The DUI case against investigative journalist Peter Lance has been dismissed.
Judge Brian Hill granted a motion on Tuesday to suppress the evidence gathered against Lance when he was pulled over, including what police said were his failed Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests. Hill said officers didn’t have the necessary probable cause to stop Lance in the first place, rendering their findings unusable in court and essentially killing the prosecution’s case. The ruling brings to an end an 11-and-a-half-month ordeal that has become perhaps Santa Barbara’s highest profile DUI arrest of all time.
Lance — who has written extensively in the Santa Barbara News-Press about alleged police misconduct involving his arresting officer, Kasi Beutel — was pulled over early in the morning on New Year’s Day of this year. According to testimony, Officer Bruno Peterson observed Lance’s vehicle stopped at a green light for three to five seconds. He pulled alongside Lance and saw him looking downward. Peterson shone his light toward the vehicle, he said, and Lance looked at the officer, then back down at his lap before looking up and driving through the green light. Peterson pulled Lance over a block-and-a-half later. That’s when Beutel, then the department’s drinking and driving officer, showed up and conducted the investigation, the results of which are now moot.
In a pleading filed Monday morning, Lance’s attorney, Darryl Genis, noted several out-of-state cases where vehicles sat motionless at green lights — some for as long as 60 seconds — and the court found the stops were made without reasonable suspicion. Those cases were enough for Hill, who granted the motion after several weeks of a drawn-out hearing that saw several law enforcement officers — including Beutel — testify.
Lance and Genis lauded the judge’s decision, both of them calling him courageous. “Judge Hill made a legally and factually correct decision, a courageous decision,” Lance said. “He’s not going to win any brownie points from his former colleagues at the DA’s Office.”
Beginning in June, Lance embarked on a voluminous series of investigative pieces for the News-Press on Beutel, her history on the police force, her marriage, her credit issues, and her arrest history. In the pieces, which raised eyebrows both in and out of courtrooms, Lance alleged forgery, perjury, fraud, and other misconduct. Many questioned the ethics behind letting a defendant with a pending charge against him write pieces about his case. But Lance defended his investigations. “From the beginning I said anybody who wants to look at my findings, vet it, and challenge me — have at it,” Lance said.
For now, Lance plans to go back to writing a book he was supposed to turn into publisher HarperCollins in mid October about an allegedly dirty FBI agent. He plans to write a book about Beutel and this experience, as well.
But while the case may be over, it does leave many questions unanswered. For one, did Beutel or others forge signatures on documents, as Lance and several others have alleged? Beutel, on the stand, said no. A defense handwriting expert — in court documents — said yes, though the question was not definitively answered in court. Lance also accused Beutel of holding the Breathalyzer during his test to manipulate it, possibly increasing his blood alcohol content above the 0.08 percent legal limit. He allegedly blew a 0.09.
And Beutel did admit to using prefilled-out forms — for a time — to indicate certain common variables (a practice Deputy Chief Frank Mannix told The Independent was not inappropriate), though she denied doing so in Lance’s case. Issues about Beutel’s past were also deemed irrelevant by the judge.
Lance called out several law enforcement leaders, specifically Santa Barbara Police Chief Cam Sanchez, District Attorney Joyce Dudley, and City Attorney Stephen Wiley. “All of those people, in embracing Kasi Beutel, crossed the line into obstruction of justice,” he said. Dudley took issue with the statement, saying there was no effort to protect Beutel whatsoever, pointing out the DA’s Office tried several times to get Beutel on the stand. “We wanted the truth to come out, and the place for that was the court of law,” she said.
In August, a statement issued by Mayor Helene Schneider and City Administrator Jim Armstrong said that under the City Charter, the city administrator, city attorney, and chief of police were required to review the allegations and, if necessary, “take appropriate action to initiate discipline, outside investigations, etc.” Sanchez said in an email Tuesday afternoon that his department and the city attorney’s office continue to investigate, but that there was nothing to share yet.
And then there’s the question of whether this was all worth it. The case not only garnered a lot of notoriety, but also generated a multi-volume court file unseen in cases of this nature. The size of the file represents a lot of time — and no doubt a large amount of public resources and money — spent on a supposed first-offense DUI by a 63-year-old with no prior criminal history. Court time, city and county attorney time, up to three deputy DAs in court for each hearing, along with the time of officers and administrators in the Police Department, adds up to thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars spent on the case.
Dudley defended the prosecution. “I have seen too many people’s lives destroyed by drunk drivers,” she said. “Our taxpayers expect their DA to rely upon the laws that are binding in California and keep drivers under the influence off their roads.”
And there is also at least one glaring positive that came as a result of all this: The Santa Barbara Police Department — which, along with Guadalupe’s, is the only department in the county to not have video recorders in its patrol cars — has made a commitment to push for cameras in patrol vehicles. In fact, it is currently testing video in a handful of vehicles, and one such video could come in handy, recently capturing a conflict in which witnesses allege an officer used excessive force. “If nothing else comes out of this whole thing, that should be a victory for the city and the community at large,” Lance said.
The District Attorney’s Office issued a press release Tuesday, mostly going over the basic facts of the case and the judge’s ruling. The release noted Hill “did not find there was any misconduct on the part of any of the involved officers, including Officer Kasi Beutel, or any member of the District Attorney’s Office.” Police Chief Cam Sanchez said he had no comment on the court’s ruling.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
If after 5 seconds at a green light, sitting behind a slumping bobbing head, I think I would have had probable cause to lay on the horn. So I think the SBPD would have had probably cause to check this driver out. And it was News Years night after all.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He was texting his daughter "Happy New Year", while waiting for the light to turn green. Beutel is rogue and that will come out.
topcat (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The release noted Hill “did not find there was any misconduct on the part of any of the involved officers, including Officer Kasi Beutel, or any member of the District Attorney’s Office.”
That's a stretch... Hill never made a ruling on that as it was a moot point after dismissing the case on other grounds. Those allegations still need to be thoroughly vetted... but will they, now that the case was dismissed?
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DM-Too bad he's not an illegal alien or instead we could have been reading your rant about how the oppressive SBPD is targeting the working poor and how by throwing the case out justice was served.
If he was texting he should have gotten a ticket for that. It was confirmed this week that you cannot text even while sitting at a red light in a car with the engine running.
Lance is still a nitwit and too many of our officers are unprofessional, that's about all I can glean from this saga.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, now we all know how to wiggle out of a DUI. Just cite: "The City of Santa Barbara vs Peter Lance." If a cop pulls you over for not progressing through a green light, or slumping over at your wheel. DO NOT follow officers orders to step out of your car. THEY DO NOT have probable cause to stop you according to JUDGE BRIAN HILL. Mention Judge Hill's name and the Peter Lance case and the Santa Barbara police will have to let you go. And remember, even if you FAIL A BREATHALIZER, CAN'T PERFORM INTOXICATION TESTS, you cannot be charge with DUI if the police pulled you over with PROBABLE CAUSE. So as long as you don't run a red light or speed, you're apparently golden to guzzle and drive, it seems in Santa Barbara. So the message seems to be drink up folks and go for a spin! A buy one for Judge Brian Hill to thank him, next time you see him!
Tomharris (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course the comment above is meant as a joke. I, in no way, advocate drinking and drive. As millions of parents, police and lawmakers know (well, most) thousand of children have been killed by those who drink and drive. Get MADD about it!
Tomharris (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tomharris-what do you mean joke? I just finished my cereal with beer so I could go out and text and drive. I'll let everyone know how it goes...I hope I don't get tazed...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate to knock the field-line officers who actually perform the service of serve and protect but the Officer who intially pulled over the driver should have conducted the tests and made the arrest, it should be the officer on the scene to perform all the procedures; thus there be tainting of the evidence or challenging of the procedures Having the 'Drinking and Driving' officer, supervise and advise as to procedure and to sign-off as an assistant so as to colaberate the on-the-scene actions.
My opinion of how I would have handled the same situation.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love how you drama queens have turned "looking at his lap" into "slumped over in his seat."
MaunaKea (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A sad day for justice.... Brian Hill's ruling was one of the weakest I have seen in many years. He looked at the violation with a very narrow focus and rationalized Lance's actions like he was actually defending him along with Genis. I hope the DA appeals this miscarriage of justice. Hopefully an appellate court will look at the totality of the circumstances like Hill should have.... Lance was stopped at a green light for a few seconds when the cops saw him. Another car was waiting to go behind Lance....that's two vehicle code violations if your counting. Then the cops pull up next to Lance and see him with his head down. They shine a light on him and he slowly looks at them and then back down again before finally moving forward. It's New Years Day at 1AM....
Come on people, trained monkeys can do that math. The cops would not have been doing their jobs if they ignored that.
goodprevails (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Goodprevails" - probable cause is not a narrow focus, but is an essential aspect of any criminal case/police action; it examines the reason behind the stop. Hill, apparently, found on the basis of other cases in other jurisidictions that simply stopped at a green light for 3-5 seconds is not probable cause to pull someone over, a form of detainment that requires some reasonable, acceptable reason. There's no indication that he "slowly" looked over at the officers, nor that he was "slumping", "bobbing" his head, as Don McDermott, apparently an eye witness charges, just that he looked at Officer Peterson. Embellishing the story to suit your narratives does not convince.
I hope the DA's office that pleaded broke to the Supervisors some months ago does not waste any more money on this. It's unfortunate that all the stuff about Beutel and the SBPD practices can't be brought out in court.
at_large (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if Lance was drooling when his head was slumped over? Tomharris, lame. Cops around here will pull you over for having the wrong color shirt on. Totally over simplifying saying he was drunk, so his fault. No previous record..what if an unscrupulous cop held her finger of the hole of the breathalyzer when you had a couple glasses of champagne and your .04 all the sudden was an .09? Bet you would be singing a different tune. Oh and then you got smart with them and the cop drug you out of the car and tazed your A$$ and while you were being tazed your body was re flexing to the voltage which in turn means you were "not complying" so you should have your A$$ kicked further with some palm blows that broke your ribs. Wake up and smell the coffee dude. While not a big fan of the news press, I will say they had an article about different citizen review boards that actually kept police just a little accountable for their lame actions. While I doubt Schneider actually has the backbone to jump in Cam's face during one of his bi weekly reports, I applaud her actions to get the ball rolling. The fuzz has too much unaccountability around here.
Oh and what up with Hill not knowing this one and the 3-5 second stop not being enough to pull someone? This has gone on HOW long? This bug could have been squashed a long time ago and saved us all a lot of $$ had he done his home work. You would think with the number of DUI cases around here, (like shooting fish in a barrel with SB, Goleta, and IV) that this issue would have come up before.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Judge Hill's decision protects the DA's office and SB Police from having to further testify, explain destroyed evidence, proffer allegedly forged signatures on "Trombetta" waivers. It is based on out of state legal authorities and was not compelled by California law. It is not as Mr. Lance states a "courageous" decision at all, but rather an expedient one to protect the law enforcement establishment he worked for throughout his career. It avoids a lot of troubling issues.
The Attorney General of California should conduct an independent investigation of what took place here. While they are at it they should look into how the Eric Frimpong case, included the recent ruling by Judge Hill on a very troubling habeas corpus petition, has been handled by the DA, the Sheriff's department and the Court. This community needs to start questioning law enforcement and the entire criminal justice system in SB until they all stop circling the wagons to protect one another and recommit themselves to their purpose which is supposed to be the fair, impartial administration of justice for all.
sbjustice (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why on earth would they do that? (kidding) With all the Police and Sheriff's associations just sitting around and buying them toys? Why don't they get them some CAMERA'S FOR THEIR CARS? That is the problem, the only people law enforcement are really answering too right now are the various associations that throw cash at them. Well that and the producers of ON PATROL. Do you ever see a check point right outside the Bacara, or the Coral Casino? Hmmmmm.... (pinky in corner of mouth)
No idea what Dudley was thinking either it was almost like "see I told you so, just because the judge didn't say anything, so we must not have done anything wrong". Sometimes it is just better to keep your mouth shut.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at noon (Suggest removal)
Is that a glass of booze Lance has in his hand in the picture? Hope he didn't get in his car after he chugged it. Oops, wait, he'll just write another series of articles & get off yet again! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like scotch after letting the correct number of ice cubes melt and releasing the aroma. Just my guess...
I'm glad that sbjustice has the definitive and broad reaching analysis of this case. No more discussion necessary...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SBJustice is on to something. Judge Hill's ruling seems to me to be an effort to get this case off his docket and out of his courtroom for good. Expedient, yes. Courageous, no.
Hill was a lazy DDA, and now is a lazy judge.
LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a known fact that breathalyzer manipulation is easy to do. Plenty of video demonstrations of the machines are available on the web. This is a horrible technology.
I'm sure that he sat and finished his text message with no regard to the officer do to his belief in not being intoxicated. I also think he may have "played" the officer into pulling him over. It does give him a better book to write. The true problem of this situation was the fact that the officer conducting the original stop gave the "kill shot" to another officer he knew was directly involved in arguments with this civilian. It goes deep to an attitude of 'you are either one of us or your little people.'
The amount of money spent by our local officials to discredit this individual is the really disgusting. The more we hire ex-military as police officers the greater the problem will become. Perhaps hiring guidelines should be set so as not to create a complete squad of indoctrinated warriors. It really isn't what we as a people desire. Let us view how things are changing before we find out the hard way. We can as a people disagree with law enforcement without being unpatriotic, criminal elements. I guess elections in the future will have to address all the ills. I'm good with that.
ahatfl (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
User profile: MaunaKea
Joined: Nov. 16, 2011
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I like the articles point of the resources spent and occupy wall street is . . . okay? This Lance dude paid Daryle, Daryle gets to be the famous DUI attorney and it all went through court. Judge Hill said that an attractive annoyance is not probable cause. Maybe Lance forgot to stop, look, listen and look left, right and left before going on the green. He looked down, probably at his cell phone, we will never know. Occupy that. Eleven months and volumes of paper, why aren't people happy? Don't you liberal Santa Barbara folks that went to the big apple to "be a part of the new social movement" want to award Lance for his solo victory?
jw (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
question: Has Lance, et al, produced either officially in court documents or unofficially on a website (Lances) evidence or proof of said 'text'?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Santa Barbara police and the DA office: Preciouse few know the full extent of the hard, unpleasant and selfless work you do everyday.to reign in wrong-doers and keep us safe. We owe you a great debt of gratitude for letting us live in a world that is not governed by law of the jungle. Thank you.
I also have another message for you: In a civilized society the ends do not justify the means. It is better to lose a game with honor than to cheat with steroids to level the playing field.
It upsets and insults me to see many in law enforcement time and time again in denial about police brutality and other misconduct. With police chiefs telling multiple law abiding and decent witnesses that when they claim to have seen a non-resisting suspect getting beaten and tased they should not be believing their own eyes. And DA's acting like public defenders for the police.
Bottom line, you are really great at policing criminals. You are really terrible at policing each other. I think most people would agree, and if you are honest wtih yourself you might also.
I do not know the true facts of this case, but unless I am mistaken from reading the press reports, the suspect told the court that his signature was forged, and the police officer said she witnessed him sign it. Somebody told a whopper of a lie under oath, and some people would call that PERJURY. The DA has an obligation to followup with this and find out who commited the perjury.
Not all whistleblowers are honorable, but some are and paid dearly for their courageous decisions, be it friendship, marriage, their job, and worse. I imagine it would be very difficult for police and the DA to seek the truth without passion or prejudice, perhaps in some cases leading you to an uncomfortable decision to charge a brother in law enforcement with misconduct. It is however the honorable and moral thing to do. And, it is the law.
Again, Mr. DA, I hope you will followup to a firm conclusion, rather than letting the allegations in this case evaporate, and find the truth about who perjured themselves in our courtroom.
CaptainAmerica (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Grand Jury!
They are all ducking this one.
Resolved by the SCOTUS "the fruit of the search is admissible as long as the officer did not "intend" to violate the civil rights of the one being searched"
So it is up to the Defense to "PROVE" intent to violate those rights and that is a tactic that is NEVER successful!
Where is the Justice when a loud mouth can intimidate the prosecution, the police can cook the evidence, the arresting officer can falsify forms?
Yeah right "Illegal Search" what a crock!!!
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The ruling brings to an end an 11-and-a-half-month ordeal" for readers, listeners and viewers of local news media.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, Ken_Volak.
mtndriver (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
User profile: billclausen
Joined: April 24, 2007
brimo7272 (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know EZK. There may be very few who actually obsess about this ordeal. I was in a jury pool a few months back. After the first potential 12 jurors were seated for a criminal trial, Judge Eskin asked the potential jurors if anyone had heard about or read any recent press or .com(s) such as noozhawk.com or edhat.com or sbindependent.com or any other information regarding alleged or possible police misconduct.
No jurors responded. It wasn't until many potential jurors were dismissed for the jury that only one newly selected potential juror advised Judge Eskin that she was aware of the alleged police misconduct. She was immediately thanked and dismissed. The jury selection process went through more than 20 jurors before anyone acknowledged that they knew of these Peter Lance allegations.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm. Perhaps the case was dismissed because the Judge didn't want the SBPD or the DA being investigated too closely. I'm a big supporter of law and order - lawfully and respectfully implemented. And I believe that the great majority of cops are good ones. But some are not - and should not be protected. We still need an outside investigation of the SBPD, the DA, and the judge.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill, as one volcano goes extinct, another rises from the sea to take its place!
MaunaKea (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Bill, as one volcano goes extinct, another rises from the sea to take its place!"
And I congratulate you for picking such a good location. Mauna Kea observatory is making great contributions to astronomy.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. @Brimo: It's an inside joke between MaunaKea and myself that the other oldtime bloggers get. "MaunaKea" periodically changes his/her screen name and it's always volcano names he/she chooses and whenever MaunaKea sees a new blogger they post their joining time. This is how we combat boredom.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One really can't blame the judge for dismissing the case without judging Buetel. In fact, the defense suggested in their Conclusion that he can do just that (and he did):
"Even without getting to the troubling issue of Officer Beutel and her lack of credibility, the court can easily rule that Peterson lacked reasonable suspicion...."
Moreover, the judge could not fairly condemn Beutel for having a credibility problem, since he didn't allow her in the first place to be questioned on such issues as misrepresenting her marital status in a bankruptcy, full disclosure of bankruptcy before joining police force, etc. One can theoretically only criticize the judge for deeming this line of questioning out of scope in the first place. Personally, I think there is a public interest about the answers to these questions.
But perhaps these allegations are all false and she is being slimed. I really have no way of knowing for sure by only reading press reports. I will be interested to see if law enforcement follows up to resolve these troubling questions, or if anyone has a reason to care. Perhaps in the end it will end up being SB law enforcement's finest day.
CaptainAmerica (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congratulations to the amateur journalist who rubbed the magic lamp of his integrity and conjured up a real Geni(s)!
So that's the trick! We all just have to pound a keyboard for Whacky Wendy, wage an "I'm the Victim here" war in newsprint, and blood-alcohol levels miraculously shrink to nothing---and we walk free!
Got it. Glad I didn't bet money with you, Darryl, like you e-mailed me to, or I might have been out a few drinksworth, eh? Chalk another one up for misjustice and an apparently knock-kneed prosecutorial resolve in dismissal against "investigative" amateur journalist, Peter Lance.
So that's what they call it over there at that farce ragshop, the SBNP---investigative journalism. Lance was drunk. And he drove. And he was caught. Justice was made mockery in this drunk's dismissal and it does nothing----NOTHING----but show the utter corruption in this small sometimes embarrassingly hicktard town.
So have a drink, Peter, and celebrate, you old cuss. You got over on one and all of us. Just resist the urge to drive after you're good and belted. And special thanks to you, Darryl, and here's your Best Supporting Whacktor award. Let's hope the Bar Assoc. is looking keenly over your shoulder and protecting the greater good against the likes of you.
Ole!
Draxor (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, Draxor, guess the judge should have just called you to testify since you "know" that "Lance was drunk". How do you "know", BTW? Were you there? In the car? Of course you don't "know" - you have an opinion, as does everyone.
Mockery of justice? Kinda like not investigating Beutel in spite of the many indications of her guilt? I'll just bet you're a big supporter of law and order. How 'bout arresting the trespassing 99 percenters? Aren't they just making a mockery of justice? Or do you just kneejerk against anything you read in the NewsPress? Sound like a hysterical Wendyhater to me - emphasis on hysterical.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2011 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnLocke -
Mockery of justice? Kinda like not investigating Beutel in spite of the many indications of her guilt?
Aside from the numerous claims and accusations made by Genis and Lance, what indications of guilt are you referring to?
As I recall, the things that Genis actually tried to prove in court didn't hold up very well. So what is it that Beutel is supposed to be guilty of again? Remember, stick to actual things you can prove....
goodprevails (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear "Goodprevails"
Someone recently suggested that comments on Internet blogs are today's version of bathroom graffiti.
I think that when people make bold comments behind fake names, there is a lot of truth in that observation.
John Locke may be right, or wrong, but he is NOT a coward.
You, on the other hand take cheap shots at everyone and anyone who challenges your polyanna views.
In otherwords, until you stop anonymously scribbling on thes new age bathroom walls and accept accountability for your comments, right thinking intelligent people will know that you are a coward and a joke.
The same can be said for legend in its mind "legendary yeti" "draxor" and a few others.
While I don't agree with "billclausen" I can say he is man enough to sign his name to his opinions, and that buys him credibility you and others lack.
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GYoung - you are missing the point. Who I am is not as important as the points I am trying to make here. You and/or JohnLocke didn't answer the question I posed. When someone like Lance makes repeated allegations that they can't back up with REAL proof - it doesn't warrant an investigation into someone just because he said it 100 times or manufactured his own "proof."
Would it make you feel better if I told you that I am GWilliams?
goodprevails (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GP,
I'm not missing anything. You aren't making any points.
Lance made a number of allegations which if false would long ago have resulted in a mega lawsuit against him and the "New Supress". But alas, no lawsuit.
Let's look at som of those allegations:
1. She suborned a minister to falsify an official government document so she could increase her financial renumeration in family law court.
What proof is there of this claim Lance wrote about and NP published? Only the sworn declaration of Reverend James and his wife. I guess in your polyanna world that is 'no proof'.
2. Beutel lied under oath in her divorce.
What proof is there of this claim Lance wrote about and NP published? Only the official VC Superior Court file stamped documents. Again, you say:"no proof"
3. Beutel lied under oath about Lance in her DMV paperwork.
What proof is there of this claim aside from the testimony of her fellow officers? According to you, again there is no proof.
I could go on, having been interested enough to take time out of my daily life to go down to court and watch, and even to obtain access to the various court files to see them for myself.
Who you are is of much interest, especially if you have a bias as a member of the law enforcement community (which includes court staff and prosecutors. BTW, until you put a first name and contact info into your reply, you are still just an immature punk scribbling upon bathroom walls.
Gary Young
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, GP:
Genis, whether you love humor hate him did not fail in any of his proof in the serialized Lance hearings. He proved she lied on her motor vehicle paperwork. The ministers sworn statement was admitted and unrefuted. As for the rest of it, those matters conveniently got swept under the rug by Judge Hill, presumably so he would not have to let a jury hear all the dirty Landry on Beutel. Just because Hill found a way to duck the real issues does not mean Beutel, SBPD, or the DA was exhonerated.
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
User profile: CaptainAmerica
Joined: Nov. 16, 2011
Comments posted: 2 (view all)
MaunaKea (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny thing, that back in the day when a kid thought someone was on to him for scribbling upon the stall walls of the schoolhouse toilet, he would stop writing upon that wall. Is that what we witnessed here yesterday '
You wouldn't happen to know whatever happened to one of your like minded pontificators who goes by the name of "IntheKnow" would you? Since I went back and read all the related posts, I noticed that author was most prolific, and then just stopped writing.
There sure are a lot of people here who presume to know so much, like Draxor. I've admitted to attending many hearings and troubling to read court files. What are all your sources?
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2011 at 5:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One more thing, gp. There was expert testimony indicating that Lance's signature had been forged on the Trombetta waiver that Beutel had signed.
Awful quiet, there, gp. Facts got your tongue?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2011 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, JohnLocke,
I forgot about that allegation. Maybe that was Judge Hill's (and the DA's) real plan in dragging the hearings out and then switching out of the first set of issues and into the more pedestrian probable cause issue to obscure that allegation, and the resolution of it which migh have actually required an investigation and subsequent prosecution. Just saying.
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2011 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This result was inevitable.
The dirt on Beutel is so damaging that there is no way the DA could ever allow this case to actually go to trial because, if it did, Beutel's violations would have to be fully vetted.
Were any of those allegations proven in court, how many cases would have to be retroactively dismissed because of it? Think about it.
The DA got to seemingly save face by having Hill drop the whole thing on a procedural claim. They didn't want it to go any further but did not want to appear as they were dropping the charges to protect Beutel... which the resulting ruling essentially does.
lance got his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, however you feel about that is fine. But to not be insistent on a full investigation of the rest of the shady actions of the involved parties is just stupid.
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Lance, I have a message for you now. If you insist your signature was forged and the breathalyzer was intentionally manipulated to frame you, it is not enough to bring your complaints to the press, the mayor, the police chief, prosecutor, etc. with the goal of flustering them or gaining the attention that you crave.
For the type of misconduct you are alleging, the appropriate course of action one should make is to file a complaint to the Internal Affairs unit and volunteer to be interviewed extensively about the incident. Internal Affairs is the first, not last, resort to finding justice for police misconduct and is the most feared unit in any police department. Every unit is different, but typically they do not play games.
If you are not serious, take a deep breath after having skated and parse your words extremely carefully, as you always seem to do, for your next book.
CaptainAmerica (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2011 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@CaptainAmerica: How do you know that Lance hasn't done just that? Do you really think the SBPD would release that information to the public? Or maybe Lance was waiting for the dismissal of his case before filing. Or maybe he thinks that IA would just continue an ongoing coverup (if that is in fact the case) and is planning to or has already asked the state or feds to get involved. Facts, dude, let's talk facts. Assumptions are not interesting.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2011 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"How do you know that Lance hasn't done just that? "
I don't.
"Do you really think the SBPD would release that information to the public?"
Not necessarily, but some certainly do. A good reporter might figure it out and inform us.
CaptainAmerica (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2011 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Folks, I received an e-mail message from GYoung today asking why I hadn't posted anything recently, opining that I'm somehow ashamed of being wrong, and demanding to know who I am, that I must be a cop or a DA. I don't know if I was the only individual GYoung singled out.
I advised GYoung that I was still around, that he is entitled to hold any opinion he cares to hold, as I am entitled to my own opinions as well.
I'm thinking that perhaps GYoung has way too much time on his hands.
Best wishes, everyone.
LY
LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2011 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LY,
If not a cop or a DA, you would not have enough information to accuse Judge Hill of being a Lazy DA.
Of course the term lazy DA is Redundant. So maybe I'm wrong about you being a DA unless the pot likes calling the kettle black.
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2011 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello, GYoung:
As I wrote in the reply to you after you messaged me from the Independent website, and as I wrote in my last post, you are entitled to hold any opinion you care to hold. I am entitled to the same thing.
You need to find something else to do. Now please go away and stop bothering people, or I will complain to the people who run this website.
LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2011 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear (legend in your own yeti mind): Why not just issue a Subpeona from the DA's office, or swear out a search warrant? You know you can. So do I.
GYoung (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2011 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some advice from Mark Twain (and particularly helpful for young law enforcement out there reading this): Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
CaptainAmerica (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2011 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)