anti-drug meeting follow-up

[LisaT]

So, just as I suspected: http://www.ranchomurieta.com/node/2487

Just a couple of comments:

Request #2 on the list was

2. Give peace officer status with the power to arrest to CSD security personnel.

It's always interesting to note that the discussion goes straight to the cost of running a full time police department. There are other options, and why doesn't CSD make sure that the community knows that they have empowered qualified csd personnel to have the powers of arrest of a peace officer when the crime is committed in the officer's presence. Seems like one of the strategic goals of the csd is always to be educating the public. It's clear from the list that the community is not clear on the security powers that csd does have.

Furthermore, there are other options than a full time police force, and until those are at least acknowledged, discussed, perhaps even costed out, then you know that none of this is being taken seriously.

There was mention in the rm.com article regarding getting more sheriffs patrols in the area, and some people seeing more in the area. As Wilbur has mentioned, they are not going to increase their presence out here. Even if the county increased the tax in the unincorporated area for more sheriff, RM isn't going to see the increase. I guess I would suspect, if anyone has seen more out here, it's because they are covering for the patrol officers that have left?

Chief Remson did mention the alcohol oridnance, but I guess the niether the chief nor the board feel that the marijuana ordiance should be pursued? I believe that that was a specific goal -- to give the officers out here the tools that they need?

[Wilbur]

This reminds me that just before Labor Day I obtained a copy of the relevant CSD ordinances. I found to my slight surprise that they are drafted in the most expansive way, and purport to authorize CSD officers to make arrests for violations of any state law committed in their presence.

Now, that the ordinance was drafted in the broadest way imaginable under the PC and Govt Code does not necessarily mean that CSD and their counsel are absolutely confident that their authority runs that far. They may very well be hung up on some of the things that have been hanging me up about the outer limits of that power.

But woof is definitely right that there already exists some existing arrest power, of debatable scope, as to offenses committed in the presence of the officer. If the power claimed by the existing ordinance to arrest for violations of the state codes is valid and enforceable as a PC 836.5 arrest power, I'm not sure a local marijuana ordinance wouild add anything to that power, and in fact it might add complications because of the collateral issue of preemption of local ordinances by state codes and things appellate courts have mumbled about local govts not being empowered to write their own "cloned" mirror-image ordinances matching the state codes.

This stuff is thorny and I am fairly confident that the reasons nobody is steaming full speed ahead go beyond "we don't wanna."

But woof IS right about this: CSD might not have to go full expense of creating a police department to be able to write pot tickets or arrest for drunk in disorderly. Whether it is sound public policy, what the legal obstacles might be and what it would cost to go this lesser route are matters which should be the subject of further public debate, and although it's not at the top of my own list, I'm glad some folks are persisting about it, keeping the question alive and prodding for answers.

[Wilbur]

From the security log Karen posted tonight:

2320 DISTURBANCE / RMCC / INITIAL REPORT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE / VICTIM WAS NOT ASSAULTED / VICTIM WAS UNCONSCIOUS DUE TO EXCESS ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION / SMFD STATION 59 & 58 ON SCENE / SUSPECT INTOXICATED / STRUCK SEVERAL RMCC PATRONS AND EMPLOYEES / TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND TRANSPORTED TO JAIL FOR PUBLIC INTOXICATION

I don't see any mention of SSD. Did RMCSD Security make the pinch themselves? Still trying to get a handle on just what arrest or citation powers they currently are allowed to exercise, as distinguished from what theoretically is authorized on paper.

BTW Why is it that we don't have a big crusade to do something about the epidemic of assaultive drunken adults in our community?

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

BTW Why is it that we don't have a big crusade to do something about the epidemic of assaultive drunken adults in our community?

I think it has something to do with a guy named pot calling his friend kettle black.

[Mama Mia]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

From the security log Karen posted tonight:

I don't see any mention of SSD. Did RMCSD Security make the pinch themselves?

SSD " made the pinch".....they had a unit out here.

[DBCooper]

Shame works sometimes. I think for drunks who get so out of control they require our local finest to become involved that they should snap their pic, get their address and publish them on the web and in the RVT.

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

This reminds me that just before Labor Day I obtained a copy of the relevant CSD ordinances. I found to my slight surprise that they are drafted in the most expansive way, and purport to authorize CSD officers to make arrests for violations of any state law committed in their presence.......

Wow, don't they say on rm.com all the time, and in the Pipeline that the officers only have the power of a citizen's arrest?

I believe that for drunk and disorderly, csd detains until they are transported for "care and custody" (i.e. the drunk tank).

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Whether it is sound public policy, what the legal obstacles might be and what it would cost to go this lesser route are matters which should be the subject of further public debate, and although it's not at the top of my own list, I'm glad some folks are persisting about it, keeping the question alive and prodding for answers.

It seems to be that the board, gm, whomever have been making these decisions for the community, rather than opening up these issues for public debate. These should be community issues and community decisions.

Once growth begins outside of the gates, and all the different homeowners associations proliferate inside the gates, some of these issues will become huge and we'll wonder why no one has been thinking and preparing for this -- why there has been no leadership, or conversations about the processes that are involved. If we are going to incur some costs, or lengthy approval processes, seems to me, that we should be open about that, and preparing for the future, looking at available grants, etc. instead of reacting once something gets out of control.

Originally Posted by Wilbur

I don't see any mention of SSD. Did RMCSD Security make the pinch themselves? Still trying to get a handle on just what arrest or citation powers they currently are allowed to exercise, as distinguished from what theoretically is authorized on paper.

BTW Why is it that we don't have a big crusade to do something about the epidemic of assaultive drunken adults in our community?

That's a good question....I wonder how many csd resources are used by responding to such calls? I suspect a fair amount. I believe that the last csd officer that was injured on the job was responding to a dui.

SSD officers are out here often to cover shifts that can't be filled when csd isn't fully staffed (or at special events, etc.). I also think that often, even when csd officers are the ones that made contact and took suspects into custody, they are often not mentioned in public reports, articles, etc.

[Lisa]

Where does CSD geographically have jurisdiction over security? Will they have jurisdiction over a school if built at Stonehouse? Do the have jurisdiction over the current school? How about the other direction? Do they have jurisdiction upto the county line?

[LisaT]

Good question.

I know that CSD patrols the businesses.

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Lisa

Where does CSD geographically have jurisdiction over security? Will they have jurisdiction over a school if built at Stonehouse? Do the have jurisdiction over the current school? How about the other direction? Do they have jurisdiction upto the county line?

Not to the county line, in fact not very far East from what is now developed.

I know I've seen a map up somewhere but can't find it on CSD's site right now.

From faulty memory alone, I believe their jurisdiction extends on the South side of the highway along the river from where their offices and wastewater plant are to at least the edge of the Equestrian Center. Meaning that the shopping center, Village, and big empty field where developers dream of plopping another shopping center etc. are all within their service area and patrol jurisdiction. I'm fuzzy on whether some or all of the equestrian center and the fields just beyond the FAA building are already within the boundary. I'm pretty sure part or all of John Sullivan's proposal to develop in that corner was going to require a change in the CSD and County's Urban Services Boundary (both of which seem long shots to me).

On the North the District encompasses all of the current RMA plus the PTF properties behind them. I don't believe the Van Vleck land to the East is within the District. The Northern edge of the North doesn't quite extend to Latrobe road. Stonehouse road is the Western edge boundary. as I recall, so that the proposed Stonehouse site on Paul's land is outside the boundary while the Escuela site is within it. That's party of why water and sewer are sticky issues playing a quiet but important role in the politics of those land donations and negotiations. Landowners on the perimeter are tugging on the CSD and Urban Services boundaries like they were blankets on a cold night.

Wish I could find that derned map....