Lamar Heystek.

At the event were representatives from California Assembly Woman Lois Wolk's office and from the Yolo County Board of Supervisor Helen Thompson's office.

The student senate resolution that designated the Homelessness Awareness Day at UC Davis was presented as well as a mayoral proclamation which was authored by Sue Greenwald that established a sister homeless awareness week in the city of Davis Feb 27th through the 2nd of March. Also presented was a similar resolution that Assembly woman Lois Wolk introduced in the California Assembly.

I think a very big thanks has to go to The Associated Students at UC Davis as well as the students of the UC Davis California Public Interest Research Group. Without their assistance, this event would not have been possible at all. Putting this event together was truly team work.

The event was a success for many reasons. The first reason is that the event allowed students on campus to learn about social service agencies that serve the impoverished. The organizations present were able to at least get some students interested in what it is that they do. The event had good press coverage. Many community members in Davis and in other parts of Yolo County seen that it was truly possible for different groups of people including community members and homeless people to get together and learn about homelessness.

Now that homelessness has been officially recognized in the community, homeless activists will now set out on the path to push for more educational events specifically around the topic of homelessness and hunger in the city of Davis. We would like to try to look at the feasibility of partnering up the homeless with specific employers in the downtown Davis area.

Untreated medical illness is prevalent in the Davis homeless population. A idea we like to try to push for is the feasibility of getting family practice doctors in the community to agree to see homeless people once a week. Homeless people have access to Y-CHIP which is a very basic form of medical insurance that is for the homeless of the community. Hopefully more medical access for the homeless will increase the number of medical problems that are treated in the homeless population.

We would like to start the discussion of getting marriage and family therapists in the community to volunteer some of their time to provide counseling for the homeless in the community. Counseling is a very big need for the homeless in Davis. It it is reality that once a person is homeless, it is very difficult to get out of homelessness.

If a person is going to be homeless for a long period of time, there should not be a reason why they cannot have a medical or mental health issue treated at a early stage.

Government works very hard to address the needs of the homeless and the impoverished. There is much that the private sector and the community can do to improve the quality of life for our homeless. I and other activists hope to at least stimulate discussion around how we can improve the quality of life of our homeless for the long term via contributions from the community.

For information about the Homelessness Awareness Day at UC Davis, please visit the California Aggie website.

Thank You very much for your support,

Richard Cipian

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Reisig and West Sacramento Defend Gang Injunction

The ACLU is taking on Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig before a three judge panel at the Sacramento 3rd District Court of Appeal over the issue of two year old gang injunction.

At issue are two crucial points. First that those affected by the injunction were not given sufficient notice in order to challenge the injunction. Second whether or not the individuals filing the suit even have standing to sue.

The Sacramento Bee quotes ACLU Lawyer Ann Brick:

"This injunction left it up to the police to decide who is and who is not a gang member," she said. Those stopped by police had to go into court to prove them wrong.

Reisig has countered that that four plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the injuction because they have not admitted they are gang members and therefore the law does not directly affect them.

Yolo County Judge Thomas Warriner threw out the ACLU's challenge on this basis.

The Sacramento Bee further reports:

After court, Reisig defended the method police used to notify alleged gang members of the injunction.

"When you serve one street terrorist, they're all going to find out that the cops are coming," he said.

Reisig, who was at the time a Deputy District Attorney, gave notice of the suit to just one of the alleged gang members. When neither that individual nor anyone else showed up in court, Warriner granted the injunction.

What is unclear to me is whether these individuals have been served with gang injunctions? If they have been, how could they not have standing to sue? If they have not been, why would they sue in the first place?

This from the Sacramento News and Review on December 1, 2005:

All four of the ACLU’s clients in the case claim that they are not members of the Broderick Boys gang. (In fact, many West Sacramento residents say there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys and that local police and prosecutors have exaggerated the existence of the supposed gang.) And all said they received no notice that the gang injunction was being sought in the courts or that they would be subject to its restrictions.

But Judge Warriner ruled that the four had no standing to challenge the law, because they claim they are not gang members. The injunction “binds only defendant Broderick Boys and its members and authorized representatives” wrote Warriner in his ruling.

Furthermore, he ruled, “any person who is charged with criminal contempt for violating the terms of the injunction is entitled to the protection of numerous rights when defending such a charge.”

This ruling makes no sense, given that the clients of the ACLU are claiming to have been directly affected by the injunction.

The judge’s logic exasperated opponents of the injunction. Jory Steele, an attorney with the ACLU, said, “Obviously, we vehemently disagree with the judge’s ruling. Our clients were indeed directly affected by the injunction.” Directly affected because they have been labeled as gang members by police and prosecutors and because--even though they deny gang membership--they nevertheless risk arrest if they are stopped by police after 10 p.m. in West Sacramento or if they are seen in public with anyone else identified as a Broderick Boy.

So again--if these individuals have been served by the injunction--how do they not have standing? Why do they need to have admitted they were gang members in order to have standing?

Once that is question is decided, then the issue of the constitutionality of the Gang Injunction can be addressed. We can debate that issue further as we did back as we did last month.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Gang Injunction: Crackdown on Gangs or Minorities who can't fight back?

A recent article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 26, 2006 (and reprinted in the Davis Enterprise shortly thereafter) brings the issue of the gang injunction back to the public spotlight.

It is a tricky issue because proponents believe that these tactics have reduced crime. Jeff Reisig told the San Francisco Chronicle that "It's absolutely worked... This works, and it's legal."

However, this is not just a nation built on positive outcomes but also policy and procedure. The ACLU filed lawsuit, but as I understand the court ruling, they never ruled on the constitutionality of the policy. In fact, it won on a technicality.

If this policy is legal, it is also marginal and troubling.

Perhaps most troubling was the way the injunction was enacted.

"In a move that still angers opponents, prosecutors gave notice of the suit to just one alleged member, and he lived in Rancho Cordova, 15 miles away. Reisig wrote in a court filing that the alleged Norteño, Billy Wolfington, would spread the word to compatriots.

Wolfington didn't show up in court to contest the injunction, however, and neither did any other alleged members of the gang. With no opposition in attendance, Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner granted a permanent injunction on Feb. 3, 2005. "

This is the same Thomas Warriner who was the presiding judge in the Halema Buzayan criminal trial. He was a Deukmejian apointee to the bench and a right wing Republican.

Cosmo Garvin in August, 2005 ran an article on injunction. He quotes ACLU attorney Alan Scholesser.

“A lifetime curfew for an adult is an extraordinary punishment. I think if people had their day in court, there would have been some serious legal challenges and some very different outcomes.”

"But Deputy District Attorney Reisig told SN&R that the Broderick Boys have an active communication network, through which the individual who was served notice of the injunction was able to spread word to the rest of the gang.

Reisig added that serving notice on each individual who would be subject to the injunction would have expended “a tremendous amount of resources.”

“The law simply doesn’t require us to do that. The judge even said it was OK,” added Reisig."

Therein lies the rub--a judge with a notorious reputation for favoring the prosecution has legitimated this process. This is precisely the problem with the criminal justice system in Yolo County.

Is this targeting just gang members? Or are innocent people getting caught up in this legal net?

For example:

"In one declaration to the court, Benjamin Juarez said that he had been in trouble with the police as a juvenile but had completed his probation two years ago. Now 24, Juarez has a steady job and has purchased a home with his wife and young son in the “safety zone.”

“Although I complied with all conditions of my juvenile probation, and in fact was released from probation early for 'good behavior,’” Juarez explained in his statement, “the permanent injunction virtually imposes a lifetime of probation conditions for me.”

Is this guy a dangerous criminal or someone who just got caught up in this system? Then there is the 45-year-old grandfather who has a few tattoos and some very minor convictions from over 30 years ago as a youth.

Warriner's ruling on the gang injunction is outrageous. This from the SNR's follow up piece on December 1, 2005.

"All four of the ACLU’s clients in the case claim that they are not members of the Broderick Boys gang. (In fact, many West Sacramento residents say there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys and that local police and prosecutors have exaggerated the existence of the supposed gang.) And all said they received no notice that the gang injunction was being sought in the courts or that they would be subject to its restrictions.

But Judge Warriner ruled that the four had no standing to challenge the law, because they claim they are not gang members. The injunction “binds only defendant Broderick Boys and its members and authorized representatives” wrote Warriner in his ruling.

Furthermore, he ruled, “any person who is charged with criminal contempt for violating the terms of the injunction is entitled to the protection of numerous rights when defending such a charge.”

This ruling makes no sense, since the clients of the ACLU were in fact affected directly by the injunction.

"The judge’s logic exasperated opponents of the injunction. Jory Steele, an attorney with the ACLU, said, “Obviously, we vehemently disagree with the judge’s ruling. Our clients were indeed directly affected by the injunction.” Directly affected because they have been labeled as gang members by police and prosecutors and because--even though they deny gang membership--they nevertheless risk arrest if they are stopped by police after 10 p.m. in West Sacramento or if they are seen in public with anyone else identified as a Broderick Boy."

So yes, a judge ruled not on the constitutionality of the injunction, but rather that they had no legal standing to challenge it. A ruling that on its face fundamentally makes no sense.

Everyone is against gangs and wants to reduce crimes, but this once again appears to be a fundamental violation of the basic protections of our constitution. And frankly what Judge Warriner has done here is criminal.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2006: The Year in Davis Review

These last days we will have a countdown of the top 10 stories from Davis in 2006. We begin with No.7: Bob Dunning versus the ACLU.

On April 25, 2006, the Davis Enterprise obtained the audio tapes from the arrest of a 16-year-old minor. Two days later, reporter Lauren Keene ran a front page article on the tapes, complete with interviews of Deputy District Attorney Patricia Fong and Defense Attorney for the Buzayans, Whitney Leigh. In addition to the story, the Davis Enterprise took the amazing step of posting the tapes on their website for the entire community to listen to.

That Sunday Davis Enterprise Assistant Publisher/ Editor Debbie Davis wrote in a main editorial about the content of the tapes:

“LISTEN FOR YOURSELF. The audiotapes are available on The Davis Enterprise's Web site, www.davisenterprise.com. Click on the story "Audio of hit-run arrest revealing," and follow the links to the recordings. You'll hear a Davis police officer discharging his duty to this community in a decidedly professional manner. He's doing his job, and he's doing it well. In every contact with the hit-and-run victim, the witness and every member of the Buzayan family, he is polite, respectful and professional.”

However, Debbie Davis is not an attorney and has no legal training. Therefore, it seems actually inappropriate for her to be making legal judgments. She is certainly able to make general comments about what she heard, but by pronouncing him as doing his job and doing it well, without any legal training, she is making legal judgments that she lacks the training to be able to make. Her statements about his demeanor rather than the legality of his conduct confuse the point for the average reader.

The local Yolo County ACLU (attorneys Bill Kopper, Natalie Wormeli and Paul Gerowitz) was very concerned about the propriety of this case and also the coverage of this case. They were extremely critical of the conclusions reached by the Davis Enterprise Editorial Board and Chief Editor, Debbie Davis. They wrote an Op-ed that appeared in the Davis Enterprise on Sunday May 7, 2006.

“The Davis Enterprise's editorial last Sunday touting the propriety of Officer Pheng Ly's conduct in the Halema Buzayan case does a disservice to the citizens of Davis. The editorial demonstrates a profound ignorance of the facts of the case, and also the law. Officer Ly's conduct was not proper or lawful.”

The ACLU makes two key points:

• First, “Officer Ly pursued an action against the Buzayan family without carefully examining the damage to the two vehicles involved in the hit-and run.”
  
  
• Second, Officer Ly made an illegal arrest by arresting the minor for “a misdemeanor charge committed outside his presence without an arrest warrant.”

The bulk of the ensuing debate would focus on point two—whether an officer can make such an arrest of minor as a specific clause in California law.

Robert Day wrote a letter to the editor published in the Davis Enterprise citing this clause:

“California Welfare and Institutions Code 625(a) specially provides for the probable cause arrest of a minor without a warrant for both misdemeanors and felonies. This is a departure from the law as it applies to adults.”

Day fails to identify himself as a retired member of the Yolo County District Attorney’s office. Day and Tim Talbot who represents the DPOA (Davis Police Officer’s Association) begin feeding Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning information to combat the ACLU’s position on the second issue.

Bob Dunning on May 12, takes his first shot with an entire column devoted to the issue:

“Far be it for me, a nonlawyer sitting in the bleacher seats, to question the opinions of three of this county's finest legal minds, but California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 625 says 'A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section 601 or 602.'”

Bill Kopper then responds to Dunning, with an email to Debbie Davis that was printed at least in portions in Bob Dunning’s May 16 column (by the way notice the Dunning tactics here):

“On Saturday, Enterprise Editor and Assistant Publisher Debbie Davis, who has been my immediate supervisor at this newspaper for many years, received the following e-mail from Bill Kopper, a local attorney and former mayor who the previous Sunday had co-authored an op-ed piece in The Davis Enterprise contending that Officer Pheng Ly's conduct in the Halema Buzayan case "was not proper or lawful."

Said Kopper's e-mail to Davis: "Mr. Dunning's May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because [attorney and retired administrative law judge] Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column."

Continued the e-mail: "Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625."

Kopper then went on to argue why "statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly's conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant."

Note this part: (Dunning continues)

“Kopper's charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It's hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you'd have to agree that the information I allegedly "received" was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.”

Dunning then proceeds to argue points of law—(after admitting that he was a "nonlawyer) which obviously required some assistance since he’s not a practicing attorney. The assistance came from Mr. Day and Mr. Talbot.

This episode succeeded in creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the Buzayan case to the point where few in the community were certain about whether or not Officer Ly acted properly or improperly (mission accomplished!). One thing became very clear to this blogger—Bob Dunning was carrying the water for the Davis Police Department and the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. There was no effective way to communicate with the public without the interference of Dunning. There was no effective way to win a debate against Dunning. That is a tremendous amount of (largely unchecked) power.

Dunning’s bottom line is this:

“In the California case ‘In re Samuel V.’ the court clearly states, ‘On this appeal we determine Welfare and Institutions Code section 625, subdivision (a) does not violate federal constitutional equal protection rights of a juvenile by allowing a peace officer to arrest juvenile misdemeanants solely on probable cause without a warrant or any requirement the offense be committed in the officer's presence.’

That case seems to answer most of the questions raised about the propriety of the arrest of Halema Buzayan: probable cause, no warrant and the arrest of a juvenile for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer's presence.”

Sorry Mr. Dunning, but that does not even address (let alone answer) most of the questions about the propriety of the arrest because you failed to address the central contention as directed in Section 625 and 626 of the California Welfare and Institutions code.

Bill Kopper writes the Editor of the Davis Enterprise published on May 26, 2006:

California law barred Officer Pheng Ly's arrest of Halema Buzayan without a warrant. The law in this area has been settled for more than 25 years.

Bob Dunning and others rely on Welfare and Institutions Code section 625, which allows an officer to take a minor into temporary custody without a warrant. If an officer takes a minor into custody under section 625 for a nonviolent misdemeanor, WIC sections 626 and 626.5 require the officer to immediately take the minor before a probation officer. An officer cannot take the minor to the police station for questioning before taking her to the probation officer. (In Re Michael E, 112 Cal.App.3d 74.)

.......

The best that can be said is that Dunning was careless. Mel Trujillo advised Dunning to review WIC sections 626 and 626.5 the day before his column was printed. Dunning did not ask the ACLU why we concluded Officer Ly's conduct was illegal before he published his column. Apparently, Dunning still does not understand the shortcomings of his legal analysis.

According to Buzayan Attorney Whitney Leigh, this still constitutes an illegal arrest precisely because Officer Pheng Ly failed to follow the provisions of the aforementioned code.

“Pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 625 and 626, Officer Ly was required to take Halema, a minor, to a probation officer prior to conducting any interview with Halema. But Ly deliberately disregarded this rule in a blatant effort to exploit a minor in confessing to a hit and run outside of the presence of her parents. Ly later attempted to justify his nighttime arrest of Halema in her pajamas based upon his need to ensure that the minor and her parents would not engage in a further conspiracy.”

This critical provision in the code was conveniently omitted by Dunning in his discussion and for good reason—it undermined his case. However, this give and take between Kopper and Dunning shows us clearly and distinctly, whose side Dunning was on in this case. He was far from the neutral bystander that he portrays himself as.

This was a crucial development in the Buzayan case and the City Council races in May of 2006. For that, this earns our No.7 story of the year.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting