SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 18, 2007· scvtalk.com · PHP-Nuke (SCVTalk 1.0) · Wayback capture

Daily Brief – April 18, 2007

Attributed to Jeff Wilson (editor-supplied)

I'm a bit hopped up on industrial strength ibuprofen, but at least I can type with two hands again! Your Daily Brief, Santa Clarita's only comprehensive daily news briefing, is ready.

News
  • Chelsea Arcos update: Judy O'Rourke was at the courthouse in San Fernando to cover the preliminary hearing of Saugus woman Chelsea Arcos, 19, who stands accused of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and other charges after an accident on Interstate 5 last August claimed two lives. Arcos was reportedly returning from a party in Frazier Park when she allegedly hit and killed a Fresno woman and a Long Beach man who were changing a flat tire on the shoulder of the southbound Golden State Freeway near Magic Mountain. After hitting the pair, Arcos allegedly continued down the 5 Freeway until reaching Valencia Blvd. There are a number of new updates here. The prosecution has a witness, one Donald Gollahon, who was travelling behind Arcos and saw a body "fly up in the air," after she hit the pair. Gollahon later confronted Arcos when she exited the Valencia Blvd off ramp. Also, this is the first we've heard from a passenger in the disabled car; the wife of the deceased man testified that she heard a scream and felt the impact of one of the bodies against the car. No mention is made of allegations that Arcos said shortly after the accident that her father, LAPD Lt. Robert Arcos, would "help her out." Earlier media reports also said that one of the victims had been dragged under Arcos' truck, a Toyota Tacoma, after the accident. Arcos faces up to 13 years in prison if convicted of the charges.
  • Proposed Castaic High costs too much: The Hart District will consider alternative construction options at tonight's board meeting. Marks with all the details.
  • Phony cop arrested: The Sheriff's Department says they have the man who posed as a undercover officer and tried to lure a Saugus high girl into his car. The Friday morning incident prompted school districts valley wide to issue an alert to parents about a potential predator. The girl refused to go with the 21 year old man, who was arrested yesterday at his job site in Valencia. Christi Anne Corpus filed this report.
  • COC emergency plans: Jesse Munoz took a look at College of the Canyons' emergency plans following Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech.
  • Diane Trautman to run for city council: The Planning Commissioner says she's concerned about development and wants to maintain the character and quality of the SCV's older neighborhoods. Daams has more.
  • Setting fires, breaking windows, issuing racial epithets: All occur on Santa Clarita Transit busses, according to some riders who complained about rowdy youths at a public hearing last Thursday. Bus drivers lack the authority to discipline the kids. Daams with the complete report.
  • Do you shop at Ross? My wife does, and she and others will be upset over a change in the traffic pattern on the corner of Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon. Pat Aidem reports.
Misc
  • John Boston wants Huell Howser to visit the SCV: SCVTalk supports Boston's efforts (if they are real?) to get Huell Howser to visit our humble valley.
  • Felony charges for shoplifting? The SCV has become fascinated with the Sheriff Department's near daily "Incident Summary," which serves not only as a crime-blotter, but as good PR for the department. The Signal now includes space for it on page three, and one reader's letter to the editor welcomed the summaries and said everyone at his work read them. Local blogs and news sites post the summaries verbatim whenever they are released (usually late afternoon), and one west side blogger even used them to slander Canyon Country. Monday's summary had an incident that sparked my interest. Let's have a look-see:
    Saturday - April 14, 2007 - 9:40 p.m. - Canyon Country: Deputies Davidson and Gonzalez arrested a Newhall man Saturday evening after they stopped him on a bicycle in the 18500 block of Soledad Canyon Road and found he had possession of an alcoholic beverage with a security sensor still attached. The subsequent investigation revealed that the suspect allegedly stole the item from the Canyon Country Albertsons Supermarket. The suspect, Dustin Clifford, MW/19, was booked at the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station on a felony charge. He is being held in lieu of $50,000 bail. -ref 07011
    Wow, felony charges for -correct me if I'm wrong- shoplifting? There's no indication in this brief report that Clifford robbed the Albertsons (that is using violence or the threat of violence in the commission of larceny). Furthermore, he's is being held in lieu of $50,000 bail? Does that make sense to you? In the United States and in California, felony charges are reserved for the more serious offenders. Such crimes include burglary, robbery, assault and battery, arson, rape or murder (and sometimes DUI). Punishment for these crimes almost always involve incarceration in a prison, deprivation of civil liberties (such sa the right to vote), and in California in particular, count as one strike against the perpetrator in a system that locks away felons for life if they have three "strikes" against them. Curious, I decided to call up the Sheriff's department and talk to Sgt. Darren Harris, who sends out the reports. Harris tells me that in this specific incident, deputies determined that Clifford's intent was to steal the alcoholic beverage prior to entering the store. Entering the store with the intent to steal the beverage is technically 'burglary,' Harris told me, which is sometimes a felony. Deputies look for obvious signs of intent: a bag which could be used to conceal the stolen item, whether the suspect was actually shopping at the store or not etc... A shoplifter, in contrast, would be more of an opportunist. It's a fuzzy line alright, but one that the law allows Deputies to determine. Harris noted that whether the District Attorney chooses to charge Clifford with a felony is another matter.
Daily Brief – April 18, 2007

Comments (4)

  1. honeystartpackingApril 18 at 9:33 AM PT
    Felony charges, huh? Sounds like a HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars just for one stolen bottle of booze. Can you imagine having to give up at least a couple days of your life to do jury duty for something like this? NOT the best example of our judicial system at work!
  2. rainydayApril 18 at 10:15 AM PT
    Actually, will all due respect, Linda, I'm all for harsher penalties for "small" crimes -- because you and I both know that a person who steals once probably does it ten more times without being caught. I doubt the guy who stole the beer said, "Just this once. I'm really, really thirsty. I'll never do it again." Having the lack of morals it takes to steal makes it easier for that person to justify bigger and bigger crimes. Like Bratton says, get the stinkers on the small stuff before they move on to the big stuff.
  3. honeystartpackingApril 18 at 1:42 PM PT
    Sorry... I didn't mean DON'T punish people for stealing small stuff, but there needs to be some common sense used in determining how much of the taxpayers' resources are spent in prosecuting the smaller crimes. If the guy who stole a bottle of booze has been involved in other activities, then the police will likely figure that out soon enough since he now has a record at the police department. If this was to go to a jury trial as a federal offense, then you'd be taking a whole bunch of income-producing workers off their jobs (or non-working mothers away from their children) to go through this process with him. Why not sentence him to some sort of public service on his own instead of making others suffer along with him? Think about the costs of this... the people on the jury get paid virtually nothing to be there, but their businesses still have to function in the meantime with some sort of backup help. And the court system no longer allows people to be excused because of child care responsibilities either - they expect you to pay for child care while you're working for free on a jury that in this case is prosecuting a guy for stealing a $10-$20 item. There's got to be a better way to handle the punishment for this sort of minor theft, don't you think?
  4. BirgittaApril 18 at 2:07 PM PT
    I disagree. The theft and unlawfulness needs to be nipped in the bud. If that means I have to get a sitter for my daughter and pull jury duty then so be it -- it doesn't matter the weight of the crime. A crime is a crime. You break the law you pay the penalty. If we become complacent or feel our time to serve jury duty is a nuissance then our judicial system has a larger problem that needs to be addressed. As citizens of the SCV we should have zero tolerance for this or any minor or major indescretion. To say it's not worth our time to prosecute makes me wonder how lazy we have become to find this kind of crime acceptable. What starts out as "it was just a bottle ..." eventually turns into something larger and more heinous. This is where we need to attack unlawfulness. I have lived in SCV for 35 years and I find your attitude (honeystartpacking) totally unacceptable!! As citizens of SCV, we need to support the local Sheriff's Dept instead of beating them up for doing their job. They are understaffed and overwhelmed. Any perpetrator they jail is not time wasted. Do you not see what is happening all around us? Do you not see how parts of the SCV are drowning under this element!? Please, open your eyes. Take a look around. Where do you think it starts?!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support