Lake County News | California

Thursday
Apr 24th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Home News Latest Claim filed against sheriff, county over November 2011 marijuana arrests

Claim filed against sheriff, county over November 2011 marijuana arrests

E-mail Print PDF

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Four young men arrested last fall by the sheriff on drug charges – which later were dropped – have filed a claim against the county, alleging civil rights violations and false arrest.

Bo Sheffer of Middletown; Jesus Mendoza and David Garcia, both of Hidden Valley Lake; and Edward Corona of Napa filed the claim – which was received by the county on April 3 – against the county of Lake, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Francisco Rivero.

On Nov. 15, 2011, Rivero arrested the four, who were booked at the Lake County Jail for selling marijuana, possession of marijuana for sales, conspiracy to commit a crime and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, according to an original Lake County Sheriff’s Office report.

The arrests resulted after Rivero was contacted by a Middletown man who said he found a baggie of marijuana in his 16-year-old son’s possession. Rivero also cited that teen for misdemeanor marijuana possession.

While Rivero said at the time that the case’s evidence was “absolutely solid,” District Attorney Don Anderson would order all four of the young men released from jail and refused to prosecute the case, saying the evidence was weak.

He also raised procedural issues about how the case was handled, alleging that Rivero used illegal detentions, searches and photo lineups, and illegally seized a vehicle.

Anderson said at the time that the alleged marijuana sale was only for $3 and involved three grams of marijuana.

The claim against the county and Rivero alleges that Rivero, while acting in his capacity as sheriff, violated the men's civil rights by forcing them to undergo false arrest and false imprisonment, subjecting them to unreasonable search and seizure, and taking their property.

They are claiming emotional duress, public humiliation and loss of earning capacity.

No stated amount of damages is included, but the claim noted that it exceeds $10,000.

The attorney for the four men, Richard Knox of Ukiah, did not return a call seeking comment.

County Counsel Anita Grant said the claim with go through the usual process, with the county’s third-party administrator for liability claims, the George Hills Co., handling the claim.

If the claim is turned down, the four claimants will then have six months to file a tort claim in court, Grant said.

Email Elizabeth Larson at elarson@lakeconews.com .

Subscribe to me on YouTube
Trackback(0)
Comments (52)Add Comment
Michigan J. Frog
...
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 14, 2012
Focus
written by a guest, April 14, 2012
The Sheriff should be embarrassed about his lack of leadership and his ongoing saga of legal events. The Sheriff platformed that he was going to make big changes in the Sheriff's Office and would help bring the department into the 21 Century. Instead of doing just that, the Sheriff has (in a very short time) brought down the department to a whole new level. Due to the fact that former deputies did not support him, he instilled fear and intimidation within the rank and file, causing many to quit and bring their talents to other organizations. For the deputies that have been there for years, they have too much riding on the line (i.e. homes and families to support). I have no doubt that if they had a choice they would leave too.

So what your seeing now is the county paying triple the costs to hire, outfit, and train new deputies. Moral is low and there is a lack of leadership with clear direction. You now see law suits, investigations, and a long list of notable embarrassing issues (all of which are at the expense of the tax payers of this county). All roads lead directly back to one person, and that is the Sheriff. So instead of placing blame on everyone other than yourself, I would hope that the Sheriff take some accountability for his actions. I don't recall ever seeing these overwhelming issues with the last Sheriff. The last Sheriff didn't cost the taxpayer the amount of money that the current Sheriff is costing us. I guess it's easy to unseat a good man when you yell thing's such a racial profiling, and good old boys network. Lies upon lies, I sure hope the voters, come next election decide to give the job to someone who can lead by example instead of fear. The county would do a better job at balancing their budget with the current Sheriff loosing the next election.



Are we writing fairy tales now?

I especially like "The Sheriff platformed"

And this one "The last Sheriff didn't cost the taxpayer the amount of money that the current Sheriff is costing us"

GREAT JOKE! You could sell this in Hollywood.
jrichardson11
Focus
written by a guest, April 14, 2012
The Sheriff should be embarrassed about his lack of leadership and his ongoing saga of legal events. The Sheriff platformed that he was going to make big changes in the Sheriff's Office and would help bring the department into the 21 Century. Instead of doing just that, the Sheriff has (in a very short time) brought down the department to a whole new level. Due to the fact that former deputies did not support him, he instilled fear and intimidation within the rank and file, causing many to quit and bring their talents to other organizations. For the deputies that have been there for years, they have too much riding on the line (i.e. homes and families to support). I have no doubt that if they had a choice they would leave too.

So what your seeing now is the county paying triple the costs to hire, outfit, and train new deputies. Moral is low and there is a lack of leadership with clear direction. You now see law suits, investigations, and a long list of notable embarrassing issues (all of which are at the expense of the tax payers of this county). All roads lead directly back to one person, and that is the Sheriff. So instead of placing blame on everyone other than yourself, I would hope that the Sheriff take some accountability for his actions. I don't recall ever seeing these overwhelming issues with the last Sheriff. The last Sheriff didn't cost the taxpayer the amount of money that the current Sheriff is costing us. I guess it's easy to unseat a good man when you yell thing's such a racial profiling, and good old boys network. Lies upon lies, I sure hope the voters, come next election decide to give the job to someone who can lead by example instead of fear. The county would do a better job at balancing their budget with the current Sheriff loosing the next election.

ou812
Drama queen Dwain
written by ou812, April 13, 2012
Bye now.
Michigan J. Frog
Now we will let the haters hate the other posters. Lake County News looking better and better..
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 13, 2012
Hey frog
written by a guest, April 13, 2012
I guess you REALLY gotta have you pro drug, Rushing/ Moss head shoved where the sun don't shine spew your drivel!! I guess you ha long forgot (METH HAZE Isuppose) the lies told by Rivro agains the deputies and senior staff.....lol......Lake County is DOOMED with yur sorry druggie ass here.......


I told you so.

Ciao. I'll see y'all in the future.
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 13, 2012
me95453 what Chrizzy, Frog and other similar paladins of Rivero don't understand is the difference between officers or the DA giving rides and the "ride" given by Rivero.
The officers and the DA rides create goodwill and positive reactions in the community. Rivero's "ride" in this case created a lawsuit. Maybe for them, the difference between what is positive and what is negative is too complex to understand.
MOUNTAIN MILITIA
Hey frog
written by a guest, April 13, 2012
I guess you REALLY gotta have you pro drug, Rushing/ Moss head shoved where the sun don't shine spew your drivel!! I guess you ha long forgot (METH HAZE Isuppose) the lies told by Rivro agains the deputies and senior staff.....lol......Lake County is DOOMED with yur sorry druggie ass here.......
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 13, 2012
Jefferson County, Pennsylvania has Punxsutawney Phil who, on February 2nd comes out once a year then quickly go back inside his hole. His accuracy record is about 50%.

Lake County, on the other hand has Michigan J. Frog. Unfortunately for us he comes out of his hole almost once a day. And his accuracy record, based on his posted BS is way way way below 50%.

It would be nice if we could we convince our BOS to talk to the Jefferson County BOS for an exchange of fictional/delusional and clueless characters. This way, instead of a frog spouting hot air and BS, the groundhog could bring in money and tourists.
me95453
So what???
written by me95453, April 13, 2012
So what if the DA picked up the kids and took them home. There is no law or policy that states he cannot. Many other officers and I have taken persons from the jail back home. Sometimes you even see them on Hill Road walking home and feel sorry because they have to walk all the way to Lakeport, Kelseyville and even Middletown. Doing this sometimes gives officers intel on crimes or maybe the offender will not be aggressive next time after remembering you gave him a ride home.

I have also been inside the jail when they get the word from an on duty judge or the DA's Office to release a person due to no or not enough PC in the PC Statement. I have given them rides home if they were not a problem for the CO's. An officer is human too and seeing some poor person with no ride home pulls at your heart. No sergeant up to command staff has ever told a deputy or officer not to do this. Sometimes you can't because you are assigned to Nice and the person lives in Middletown (can't leave a beat that far away).

I feel sorry for the other deputy who was there. He will be dragged through this mess just because Rivero thinks he's in a Walking Tall movie.
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 13, 2012
P.S. Marz, how come your avatar looks like a brainless and clueless Easter egg. Is that a coincidence, or what?
Strange remark considering all the defenders of the clueless Sheriff use the same avatar. Are you admitting his defenders, including you are brainless and clueless?
So, by stating that the DA represents the County in civil claims, lawsuits, etc. who is the clueless/brainless one?
Time for you and the Sheriff to take a couple of remedial law classes. You'll need them if you want to continue to defend the undefendable i.e. your idol.
chrizzy
Marz
written by chrizzy, April 13, 2012
A police officer giving someone a ride after a scenario like you mentioned probably happens a lot. But the DA showing up at the jail and making arrangements for release and the the drive home is very unusual.
ou812
Dwain, the forest docent,
written by ou812, April 13, 2012
Expert on all things, just like his buddy Phil, has no idea what he's speaking about. Changes his story when he's caught in any untenable positions because of his hero's lies. I feel sorry for him so I don't want to pick on him any more. It's just that sometimes pointing out the obvious seems like picking.
cantdrive55
Dwain please
written by cantdrive55, April 13, 2012
Your extensive experience in law enforcement,
you remember those days way back when you guarded the trees,
well anyway,
the DA doesn't represent the county in lawsuits, County Counsel does, DUH
and I'll bet Anita is begging the BOS to hire somebody to take the fall for this fiasco,
there's no way the county can win or even break even.
The facts, clearly stated, show the law enforcement action taken was illegal and unconstitutional.
And yes, people do get rides home from cops when their "arrest" was without merit.
Finn
Frog,
written by a guest, April 13, 2012
you are full of dead flies. What statement of Anderson's is being used as fodder against the County?
As far as the mistrial being Rivero's- fault from the story on Thursday:
"Rountree said Rivero's press release and statements about the plea agreement being a “travesty of justice” got a lot of attention.
“That was one of the major factors that led to politicizing this case to the extent that moving it out of Lake County became something that's part of our recommendation for change of venue,” he said."
Michigan J. Frog
Sheesh
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 13, 2012
Sheesh. All I have done is point out that Anderson's public statements are being used as fodder against the County.

But here come the personal attacks from the Rivero haters again. And when it's not that, its total exaggeration, misstatements and opinions spouted as facts.

Here's just one: "[Rivero's] comments about Navarro HAS forced a change of venue"

Yea, right. That's exactly what the judge said. NOT.

The only money that has been wasted has been Anderson's idiotic "investigations."

But we did SAVE money by NOT prosecuting criminals. That's good, right?

The Rivero haters are batting ZERO out of four or five so I put my money on the Sheriff, ESPECIALLY since the District Attorney is arguing for the plaintiffs.

This time, I predict, the BOS WILL hire an outside attorney for the County, since Anderson has FAILED in his job.

If Anderson defends the County we KNOW the County will lose.

Then you can all pat yourselves on the back.

P.S. Marz, how come your avatar looks like a brainless and clueless Easter egg. Is that a coincidence, or what? smilies/wink.gif
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 12, 2012
Let's stop with the exxagerations. Rivero may have erred in his arrests.

Really? Then let's count the "errors."
1. Rivero's multiple conflicting statements resulted in all charges dropped in the fiasco between the CPD and theTask Force.
2.. Rivero's involvement in the MC gang fight at the Konocti Casino MIGHT have helped the defense attorney and jeopardise the case.
3. His comments about Navarro HAS forced a change of venue.
4. His "errors" has forced the County to rehire a Correctional Officer with back pay.
5. His personal involvement in the arrest of the 4 "dope dealers" in Middletown HAS caused all charges being dropped and a lawsuit against himself, the department and the county, which means against US the taxpayers.
I hope the "errors" will not keep mounting because our county (us taxpayers) doesn't have illimited funds to cover Rivero's "errors."
But as I have said before. Don't blame me. I didn't fall for his smoke and mirrors routine, didn't vote for him (and the DA by the way) so I absolve myself from any "errors." Can you Dwayne?
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 12, 2012
Frog, I have a question that does not relate to this case. Your choice of avatar looks supiciously like the "Bad" of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."
Could it be a Freudian slip about Don, Frank & you? Just asking.
cobbite
Point your finger at Rivero and only Rivero...
written by cobbite, April 12, 2012
Everyone knows cases get dropped all the time because of a technicality or two. Rivero was driving the bus that day so if anyone feels they must point a finger point it directly at Rivero. Making rookie mistakes at this stage of his career is embarrassing to me so my sincere apologies to his entire staff for having to work for him.
Finn
Funny
written by Finn, April 12, 2012
Seems to me that Rivero is the one who made a big stink. Did Anderson issue a press release about this case? It is instructive to look at the press release the Sheriff's Department issued in this case, which is still up on the Sheriff's website. Note that at no point in the press release does it mention exactly how much marijuana was involved. Could that be because it was a whopping 3 grams? Let us not forget that just yesterday a judge granted a change of venue motion (for the first time in his career as a judge) in large part because of Rivero's very public and highly improper comments about a case.
Michigan J. Frog
Anderson drives everyone home who gets out from a dope selling rap. That's just plain courtesy.
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 12, 2012
"there is a HUGE difference between following the law by Anderson and breaking it by Rivero. "

Nobody claimed Anderson broke the law. And Rivero did not break it, either, or Anderson would have had him arrested, now wouldn't he?

Let's stop with the exxagerations. Rivero may have erred in his arrests. Anderson upped the ante by his idiotic public showmanship.

These kind of sloppy arrests of young people happen all the time, and they go home after a few hours in the clinker when their folks come to get them. The District Attorney NEVER drives them home.

Face it. It was Anderson who had to make a big stink. It was Anderson coddling the poor young dope dealers. And now it is coming back to bite him in the ass. I swear he is a cartoon classic.
Finn
Nice try, Dwain:
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
"The Point: It was the District Attorney who first issued a PUBLIC statement concerning the sheriff making it NEWS. Whether or not the Sheriff was right or wrong, the PUBLIC statements by the District Attorney are the basis for this claim."

This happened on 11-15-11; Rivero issued a press release on November 16; the story appeared in this journal on the 17th. Anderson's first public statement was published on the 17th, a day after the press release. If Rivero had not put out a press release naming these fellows, there wouldn't have been a story when the case was rejected. Anderson did not call attention to this mess, Rivero did. And I expect that Frank will live to regret that.
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 12, 2012
Chrizzy, I have given rides in my police unit to few people that were determined not to be DUI's, once they were tested on the jail's intoxylizer. These people had failed their driving and their FST but, after passing the breath test, I could not book them and let them spend the night in jail, and incur unnecessary expenses to defend themselves. Obviously I also did my best to make sure they were not under the influence of medication or other substances before driving them to their cars.
You see, when I had doubts I would not impound their cars. I would make sure they were safely parked.
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 12, 2012
Michigan, you certainly cannot list me as a fan of Anderson but IF the Sheriff didn't violate several state laws and few federal Civil Rights of these 4 people, the DA would not be able to vent what you call "his hatred of Rivero." You keep blaming the REACTION of the DA instead of blaming the ACTION of the Sheriff.

The DA REACTED hoping to save us from even a bigger law suit and the expenses for 4 useless trials. Rivero CAUSED this mess by his lack of knowledge of the basic laws covering search and seizure.
In short, the DA has NOT broken the law by refusing to file charges. He did not have any choice because those arrests were unlawful. Rivero DID break the law by behaving like a rookie who flunked basic arrest laws (PC 834-840).

I know this will fall on the deaf ears of those that refuse to face reality, either by their ignorance of the law and lack of law enforcement background, or by their blind failure to recognize Rivero's huge shortcomings. But there is a HUGE difference between following the law by Anderson and breaking it by Rivero.
Guster100
Frankie needs to retake the Academy LE Class
written by Guster100, April 12, 2012
With as many screw ups and just plain ignorance to the LAW in general, I think the County should send Frankie back to the Academy for a refresher class. Of course, we may be taking a chance he wont even pass..... smilies/shocked.gif
chrizzy
Marz
written by chrizzy, April 12, 2012
I have never encountered another person EVER who got a ride home from the jail from the District Attorney!!! Maybe if he's their uncle or something... but in his official capacity... it was a stupid move meant only to carry on his war with Rivero. Raise your hand if the DA has given you a ride home from the jail....
Michigan J. Frog
The point
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 12, 2012
The Point: It was the District Attorney who first issued a PUBLIC statement concerning the sheriff making it NEWS. Whether or not the Sheriff was right or wrong, the PUBLIC statements by the District Attorney are the basis for this claim.

The right hand does not cut the left hand off just because of spite. BOTH the Sheriff and the DA work for the people of Lake County. BOTH of their actions are involved but it is Anderson who blew the whole thing up. Anderson's blind hatred of Rivero may now cost the county plenty.

My two cents.
Vocal Local
I am always amazed
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
At the willingness of some people to buy into the huge conspiracy theories when the truth of the matter stares them directly in the face. You can believe that Frank is the victim of a vast conspiracy that involves public safety agencies throughout California, various elected officials locally and abroad and a huge number of community leaders, business owners and citizens or you can believe that Frank has a problem with telling the truth if it makes him look bad. Every time Frank lies the conspiracy must necessarily get larger and eventually even the most farsighted among you will have to face facts.

It's like Occam's razor in reverse or deliberate avoidance of the truth for some of you.

The fact the the DA has been pulled into this is unfortunately partly his own fault for aligning himself with Frank and his supporters during the election. I didn't vote for him for that very reason, but I sure am glad he's stood up to the lies and pressure. I would probably vote for him next time because it took courage to do the right thing when acquiescing would have been much easier.

I also appreciate the fact that more and more people are willing to put their name out there and face the personal attacks and intimidation that Frank and his supporters are known for. He has no power except what we give up on our own. He and they are being exposed for what they really are, liars, bullies and cowards.

-Patrick McMahon
Finn
It's a small thing
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
but if Rivero is as concerned about adults furnishing marijuana to minors as he says he is, why didn't he book these guys on a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11361(b), furnishing marijuana to a minor over 14, which carries a higher penalty then H & S 11360, and punishes the specific activity that he alleges occurred? Could it be that the Sheriff doesn't actually know the law very well?
Marzocco
...
written by Marzocco, April 12, 2012
Chrizzy, If I was a representative or an employee of our County, not only I would drive them back to their home. To prevent their families to file a law suit by their families against the moron that arrested them illegally, I would buy them a hamburger, a soda and a couple of tickets to the local movie house. Unfortunately that courtesy didn't work and the Sheriff, the Sheriff Department and the County are being sued.

You are equating a LEGAL trip provided by the DA to an ILLEGAL trip provided by our Sheriff. Two completely different "chauffers." One didn't cost us anything. The other might cost ALL OF US quite a few pennies.

Mountain Breeze, until recently, when agencies performed DUI checks, they had the right to impound the vehicles of people arrested for DUI or for driving with a suspended license.
Because they were accused of targeting illegal aliens, a case law now prevents the impounding of the cars IF another person with a valid driver's license can respond to the scene and take possession of the car.

JMadison I don't have any problems with not reelecting either Anderson or Rivero. I din't vote for either one. I voted for Jack and Rhoades.
But if you place two colums on a black board and list their mistakes, lack of knowledge of our laws, current and, unfortunately, other law suits looming in the future caused by their ignorance and lack of common sense and job related qualifications, the column on Rivero's side is so much much much longer taht you might need a second board..
jmadison
throw them both out
written by jmadison, April 12, 2012
Sorry law enforcement. I know you only hate Rivero and are thrilled that the DA is on your side. But....this whole thing is now past pathetic. Solve the problem in another manner that doesn't involve our tax payer dollars. Comedy should not be this expensive. It is time to set an example and get them both out of office. We can't wait until the next election.
TheTruth
MountainBreeze
written by TheTruth, April 12, 2012
You obviously have never worked in law enforcement. You are only partially right with what you are trying to say. 22651(h)(1) CVC does give you the right to tow pursuant to an arrest but it depends on your jurisdiction and the policy and procedures of that jurisdiction. Like in Lake County, if you arrest someone for driving without having a license or a license that is suspended, which is generally a misdemeanor, you cannot tow their car unless it poses a danger to the public or is parked in a high crime area. That applies to almost every misdemeanor in the county except for a few. Yes that vehicle code has been around for decades but there have been tons of modifications to what you can and cannot do. Rivero had no right under the law to tow their car. They werent driving it, it was parked in a legal parking spot and had nothing to do with what they were doing at the time of their arrest. If they had been driving it at the time that might be a different story. Face it, Rivero is clueless when it comes to the law and that of a simple misdemeanor case and that's stretching it. Any other comments about the law just ask.

Mike Thomas.
chrizzy
Marz
written by chrizzy, April 12, 2012
It's one thing for the DA to drop charges... but it's another story when he not only drops the charges but acts as a chauffer and publicizes what he considers a good deed. Time will tell if these four are involved in selling pot to a kid again.
MountainBreeze
A guest is giving bad info....again
written by MountainBreeze, April 12, 2012
A Guest is constantly posting bad advice and today is no different. There are so many inaccuracies to his post I don't have time to clear up all of them, but the easy one is the BS that even arrested DUI drivers can't have their cars towed unless it is blocking the road or traffic. That is pure nonsense, as are most of his posts. CA vehicle code section 22651(h)(1) gives law enforcement the authority to tow any vehicle when the driver is arrested, period. This has been around for many decades and it needs not have any evidentiary value whatsoever as A Guest would have you believe. Rivero had the legal authority to tow the kids vehicle........now whether or not he should have made this such a big case out of this can be debated. A Guest, please stop posting misinformation.
Marzocco
Field Training Officer program for our Sheriff
written by Marzocco, April 12, 2012
Mike Thomas and a couple of "guests" have already eloquently listed all "GF" committed by Rivero in this case. He scre**d the pouch royally. A rookie freshly out of the academy would not have made all those mistakes. But the Frog, Cornish and the blue puppet do their best to muddy the water hoping to deflect the blame where it is due. This case has nothing to do with the Navarro case. That case was prosecuted by the AG. The guilty plea was accepted by the AG.

I don't like Anderson very much. That's why I didn't vote for him. But in this case Anderson did the right thing by dropping all charges against the 4 suspects.

If one of my officers had committed all those mistakes in one single case, I would have suspended him/her or ask that that officer be run though the Field Traning Officer's program again for a few weeks or until the officer re-learned all the laws covering arrests, in-field and line-up indentification of suspects, collection of evidence and laws covering impounding of vehicles.

Obviously our Sheriff has never heard of a RAMEY WARRANT or the timeline involved when you arrest ADULTS involved in MISDEMEANORS or FELONIES. Somebody better explain that to him before our county is hit with another law suit and we waste OUR money to cover his behind.
Greg_Cornish
@ TheTruth
written by Greg_Cornish, April 12, 2012
I'd rather you explained it to me because I was busy soaking my feet.
TheTruth
Crizzy
written by TheTruth, April 12, 2012
Obviously you along with Frank are ignorant of the law that's why they're doing what they're doing. Let me spell it out for you, F R A N K violated their rights by doing what he did. See my first post and that of others to educate yourself on what your hero did wrong, AGAIN.

Mike Thomas.
TheTruth
Cornish
written by TheTruth, April 12, 2012
Read the damn article about it the other day and it'll tell you what Anderson's conflict of interest was for crying out loud. Anderson represented him previously before he became the DA that's why he excused himself from the case and sent it to the AG.
chrizzy
Claim for what?
written by chrizzy, April 12, 2012
Sheffer, Mendoza, Garcia and Corona are adults ranging in age at the time from 18 - 21 yers old. Why would these three be hanging around with a 16 year old high school kid? High school kids buy small amounts of any drug because they have limited financial resources so the amount of pot is not the issue it's that a parent wanted this to stop and those responsible for selling a drug to his kid taken to task. As for this claim filed by these four young men it is worthless. Emotional duress? Why? Because they got caught selling pot to a kid? Public humiliation? How would anyone know unless Don Anderson jumped at the chance to get involved once again and then made this public? Loss of earning capacity? Get real! Let's see proof they lost even a day's pay and not because they were advised to stay home or quit their jobs. And just because you state your occupation on the booking log doesn't mean you actually have a job or are scheduled to work in the near future. These guys did a Lindsay Lohan sentence and were out before the door slammed shut thanks to the obsessive Don Anderson. He must sit there with his scanner just waiting to pounce is he hears Rivero is responding to any call. Anderson needs to do his job and quit cutting deals with dangerous perverts and quit reviewing each and every decision Rivero makes. Every 6 weeks you can count on the next chapter of Anderson's vendetta against Rivero. Mark your calendars folks the next chapter will follow on or about June 1st.
Greg_Cornish
Conflict of interest
written by Greg_Cornish, April 12, 2012
And what was the conflict of interest?
Volker
I dont know what plea deals are or were in the works Cornish. Beside that, it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the four violated stoners.
written by Volker, April 12, 2012
I think the main focus of your concern should be taking up a second job and help pay for the consequences of your vote. Rivero's violation of the public's civil rights by far overshadow any issue you have presented here. Stay on topic please.
TheTruth
Cornish
written by TheTruth, April 12, 2012
Yes you're wrong because the California Attorney Generals Office are the ones prosecuting the case not Anderson. The AG and the family are the one's who wanted the plea bargain so the victim wouldnt have to be dragged through a lengthy and visible trial. Anderson removed himself because of a conflict of interest. So as much as you want to blame the DA for everything he isnt at fault in this case.

Mike Thomas
Greg_Cornish
Correct me if I'm wrong
written by Greg_Cornish, April 12, 2012
Wasn't Anderson about to allow a plea bargain with a alleged child molester cop? A judge brought it to a halt and said, "No way!"
Volker
All this mixing good with bad hoping for a compromise.
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
Anderson is doing a bang up job as our District Attorney. Why do these posters insist on discarding him? They say it over and over as to manufacture a consensus hoping readers will be entranced and follow their brand of group-think. The upside to all this is when bisecting their statements one can find one note of genuine consensus. Francisco Rivero has got to go.
een55
GET RID OF BOTH OF THEM
written by een55, April 12, 2012
I can't wait to get these 2 out of office.....what a joke they are.....how can we get anything done when we have them fighting each other.smilies/angry.gif
me95453
Frog
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
You don't seem to have any idea of the law. Also, a few corrections...

Rivero cited one kid, therefore he was free to leave but held there by Rivero. The other two kids were then DETAINED (not arrested). Rivero then transported them to Middletown and then back to Hidden Valley. At that point he arrested them and towed the vehicle. A vehicle that was lawfully parked and since the marijuana was not in the vehicle, it had no evidential value.

No where in US law can a cop move a DETAINED person (let alone several miles). Only once arrested, can they be moved. California Law allows vehicles to be impounded when used in a crime or as evidence. Even in a DUI case, if the car is parked legally, it can not be towed unless it blocks traffic or a roadway.

Another point is the 18 year old had been living in the same room for YEARS, is over 18 and had full expectation to privacy. Rivero had no legal right to enter the room (unless he saw the marijuana from the hallway in PLAN VIEW, but that was not said).

A big screw up by the biggest screw up in LCSO history.
cantdrive55
Phil has all the evidence
written by cantdrive55, April 12, 2012
That's no surprise, please share, does it go something like this;
Dad finds son with 1/10th of an ounce of pot, an amount that is an infraction at best, calls Rivero;
On the kids say-so Rivero arrests three young adults, searches a house, and tows a car,
drives the suspect(s) to the high school to be ID'd by the son,
Instead of citing the son and talking to the three he fingered, what a real cop would have done, at most,
he illegally detains (kidnaps) three people, tows (steals) a car, unconstitutionally searches an entire house,
and intimidates (threatened into submission) another un-involved adult.
And the DA's office goes out of its way try to do damage control so the county won't get sued.
I guess they couldn't do enough to "cover-up" Rivero's blatant disregard for the law.
Phil, whats the penalty in California for possession of 1/10th of an ounce of pot,
come on you know,
NOTHING!
Greg_Cornish
Lets vote
written by Greg_Cornish, April 12, 2012
Let's vote both these clowns out of office next election. Lets get a team that wants to work together to fight crime.
love it or leave it
what a cesspool of justice
written by love it or leave it, April 12, 2012
its time to recall both of these clowns ,how dare they air their personal grievences and make our county seem like it is ran by idiots, the laws are written pretty clearly as they are not open for interpretation.....wheres the re-call papers I will sign . these people bring shame to our county!!!!!
smurf
Don did more than release them...
written by smurf, April 12, 2012
he gave them a ride home! It wasn't enough to just call the jail, he got personally involved-WHY? Who talked to Don about this, how did he hear about it so fast? And people who BY ALL THE KNOWN EVIDENCE ARE GUILTY need to sue the county for all their suffering that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIER ACTIONS? REALLY?
Crabpot
State employees should solve their problems OFF the clock, in my book.
written by Crabpot, April 12, 2012
To bad this DA doesn't have a personal vandetta against crime, since he likes to open up old cases. Like attorneys working for the county of LAKE, and altering trusts and wills. No charges? He walked with NO charges because the county was protecting their $. This DA is trying to GIVE $ away. I bet he has a pocket full of business cards of attorneys that work a contingency plan.
Let them roll each other in flour at the fairgrounds as an event, and make some $ back that has been wasted on personal issues, with tax $..... IMHO, it is easier to just follow the RULES and LAWS, than jockeying around being DIRTY and wasting a purported supply of tax $.
TheTruth
Frog
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
This has zero to do with the DA siding with people who sell drugs to minors, if a measly 3 grams of marijuana can even be considered that, and everything to do with your boy Rivero not having a clue about law enforcement. The DA didnt prosecute because Rivero screwed up the entire case from the beginning. Let me explain since you are probably as clueless as he is when it comes to the law.

1) You cant tow a vehicle involved in a misdemeanor crime like this several days after the fact. It has absolutely no evidentiary value and is illegal to do so.

2) You cant arrest a suspect then move them to where the alleged victim is for that victim to identify the suspect. You have to bring the victim to where the suspect was arrested to perform that. You can only move a suspect from where they were detained or arrested under very specific conditions, like there is a mob forming and you fear for your safety. As much of a coward as Rivero is I doubt that happened this time.

3) You cant show the victim a picture of the suspect or suspects and have him or her say yes or no. You have to provide a photo lineup with at least 6 pictures of various subjects and have the victim pick out the suspect from that lineup. Rivero didnt do that.

4) He illegally searched the 18 year olds room and garage where he lived with his mother after Rivero intimidated the mother into allowing the search. The 18 year old is an adult so his mother cannot grant access to his room only common areas. Rivero illegally searched his room.

There you have it and that's why the DA didnt file because Rivero's "absolutely solid" case was a joke because he's a joke and is clueless about what it means to be a cop. If you have any comments, as I'm sure you do, let me know.

Mike Thomas.
Michigan J. Frog
Thanks Don!
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 12, 2012
Well, it is good to know our District Attorney is solidly on the side of people who sell drugs to minors. He had to make a big stink about the issue and now the druggies want blood.

Wasn't this the case where the DA personally gave one of the arrested a ride home to his parents?
Finn
Well
written by a guest, April 12, 2012
here's a chance to see who is right - Anderson or Rivero. If the County settles then that would tend to indicate that Anderson was right not to pursue this case. If it goes to litigation then we'll get an answer, it will just take several years.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy