Donna Deiss facing 'resisting arrest' charge; all other charges dropped

To check out some of the latest snarls and sneers of HUFF-hating Sentinel rightists, go to http://www.topix.net/forum/us/federal-court-9th/TNIO9EVN3P5TLQ686/p11 (and before).

Even though the thread is nominally about another topic, it has evolved into a discussion of LeMoss's assault on Deiss.

Becky spends endless time patiently defending Donna and her witnesses from the cop-worshipping crowd whose chief sport seems to be spitting on her.

The Sentinel, in spite of early inquiry from an editor there, never saw fit to publish anything on the subject in spite of an unusual earlier revisionist denial from the SCPD (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/10/18498341.php).

For Deiss's own version of events see "Sgt. LeMoss #114 Santa Cruz PD breaks arm of 60 year old at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/14/18499096.php .

Photos taken on June 6, 2008.

UC Workers and Students Block California Highway 1 in Santa Cruz to Protest Poverty Wages
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/07/18505111.php

Nice pictures from the family album, everyone. About the image of Donna recounting her experience, which version is she recounting in this particular picture?

Glad to hear things went so well in court.

Nice pictures, Bradley.

If anyone has a full length photo of Donna Deiss, that would be helpful, set side-by-side with the buff LeMoss, in showing the nature of the threat this good sergeant faced.

Perhaps pro-police pranksters like Sum Dim can contribute their own photos as well (wearing hoodies to protect their identities from disabled elderly women). Then we can appreciate the true nature of those who so readily, sarcastically, and smoothly defend the "broken arm" special and the subsequent "appearing/disappearing" criminal charges of the SCPD, including the ever-popular "resisting arrest" finale!

Donna is encouraging supporters to show up at 8:30 AM on Wednesday July 2nd at her arraignment in Departments 1 or 2 (check the court calendar).

HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) will be holding its weekly powwow downstairs in the County building cafeteria at 9:30 AM to discuss future steps to give Sgt. LeMoss (and his official backer Mayor Ryan Coonerty) the publicity he needs so the public can register its thoughts on this colorful use of taxpayer funds.

Yes, Bradley, excellent pictures. Perhaps you could provide us with the full length shots of LeMoss and Donna together? I'm thinking a cup of coffee might make a nice prop. Also, a full length shot of Donna might help us identify her tibia and fibula, which Becky says are attached to her humerus. Since we've never seen the x-rays that Robert promised us, we don't have any way to verify this surprising claim.

I'll certainly be at court, as always. Sans hoodie, in plain view. I'll come and say hi, Robert.

IMO, there's a middle ground ; in regards to what actually happened that day and in my moderate position between thinking all police are evil or Donna is 100% innocent. Shades of gray, nuance, compromise; call it what you will.

My sense of uncertainty as to what actually transpired is based not on any police statement or lie; I haven't heard a word out of them. The conflicting reports I speak of are the ones provided by Donna herself, and Robert, and Donna's witnesses. They posted them themselves, and stated them on Robert's radio shows. Contradictions such as :


-Roberts first article clearly state that Donna knew it was a cop, read him some ACLU statement, and declined to stay in place when told to by the cop. Robert argued that she wasn't charged with anything, so didn't have to stay, but there was no disputing that she knew what was up and that it was a cop. But in a later recounting of events, Donna makes it sound like she wasn't even talking to the cop, didn't know he was around, and makes it sound like he suddenly just appeared and attacked her.

-In Donna's radio interview with Robert, which is pretty detailed, she said the cop threw her to the ground and put a foot on her back. A second interviewee (Greg) also says it was her back. But then in a second recounting, Donna says it was her chest.

-In Donna's radio interview, 4 people are interviewed, but not one mentions the cop using a billy club on her. Greg specifically says LeMoss pulled it out and waved it in a threatening manner, but none of them, including Donna, claim he struck her. But then in a later statement, Donna added in that LeMoss struck her with a billy club.

-In the radio interviews, Greg acknowledges that people were smoking pot, and the cops say they found pipes in the trash, and that's why they were called there in the first place. Greg says "Even though there was illegal activity going on.". But then Donna's in a later statement that there was no pot, that she has no idea why they were there, that she and her friends were only talking (per her radio interview) and this all came out of the blue. (And Robert is now claiming that they added the pot charge 3 days later, even though his interview with Greg occurred 2 days later, and clearly states that pot was being smoked, and that the cops confiscated paraphenalia? How are the cops operating under a pretext of looking for marijuana when those involved acknowledge they were smoking it?)

So, could you explain to me how am I buying into the police story when it's you yourselves who have posted your own contradictory statements? And why I shouldn't have a sense that there is more than one version of "truth" in this story?

Smooth Sarcasm, Robert doesn't like trolls, and you're a troll for questioning Donna's claim. Robert has done extensive research into the Deiss Hot Coffee Battery, interviewing at least four people about it. Trust Him. He knows the Truth.

Donna's lawyers better be prepared for all of the contradictory accounts, which have been supplied to the public for weeks now, being used as evidence. The text accounts from here as well as the radio recordings will surely be brought up to show inconsistencies.

SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "-Roberts first article clearly state that Donna knew it was a cop, read him some ACLU statement, and declined to stay in place when told to by the cop. Robert argued that she wasn't charged with anything, so didn't have to stay, but there was no disputing that she knew what was up and that it was a cop. But in a later recounting of events, Donna makes it sound like she wasn't even talking to the cop, didn't know he was around, and makes it sound like he suddenly just appeared and attacked her."

BECKY: Donna did not know LeMoss was a cop, but she had her suspicions. These were based on an incident that happened at the same location the day before when two uniformed police officers had showed up and approached the group in the same manner. Unlike the day before, she felt apprehension from the way the man approached the group. Since the day before, the cops had come to inquire about a dog off it"s leash, she thought they were there to talk about a dog. She really couldn't theorize any other reason why they would approach such a peaceful gathering. She doesn't own a dog, and felt no obligation to stay. Besides, she was headed back to her RV to put some sugar into half a cup of coffee that White Dove had just given her. She did not notice him following her to the RV.

SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "In Donna's radio interview with Robert, which is pretty detailed, she said the cop threw her to the ground and put a foot on her back. A second interviewee (Greg) also says it was her back. But then in a second recounting, Donna says it was her chest."

BECKY: Donna revised her statement when she remembered that she had been looking UP at LeMoss at that point and hence, must have been on her back.

SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "In Donna's radio interview, 4 people are interviewed, but not one mentions the cop using a billy club on her. Greg specifically says LeMoss pulled it out and waved it in a threatening manner, but none of them, including Donna, claim he struck her. But then in a later statement, Donna added in that LeMoss struck her with a billy club."

BECKY: Donna does not remember LeMoss striking her with the club. She does remember him waving it around above her and threatening her with it, but at least two witnessed DID say they saw him strike her with it, and they were very close to the event at the time. So we have revised our account to reflect this new information.

SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "In the radio interviews, Greg acknowledges that people were smoking pot....


BECKY: Neither Donna nor White Dove had any pot on them at the time.


SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "...and the cops say they found pipes in the trash, and that's why they were called there in the first place."

BECKY: They were called because of two pipes in the trash? That's not much of a reason for a police SWAT team deployment. My guess is that, since they were out of pot, they took a couple of hits off an empty pipe. When the cops arrived, someone put the pipes in the trash.

SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "Greg says "Even though there was illegal activity going on.".

BECKY: Maybe Greg saw someone else smoking pot. The fact is, neither Donna nor White Dove had any pot on them at the time of their arrests.

SMOOTH SARCASM WRITES: "But then Donna's in a later statement that there was no pot, that she has no idea why they were there, that she and her friends were only talking (per her radio interview) and this all came out of the blue. (And Robert is now claiming that they added the pot charge 3 days later, even though his interview with Greg occurred 2 days later, and clearly states that pot was being smoked, and that the cops confiscated paraphenalia? How are the cops operating under a pretext of looking for marijuana when those involved acknowledge they were smoking it?)

BECKY: Donna was not arrested for marijuana. She was arrested for battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. She was arrested on a Friday. The following Monday the SCPD issued a press release in which they made statements about Donna and White Dove and that Donna had been arrested for 243 (b)PC , 148 (a) PC , 11357 HS. That last charge is possession of marijuana. Pretext? Police do need a pretext under law in order to interfere with anyone's quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the first warm day of spring.

There has been some question as to the validity of Donna's claim as to the injury she suffered at the hands of Santa Cruz Police during her arrest. Human Rights Organization has received a copy of her report from her visit to Dominican Hospital that states her right humerus was fractured.

Becky,

When you tell me that Donna has revised two points of her story, you're confirming my sense that the story is changing to suit her needs.

And now you're telling me two witnesses saw her struck, but none of the four witnesses interviewed the day after the incident saw it or considered it worth mentioning? Again, seems sketchy.

And then you yourself added a third perspective of whether she knew it was a cop or not. Robert said she knew, then Donna said she didn't, and know your saying she may have suspected it.

I'm not buying this cleaned up version of the story. My opinion is that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two accounts being told by Donna and the cops.

Will someone please explain why the Donna incident occured on the 9th and the hospital visit occured on the 13th? No sarcasm. A genuine question.

The original visit was on May 9, 2008 at Watsonville Community Hospital. This was a follow-up visit at Dominican.

Interesting, isn't it, how often it is that, at the end of the day, people wind up facing charges for "resisting arrest", and nothing else? Obviously, the D.A. felt that they didn't have a case for the remaining charges. At a guess, they'll drop the remaining charges once Donna shows up for court on July 2nd, or try and negotiate a plea bargain for community service or somesuch.

As for "shifting stories", anyone familiar with the judicial process understands that the least reliable evidence is that of eyewitness testimony, precise because people's memories are so inadequate, and because people often wind up reconstructing events after the fact so that they make "sense". Four witnesses will have four inconsistent versions of the same event that happened five feet away.

I sincerely hope that the resolution of this incident encourages the SCPD to be more cautious when dealing with elderly and disabled members of the public in a law enforcement context.

Actually Robert, familiar as he is with the judicial process, doesn't seem to realize that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. He is infact hanging his own spirited defense of the coffee throwing based solely upon what Donna's friends thought they saw, despite their wildly varying accounts and the obvious fact that they were using perception-altering substances.

Huffsters have an oddly skewed definition of success. Repeatedly provoking law officers, the City government and the judicial system, and then having charges dropped so they can go back home and post the whole saga on Indybay is not how most of us characterize accomplishment. Generally, we look to actually solve problems, advance society, lift up the poor and so on. But hey, what do we know?

Her arms not broken. It would be in a cast? Weird isn't it?

Actaully Many they are casting broken bones les and les these days. You will note it was a fracture. It was a small crack in the bone not a clear through break. Doesn't make it any better as far as donna goes but a much simpler injury and not really in need of a cast just immobilization.

I thought her arm was broken, not fractured. That's what all the headlines say.

Fracture and break are used interchangably. As one trained in 1st aid for many years I understand the confusion. But a fracture is a break. GHow it got broke is a nother story, or two, or three, or......

Its obvious her arm was fractured, and that all charges but resisting were dropped. So if all charges were dropped, we must assume as the law defines it, that there was nothing else she did wrong prior to the arrest they could remotely prove.

I think its going to be tough to prove her charge for resisting a bogus arrest where she was injured and the police man, as far as we all know, was never injured as he was not treated for anything.

We should all be able to resist bogus arrests, unless you like living in a police state.

For the record, fractures can hurt just as much and sometimes more than a clean break.

Maybe its time we gave Donna a break until the court decides her guilt or innocence. Maybe many of you decided she was guilty in your own minds, before this even happened? We can argue like babbling idiots about the validity her case and of the messenger until her trial. But this is the act of children.

People under stress will remember events slightly differently. This is normal. I doubt anything here will be used for or against her in court. Can you think of one case where IMC postings were used as evidence in resisting arrest case? Since its an open system EVERYTHING is hearsay, and not provable as anyone can post anything under anyones name. But I would love to see it anyway.

The fact that IA was on the Cliffs investigating should be an indicator to the possibility that the officer MAY have done something wrong during the arrest. You have gone as far as to make up possible stories of what may have happened, as if that will change anything. Like they were taking hits off an empty pipe... It's meaningless.

I wasn't there. I don't know exactly what happened anymore that anyone else except Donna or an eye wittinesses. I will side on the fact that she was found innocent of everything prior to the arrest and wait for the trial. If she resisted a bogus arrest, good for her.

I agree with most of your post, but I do take a different viewpoint, and a bit of umbrage, at one part of it. The part where you say:

"Maybe its time we gave Donna a break until the court decides her guilt or innocence. Maybe many of you decided she was guilty in your own minds, before this even happened? We can argue like babbling idiots about the validity her case and of the messenger until her trial. But this is the act of children."

I'd like to point out that it's Donna and her supporters who have posted the accounts, conflicting stories, and repeated posts that have kept this case in my eyes. As such, she is primarily responsible for the ensuing discussions. And as she appears to want to have her case played out in the court of public opinion, then one of the inevitable risks she faces is that some will disagree with her.

Don't want to have people offer opinions or question your story? Then save it for the courts. As for now, by your own description of cause and effect, Donna/Robert/Becky qualify as the ones acting like children.

Interesting commentary.

We still have no police report on hospital records on LeMoss for his "coffee injuries". Are the critics who endlessly revile Deiss and those who support her interested? Nope. I guess that's understandable--that entire charge has vanished.

When I find all the precipient witnesses I've been able to find testify to excessive force, I find this not only newsworthy, but something the community needs to know about NOW.

When the whole provocation for the LeMoss roust seems (at best) to have been some attack on marijuana smoking and (more likely) rousting and harassment of low-income RV dwellers socializing, I worry about Drug War priorities and selective enforcement.

When the SCPD cooks up a third charge three days later, I suspect the corruption here goes further than LeMoss.

When LeMoss is reportedly allowed to "investigate" his own misconduct, I am reminded of Deputy-Chief Vogel "investigating" his own misconduct a year and a half ago and giving himself a clean bill of health.

When the officer in question continues on active duty in spite of what appears to be at best gross negligence...I think the community is at risk.

Whether Donna gets further trashed in a court process rigged against a poor defendant is not the issue either. The issue is accountability and community control of the SCPD.
today and tomorrow.

To be brutally assaulted especially under color of law is a heavy strain on a 60-year old disabled woman who has trouble making ends meet. She continues to be vulnerable outside night after night. It (and the subsequent police coverup sends a message to anyone else living in their vehicle: "shut up, be afraid and passive, obey orders, or you may end up having your arm snapped."

"Try to tell your story and you'll be attacked, lampooned, dismissed, and denounced."

The SCPD, however, has not vanished and continues its regular rousts of poor people in the Pogonip, the parks, on Pacific Ave., and all around the town. The bogus Drug Prohibition War continues. The absurd and cruel Sleeping Ban tickets continue to be written. These are the real issues.

Sometimes it takes children to point out the emperor has no clothes and the police have too much power. Then there are those who behave like frightened credulous children, eager to cling to an authority figure, who need to believe the cops are heroes even when all witnesses seem to indicate otherwise. Naturally their bitter-est worst are reserved for those documenting police violence.

Donna's still looking for supporters Wednesday morning at her arraignment in Dept. 1 or 2 on July 2nd at 8:30 AM.

Thanks for a well written comment.

Its not that I don't think the case should be discussed. As you rightly pointed out she wanted it posted. Its the same people who leave certain comments regarding anything posted by anyone remotely involved in HUFF. They don't care about the case, the person, the issues, or anything except attacking the messenger and anyone who may have even spoken up on their behalf on any issue in the past. These are the same people who attack every post regardless of content, it was to those folks that I meant its time we give Donna a break. Not that they will. But I think we agree on the rest. Thoughtful comments, dissenting or not, are welcomed in my mind -- if they are on issue and not simple personal attacks. Read the Sentinel forums for some real good hateful bigotry by the very same folks who spend day and night attacking the same people regardless of content.

I could have worded it better and given a better example for sure. I appreciate your comment, as you use common sense and decency when making you thought out point.
Thanks

An interesting perspective on the "resisting arrest" charge from an older news story hits pretty close to the target in the Deiss case, I think. Check it out at
http://www.tysto.com/articles04/q1/20040305resisting.shtml

Ive been charged with PC148(a) Resisting Arrest before. Cops hate being put in their place by well-reasoned and confident verbal dressing-down. They can't handle it. Dominance and submission are all they care about.

The DA even had the gall to file the charge based on the pigs' complaints.

I pled Not Guilty, bought a copy of Nolo Criminal Defense, did my homework, crawled up their ass with discovery motions, and at the pre-trial conference the cowards backed down and dropped the charge.

Fight, Donna! You go girl! And even though the coffee was probably an accident from the asshole grabbing you, if you did throw it at him intentionally then GOOD FOR YOU.

These prohibitionist gangbangers need to be taught a lesson. Stop abusing people who have done nothing wrong! Take your victimless crimes and shove them up your collective asses before we do it for you.

HUFF voted on Wed. July 2, 2008 to seek the suspension of Sgt. Christian LeMoss pending an independent investigation.

Here is our letter to Mayor Ryan Coonerty:

from: Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
to: Mayor Ryan Coonerty, City of Santa Cruz, CA.
re: suspend SCPD Sgt. Christian LeMoss?


July 3, 2008


Dear Mayor Ryan Coonerty,

On May 9th, 2008, Sgt. Christian LeMoss attempted to detain Ms. Donna Deiss, a vehicularly-housed resident of Santa Cruz. He was out of uniform. He had no identifying badge. He drove an unmarked car. He did not verbally identify himself as a police officer. He pursued Ms. Deiss, a frail 60-year old woman into her RV, grabbing her arm violently from behind as she attempted to step into the vehicle which is currently serving as her home.

Officer LeMoss broke Ms. Deiss arm and then had her arrested on two charges, battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. Ms. Deiss was treated at Watsonville Community Hospital that night where x-rays confirmed a fractured right humerus bone. Originally arrested on two charges, a third marijuana charge was added 3 days later. Now all charges have been dropped except 'resisting arrest.'

HUFF members have interviewed several eyewitnesses, and the Santa Cruz Police Department is conducting its own IA report.

Understandably, HUFF is concerned that LeMoss will go on to harm other members of the public, especially homeless or vehicularly housed individuals.

Since Sgt. LeMoss remains on the force, he presents both a danger and a liabilty to the citizenry of Santa Cruz. We at HUFF urge that you consider the issue of public safety foremost and act accordingly by:

1. Scheduling this item on the City Council agenda for discussion
2. Seeking a suspension of LeMoss pending an independent investigation
3. Appointing an independent investigator to investigate LeMoss' action in injuring Ms. Deiss and his general fitness for duty


Please reply ASAP.



Sincerely,

Becky Johnson
on behalf of HUFF


Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831)423-HUFF

Human Rights Organization is concerned about this cities anti-homeless laws and harsh treatment by police and rangers of people who “must live outside”. Living outside means that what most of us do for our daily existence like personal hygiene, eating, sleeping, sitting etc. all must be done outdoors. That Donna Deiss, a 61 year old woman living outside must endure the macho wrath of an officer for merely having a puff or not is unacceptable in our community no matter how you spin it. Whose grandma will be next? Tell the city council to get control of their police, (831)420-5020. They make the laws that created this climate of a police state.

To add a little grist to this mill for hate mongers to digest, chew on these two following items; Police Media Release and copy of Donna’s citation.

Donna Deiss's original court date as written on the original citation was June 15th--a Sunday.

The original ticket also made no mention of the marijuana charge, which was apparently added three days later after the story of Sgt. LeMoss's excessive force was displayed in all its lurid color. And, of course, both the marijuana charge and the battery charge didn't appear in court. The marijuana charge looks like it was cover for LeMoss or cover-up for his superiors in the PD.

The battery charge had no substance. All the witnesses except LeMoss testified they saw the Sgt. brutally assault Deiss and spin her around, sending her coffee flying. He was the one who assaulted and battered. The press release issued several days after LeMoss's attack, which "added" the ultimately disappearing marijuana charge, made no mention of any injuries LeMoss allegedy suffered from the "thrown coffee".

Tim Rumford commented how unusual this failure to mention injuries or "officer treated at hospital" is when someone is charged with battering a cop ("Regarding the Media release" by Tim Rumford Saturday May 17th, 2008 --in the thread "Sgt. LeMoss #114 Santa Cruz PD breaks arm of 60 year old disabled woman without cause" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/14/18499096.php).

On Wednesday July 2nd, attorney Ben Rice made a special appearance in Judge Seigel's court (Dept. 1) for Deiss and secured a two-week continuance during which he will be helping to expand the defense team and prepare motions prior to making a plea.

HUFF met immediately afterwards (every Wednesday 9:30 AM in the basement of the County Building at the cafeteria at 701 Ocean St. for those interested) and voted to support her both with a resolution to Mayor Coonerty (who has taken no action on this case, though he sits on the Council's Public Safety Committee) and a planned protest either in front of Coonerty's Bookshop or the SCPD.

Next Friday 6-10 PM July 11th is an SCPD "neighborhood forum" open to the public (though billed for "Beach Area residents") at the the police department community room, 155 Center St. The Sentinel notice at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_9773627?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com
notes "There will be a presentation about gangs in the community [which includes the lower Ocean Street neighborhood, Beach Flats and Beach Hill}, including information about gang trends and an overview of what has been happening in the beach area."

Public outrage is high about the absurd quasi-military steps taken to quell fireworks use and drinking on the public beaches during the 4th of July--with "triple fine zones" extending until July 6th--watch out!. This absurdly-timed Independence Day Police State Rehersal in Santa Cruz seemed to pique even old-time Sentinel reactionaries (see Sentinel forum outrage at http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TEB2Q242QS301OG3U).

The July 11th SCPD public meeting might be a good place to demand some answers from police panjandrums (Sepone, Clark, etc.).

Donna Deiss is also scheduled to appear with one of her witnesses on Free Radio tomorrow morning sometime between 9:30 AM and noon at 101.1 FM. Tune in or go on line at http://www.freakradio.org. Call-in at 831-427-3772.

For those interested in a Santa Cruz Sentinel thread where Becky Johnson's critics spend all their time trashing her (as a liar), check out http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TSQUGV9JH233LB24J

Becky, for her part, puts up a good (though solo) defense, returning to the Deiss case. I'm not sure why she bothers, except that the Sentinel website does get seen by a larger and different audience than indybay.org/santacruz.

It's sad to see so much short-sighted fury directed against her and so much energy spent by her critics in abusive personal attacks on her, "exposing" small inconsistencies in the accounts of Deiss and her witnesses and ignoring the main point: The glaring evidence of a broken arm, a bullshit drug bust (bullshit even if it had been legitimate), and a classic charge-the-victim mentality should have us all concerned.

The SCPD's untouchable status is the issue. There is some community outrage against the absurd and abusive July 4th weekend crackdown--even finding its way onto the Sentinel website (See
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TEB2Q242QS301OG3U
and
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/T880J8UB267O8O25B)

Full disclosure: some of the critics claim they've tried to post on indybay but been deleted (not HIDDEN but deleted). For a discussion of this indybay practice, check out
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/07/18504977.php .

If anyone has had any experience with a "resisting arrest" charge, please post or call me radio show at 427-3772. (Thursdays 6-8 PM, Sundays 9:30 AM to 1 PM)

I agree that it's surprising that Becky spends so much time on the Sentinel site, given the bilious hostility of its denizens towards her and Robert. Of course, Donna's bust really was quite legitimate. After all, there were pipes in the trash and witnesses admitted to smoking pot. There has been much talk on the Sentinel site about Measure K, but of course that only covers private property. Not a city parking lot. So yes, it was certainly a legitimate bust.

It really is unfortunate though that the whole thing has descended into a shouting match between Donna's advocates and everyone else, with no real dialogue that will lead to compromise and understanding. I believe Becky has tried and has indicated that HUFF would accept the position that infact the marijuana and resisting arrest charge might be legitimate if the PD would accept that they roughhoused Donna. She also indicated on the Sentinel site that all the HUFFsters voted in favor of this at their recent District-level meeting.

The ball is in the court of the PD. Let's see how this plays out.

So, Robert, if you feel Becky is being treated so badly over in the Sentinel Topic pages why don't you go help her out? I agree she's taking a bit of a beating over there. But she's spending so much of her time defending you and your actions. I would think the least you could do, for her loyalty, is help support her.
Just an idea.

It's encouraging to read Sum Dim asking questions about PD behavior (as well as the accuracy and balance of HUFF accounts).

Still: Is a broken arm and holding someone in handcuffs with a broken arm for a lengthy period of time “roughhousing”? Is waterboarding “harsh interrogation”? If a broken arm happens between people who don't know each other and one person has attacked the other, isn't it customarily called “assault and battery”?

For the police, however, it's “resisting arrest”--oh, yes, and “battery on an officer”.

Broken arms and disappearing charges speak louder than activist accounts (even from eye-witnesses) unfortunately. If Donna beats the “resisting arrest” charge [(resisting arrest for what? If there's no probable cause, what's the point of the arrest in the first place?)], then perhaps the full story will come in in a civil law suit against the SCPD if some attorney wants to take it. This, however, does not happen very often.
I appreciate Sum Dim's query to the PD (“the ball is in your court”). An apology early on, rather than a false arrest, might have been (and might still be) a good first step.
Were we dealing with a private dispute between individuals (or perhaps between a poor person and a business or corporation), mediation and compromise might be more appropriate and more effective (HUFF has done this on occasion with different businesses in disputes with homeless people). However, when you're dealing with an insulated PD that killed the Citizen Police Review Commission in 2003 and has no real accountability, the issue is considerably different. There is no incentive to mediate.

Even if compromise and mediation in this one case where a Sgt. has clearly gone too far resulted in an apology, restitution, etc., would this protect others outside who continue to face the same threat night after night and day after day? That's the problem—not Sgt. Le Moss and Donna Deiss specifically.
The issue is not Becky vs. Nancy and her critical friends on the Sentinel website. The question is whether the PD is harassing and brutalizing poor people regularly, specifically those who live in their vehicles or outside. I have heard too many cases of this to deny this seems to be the trend, at least, for a number of officers and perhaps as a general (spoken or unspoken) policy.

Perhaps Nancy and other critics would like to attend the PD meeting on Friday at 6 PM (see comments above) and ask the higher-up's just what's up in the Deiss case (and some of their other recent capers on the 4th of July)? I suspect our Sentinel sleuths will be told there's “a continuing investigation”, “an ongoing police case” or “an internal IA” investigation—i.e. no information.
The real question is why isn't Le Moss suspended while this case is being looked into? Why isn't the City Council's Public Safety Committee (headed by Coonerty and Rotkin) doing anything? Why does Donna Deiss face a year in jail and $1000 fine for refusing to talk to LeMoss (whether she regarded him as a copy or not)? Where are LeMoss's “injures”? Does the PD and their friends in the D.A. office face any consequences for dragging a poor disabled woman through the court system?

`In this city, the PD gets what it wants. Whether an absurd law that makes it illegal to sit in your vehicle for 15 minutes in a public parking lot, fines tripled for minor offenses on holidays, or the absurd crackdown on fireworks and nonabusive public drinking on the 4th of July, the “tools” the PD seeks, they get.

We have no independent body reviewing the PD. Even the frail Measure K Committee—passed by voter initiative over the objections of the City Attorney and the City Council--has been crippled (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/11/18506179.php].

To get a sense of how corrupt this can get check out today's San Jose Mercury News story at http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9809359?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com [“EMTs: San Jose police ignored signs ex-cop was drunk”].

I encourage the Sentinel critics attacking me and Becky to be just as vigorous in their analysis of the PD. After all, the cops have the guns, tasers, attorneys, funding, law, and politicians on their side—we've just got our ragged indymedia stories.
And the cops are far more likely to interfere with the average resident than either of us are. There are hundreds of them and only two of us. Ask your local 4th of July celebrant, if you don't believe me.

"Perhaps Nancy and other critics would like to attend the PD meeting on Friday at 6 PM"

Who said that I have any problem with Becky or the whole Donna incident? My comment before was about how you don't stand up for Becky when she needs your help. And I think she could use with some help defending you. So just because I question you you call me a critic?

Who the fuck do you think you are?!

Donna has contracted lawyers Ben Rice and Greg Coben to represent her. At her arraignment she asked for and was granted a 2 week continuance of the arraignment until July 30th. She will plead then.

Linda Allen a.k.a. White Dove, who was also arrested along with Donna Deiss went to court. She had been charged with 135 PC and 11357 HS but these charges were not filed by the DA and have both been dropped.

SCORE SO FAR: Donna Deiss charges of battery on a police officer--DROPPED
Charge of marijuana possession ---DROPPED
Charge of resisting arrest---PENDING
Linda Allen charges of 135 PC delaying/obsructing and officer --DROPPED
charges of 11357 HS --marijuana paraphernalia --DROPPED

Disappearing charges? A broken arm for a suspicion of marijuana smoking charge? Do readers still think that Donna's story is not credible and that the police story is?

I don't believe either side.

City on a Hill Press, the UCSC community weekly, had a brief story on LeMoss's assault on Deiss, which can be found agt http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=1267

I've given a preliminary looksee at the EXTENSIVE SCPD police reports. Apparently an "undercover" operation was in force to round up marijuana smokers. None, of course, were actually cited at the scene for marijuana possession or use. The original citations against Donna were for battery and resisting arrest. Linda Allen ("Whitedove") was charged with "concealing evidence" (for allegedly throwing away two marijuana pipes).

Activists then angrily posted stories on indymedia and free radio denouncing LeMoss's assault, false charges, and subsequent coverup. The next day (5-12) perhaps in response to Sentinel inquiries, the police department issued an unusual press release--adding new charges of marijuana possession.

No charges were filed against Linda Allen by the D.A. Donna Deiss was given a charge of "resisting arrest". Deiss and her companions out on Westcliffe Drive at Three Trees Parking lot were harassed, frightened, detained, and interrogated. Donna was physically attacked, libeled in the police reports and press releases, and dragged to Watsonville with a broken arm.

She continues to face court ordeals.

Officers Hernandez and Alpert wrote accounts the day of LeMoss's assault (5-9). Sgt. LeMoss and Officer Jones wrote accounts 5 days later (5-14). Brief accounts written the next day were filed by Officers Azua, Butler and Clark. Later extensive after-the-fact "investigation" reports were filed by Officers Hedley and Pawlak (5-22). --though not, apparently, as an Internal Affairs matter to determine if LeMoss's behavior constituted excessive force. Other officers' reports also swelled the weight and cost of the case.

The total number of pages handed over to defense attorney Ben Rice in the fat packet of police reports number 50 pages. Considering there was only one police witness--the perp Sgt. LeMoss himself--this is an awful lot of paperwork. A lot of time is spent interviewing (and attempting to discredit non-police witnesses).

At some point, Donna may authorize posting the full police reports on the internet to give us a clearer sense of the amount of time and money the SCPD doesn't mind wasting to paper over a bad case.

An apology, some restitution, and a change in the local Marijuana War policies being used as opportunity to harass poor people living in their vehicles--would be a much better approach.

It won't happen until there's lots of pressure on the SCPD--which alredy has a driver's seat on the City Council juggernaut.

Theres nothing legitimate about assaulting a woman who was minding her own business, no matter what she's smoking while she does it. get over yourself!

Its incredible the city, in the middle of a budget crisis so bad that they cripple our Social Services, Medical Care for the poor etc. That they would spend the amount of time, money and man hours investigating such a petty thing in the first place. Then drop the charges anyway. If I understand it they spent allot of time investigating and possibly harassing wittinesses. They would have been better off to drop all charges, apologize, and let her go that day. I am not saying breaking her arm was petty. The police presence and the bust itself was for petty shit that is a huge waste of time. Maybe they can go catch some senior citizens smoking in their own homes now. Donna had a card, was more than 1000 feet from a school. By state law, she was fine as I understand it.

If she had a card then why has that detail never been mentioned? Others in the group have cards, and that was mentioned, but there has been no mention of Donna having a card. The law also states "on private property", which Donna was not. I'm not excusing the police using the force that they did. No way. But I think it's important to have correct facts. Under measure K, which many groups endorsed as written, people still cannot smoke on public property. Judging by some peoples posts under other subjects, it is felt that the lots and sidewalks are public property. Therefor, she and the group are not covered with that defense.

If you have a card you can smoke under SB420 on public property provided you are 1000 feet from a school, recreation center and not driving a car or boat. Exact wording below in comment.

The gutted version of Measure K which makes busting people for marijuana the lowest priority for SCPD does apply only to private property. Santa Cruz voted and passed a much stronger Measure K as I understand it but it was gutted. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me. It should also be noted that having a card does not stop a cop from arresting you. It gives you an out in court. An officer can arrest you, even with a card.

The Medical Marijuana law did a poor job of defining where medical marijuana can and cannot be smoked. But it did add the following from http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm#text

"11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances:

(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.

(b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence.

(c) On a school bus.

(d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated.

(e) While operating a boat."

But did Donna have a card? It has never been mentioned if Donna was a card carrying patient at the time of the incident. Others around her yes. But the police would have to stop and ask you if you had a card in order to establish that someone is a card carrying patient.

Hey Bradley,
Here is what I read on the legal sites on HS11262.5, Prop 215 which supersedes SB 420.

"Proposition 215 now HS11362.5, the voter approved law, did not protect people from arrest, it gives them a defense in Court. The CA Supreme Court in the Mower Decision interpreted that to mean any amount reasonably related to the patients medical need. That standard still applies and supersedes SB 420."

From everything I know she was never asked for a card, but the police do not have to ask. They should, but they are not required. The law was written as a defense, not to prevent arrest, although that was certainly the hope of the voters. This happens allot. People arrested, card or not. The police media report never says he asked her for anything except to stop. I am sure in the "big report" there are discrepancies in what "he said- she said". To me its really not a big deal as that part of the case is over. Believe who you will, I am not arguing with you by any means. Just making a point. Those charges for 0.20 grams of marijuana, a bong hit or two , were dropped. They were added days later, and I am sure there is " a reason" they were dropped. They either had no case, no dope, wrong person, or she had a card. My guess would be number 3 or 4. They spent oodles of tax money trying to prosecute her and were unable. 50 pages of investigation etc. Had the any chance to prosecute on that charge, they would have in my opinion. Many officers sent out to look for , find, and interview witnesses. It would good to determine how much tax money they have spent of this case gutted social and health services and a 19 million dollar deficit this year causing these cuts.

All these are good questions you ask. I don't have a definitive answer.
Peace
Tim

I have contacted Patrick Reilly, attorney at ACLU, and he has promised again to put my case before the head ACLU lawyer, whom I believe is Zimmerman.

I have a pretrial hearing Sept. 3, 2008 at 10 AM and am being represented by Ben Rice and Gregory Coban.

Adhesions are still being broken by my chiropractor and physical therapist -- my bone and muscle calcinated when I had to wear a sling the first 8 weeks. It is very painful but I am determined to get full range of motion back.

I have made many friends in Santa Cruz and they want this case pursued. They are counting on me and I insist on making a difference regarding use of police force in Santa Cruz, police vigilantism and the disintegration of our Miranda rights. I find it shocking that there is no crisis support for women battered by a police officer, only for those battered by at husband or boyfriend. Living with bad cops on the loose and knowing they are in the higher echelon of the police department terrifies me. It completely tears your world apart to learn that respect for authority is a dangerous choice and we are all at risk.

Is there any way I can protest the Media Release the Sentinel put out -- I can write to the Editor if that might help. This has damaged my reputation. I have a BA and am a disabled marine journeyman pipefitter. Is this nothing compared to a police sergeant? I am being cautious but determined in the actions I take and words I write about this case. I need everyone's support and solidarity to feel safe and that justice is not completely demolished by all the powers and money the police and DA possess.

I was NOT asked for a medi cal marijuana card. In fact I got one as soon as Proposition 215 was passed. Two undercover detectives promised I would be registered as a medical marijuana patient at the police department in 1999. In fact, the police officer at the jail said that they knew I had a medical marijuana card.

Captain Steve Clark in an interview with him over the battery of Shane Maxfield by Officer BRIERLY said that a police officer does NOT have to consider the health of a person when making an arrest. Sergeant LEMOSS wanted me in jail but the jailer said "Her arm is broken. We have liability issues here. I will NOT admit her no matter what the sergeant says."

Also, after my arm was broken, my RV was NOT searched or impounded. The other police officers were blow away by the unnecessary violence and one even cried when I asked if he was the one who broke my arm. They did not search or charge anyone else except Linda ALLEN who was left in handcuffs for five hours at the jail, then her case was dropped. She will never be the same as will many others who had to witness this frightening travesty,.

Donna Yovino was attacked by SCPD Sgt. LeMoss during an unapproved sting at a West Cliff parking lot authorized by the Santa Cruz City Council in 2009. Donna,60,was seen allegedly smoking marijuana and was chased to her RV by Le Moss. Sgt. LeMoss had a cup of coffee given to him and when the door opened and he forcibly grabbed her by her right upper arm and caused a bruise that lasted over several weeks. See photo. LeMoss threw Ms. Deiss into a parked 280Z and then tossed her to the ground and used his billy club to break her shoulder. Fifty to one hundred people, including children witnessed this attack as it was a Friday night and a favorite place to walk for locals and tourists.

Fourteen years later and after years of physical therapy, Donna is not able to work. She is retired from Mare Island Shipyard when it was closed in 1990. She has been largely unable to use her right arm and shoulder and does not receive SSI or any other compensation. She would like to receive a gofundme account on Facebook. She has no friends and family and has Parkinson's disease, a terminal illness. At 76, she now requires full time at home care.