DUI arrest follows solo accident on Guadalupe
A graduation celebration ended abruptly for one partygoer late Sunday night when he was arrested after the car he was driving left the road and crashed into a tree in the front yard of a Guadalupe Drive home, Security reported Monday.
The 19-year-old male resident wasn't injured in the crash, which caused “significant damage” to the Honda sedan he was driving, Security Sgt. Jim Bieg said. The driver remained at the scene for an evaluation by the California Highway Patrol that resulted in his arrest for driving under the influence, Bieg said.
A neighbor provided photos of the accident scene.
According to Security, the driver had been a guest at a graduation party in the neighborhood before the accident.
Bieg said a Security patrol officer in the area observed the Honda driving erratically and saw the accident happen when the vehicle attempted a left turn from Guadalupe onto Trinidad Drive. The car overshot the street and landed in the front yard of the house on the corner, which sits below street level.
If landscape shrubbery and a large rock hadn’t deflected the car into the tree, “the vehicle would have absolutely gone into the house,” Bieg said.
I wonder what the CSD policy is concerning the inclusion of names in reports when the offender is of legal age to vote? This incident which involved a 19 year old resident bodes the question of who is running around loose drinking when not of legal age to do so, and driving their car off the road into the yard of a residence. I have to think it’s in the best interest of our membership to know who these morons are.
A wise man once said, “Life is difficult and only becomes more difficult if you are stupid”. The parents of this young fool have a real challenge ahead of them. I wish them good luck as it’s almost impossible to fix stupid.
I do not know the person or persons involved in this accident, and yes, I am concerned that it happened. However, you sir are so grossly inappropriate with your comments that I feel I need to say something. I have not ever commented on this site before (I am using my husband's account) but this time you have crossed the line. The destruction (and quite honestly deafness) that the words you just chose to write are intended only for your own feelings of control or rather lack of self control. To choose to publicly use the words "stupid" and "fool" in referring to someone else especially in referring to a young person, shows such a deficit in your understanding of or ability to respect other people. I would hope that you would please learn to respect others when you are voicing your "opinion"......there is a difference between voicing an opinion and berating another person. Again, I am not saying that I am condoning what happenend with regards to this accident and I am sure that the young man and his famiy are struggling with having to deal with it as it is ....I am however, just asking you to please think twice before you voice.
Woukl Ms Eathorne prefer juvenile delinquent?
Tell me about crossing the line. This young man crossed the line and only through the grace of God did he and the people living in the house he almost hit not suffer injury of death.
I had long a discussion with the home owner this morning and learned the party this young man was attending had at least one adult in attendance plus numerous teenagers. One of those teens went to view the accident scene and when questioned by the homeowner admitted he was at the part and numerous of the other teens attending were drinking. During the CHP investigation the driver blew at least a .02 on the breathalyzer which indicates he was well past the point of being intoxicated. The home owner told me the kid could barely stand up and if the car hadn’t glanced off a tree it would have gone right through their kitchen. In addition the authorities found additional beer and a quart sized fruit jar half full of marijuana in the car. That would lead me to think this young person has crossed the line other times in his life.
Take a look at rm.com re: traffic accidents and see how many incidents we’ve had in our community involving alcohol and driving and maybe you also become tired of seeing people maimed and injured because some fool decided to drink and drive. Security had this person under observation because of his radical driving. He said he lived on the South and was going home. Only because of his accident he didn’t get out on Hwy. 16 and maybe cause a real tragedy by killing someone.
It’s not that I don’t respect people that I’ve made these comments, it’s because I don’t suffer fools lightly and if this young man doesn’t clean up his act quickly he may not live much longer. It’s because I have great respect for human life I go out of my way to comment. I hope he and his family is struggling to deal with this situation so they will all see they have a real problem and take action to do something about it. They should consider themselves lucky they aren’t dealing with the death of their child or some innocent victim of his foolish behavior. It has been my experience that too many people here in Rancho Murieta don’t take our driving rules serious. If the parents don’t lead the way by example, what can we expect from our young people?
Hey Dick -
Your points are very well taken and it's a subject I don't take lightly at all - along with the vandalism, thefts, trash and disrespect of authority that I read about frequently on this and the other online forum.
My feelings aside, did you mean .02 or .20? Any of us could probably blow .02 after a glass of wine or a couple of beers, but .20 is like twice the legal limit. From your description of the homeowner saying the adult child could barely stand up, I'm thinking more likely .20. I know the rules are different for those under 21, but for the rest of us .08 is the legal limit. Or is he still within the age range where ANY alcohol makes him DUI? It's all changed since I was under 21 all these many years ago.
I have commented on Dicks Choice of words in the past but this time I find myself coming to his defense. The actions of this young man and of the homeowner that allowed him to drive in this condition do not deserve the courtesy or respect of tempered words.
Ever seen someone killed by a drunk driver? Ever pried into a vehicle torn to pieces that wreaks of alcohol to get to victims of an alcohol induced wreck? Ever looked at a child on an autopsy slab who was the victim of a drunk driver? Ever watched a family crumble upon learning a drunk had killed their loved one? I have. Thats what I consider improper and offensive. Many other words come to mind as descriptors for this driver. If this young person had ran down the street shooting a gun at people would he deserve respect? A drunk driver is no different. If he is indeed 19 years old he is not a baby that needs to be protected. Sure his actions will be expensive and hopefully lifechanging. But if someones child, a jogger, or a neighbor would have been between that bumper and that tree after the car came to rest would he still qualify for nice descriptors. When you do foolish things that can kill people you deserve to be called a fool.
As I stated in my earlier post....I am not writing about the incident I am simply asking that Mr.Cox please be a bit more controlled in his use of words when speaking publicly. Of course I know how terrible this was and how much more involved and catastrophic it could have been. I also, however, know that as an adult in this community I can be a better example to our youth by choosing my words and my actions carefully. My post was only made to hopefully shed some light on Mr.Cox' innapropriate use of attacking people with his public use of words.
So I'm confused....
1) Security knew a drunken party was going on....okay, they have no powers to do anything.
2) Security usually tells the RP (reporting person) to call SSD to let them know, so did they do that and did anyone call?
3) Security followed this drunken teen, who could barely walk, barely hold his head up and obviously could not drive...they were going to let him drive home on Hwy 16 to the South.
4) I'm positive I've read that Security has stopped DUI drivers before and held them for SSD to show up...why did they not do it this time?
5) What trouble would Security be in had they allowed this kid to drive drunk home on Hwy 16 and this kid killed someone or himself? Would we have another lawsuit against CSD like when the kid died at the Grandless Dam?
And....the "adult" at the party! Now, there's a ____ (not so bright person) who allowed a totally drunken _____ (not so brite) to drive. What were they thinking? So was the "adult"...like 22?...or a parent?
Dick, I believe your statement is accurate and appropriate.
One defintion of "fool" is: a person who lacks judgment or sense, one definition of "moron" is: a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgement. I think moron and fool fits anyone who is plastered and decides to drive.
This adult (sorry son, if you are 18 or older, you are an adult) acted both moronically and foolishly. I'm sure he figured that out when he went to the slammer with the big boys rather than juvenile hall (I'm guessing here).
A couple of years back, "an old fool" (red nose, white guy, beer belly, about 15 years past social security collection age and no, it was not Santa) in a golf cart, coming from the Country Club direction, blew the stop sign, crossing over in front of my vehicle where I had to break hard to keep from hitting him. He then gave the the one fingered salute. Hmmm. Maybe this young mans relative?
A few comments:
Dick, you can't truly be serious about naming someone for a crime that hasn't been proven nor given his day in court. I would hate to see the lawsuits and fees we all would be paying forever if we posted names and pictures we stated were guilty and they were found innocent. That is why this case, and all others should be going through the legal process. That is also exactly why we have courts.
Beth, I seriously doubt security knew who was drinking or how much, in fact they are sitting on a far bigger time bomb at the 19th hole than a 1x a year party. Hell, each week they could probably stop half the community for driving their golf carts drunk.
The fact is the kid messed up, we should all be thankful no lives were lost or people hurt. He will also pay for his lack of judgement but that punishment should be handed out by the system, not us.
Just my two cents worth, everyone enjoy their evening!
Todd, I agree, the 19th Hole is a bigger timebomb. Sad thing is Adults know better but they still do it...Kids don't think about the consequences, they're just having a good time and think they are invincible.
I do realize the information can (is) be posted but that disclosure is usually via the proper channels, i.e, the sac county sheriff or the dot gov side. I believe many different problems emerge if we all start publicly posting pictures and comments that things would quickly get out of control.
My comments and belief are simply let the system do its job. It may not always be perfect but it is built specifically for that purpose. We are not built to burden that responsibility. I say let the professionals (police, fire, courts) do their job, they are very, very good at it.
Besides, the only true purpose of reposting in this community would be to ridicule and harass the kid, this could easily go in a different direction if we start down this path. For example, a wife and kids that were wiped out on the freeway in an accident could be plastered all over the community before people were properly notified etc., I just think it leads us down the wrong path and opens some doors we shouldn't open.
In fact I believe you see the consequence of this path in the numerous and ever more frequent cases of bullying on say Facebook and the consequences that follow. This would be no different. It is exactly what was proposed here on this site, to publicly post and ridicule. It really isnt our job, surely not mine.
Again, just my personal opinion.
Candy Chand posted this on her FB Page this morning. I believe it applies to many of our issue here in Rancho Murieta:
The world can be a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
I truely admire Candy as she is someone who is not afraid to step up, speak her mind and then take action to do something about it. We could use more like her.
You would think that it had to be .20. As stated earlier one beer would make you .02 easily. Very fortunate no one was injured to say the least! I would think that there was some very bad judgement at work here.
Well, sometimes I am moved to say something on different topics - and yes, I have disagreed with Dick Cox a few times - but alas - I agree totally here - it doesn't matter what age you are - this is something that is totally stupid - if the person was a responsibile person - they would have called someone to pick them up period.
It takes a responsible person that will recognize they have had a bit too much and they will turn their keys over and get a ride. There is absolutely no excuses - age doesn't matter - people need to take responsibility for their own actions period! Thank goodness there wasn't anyone injured in this foolishness, but it was something that could have been avoided. IF That person would have taken responsibility for themselves and asked for a ride.
To see the damage and heart ache that a drunken driver causes is beyond measure - and it is something that could have been avoided. What I do know is that if this was my kid, they wouldn't see the light of day and I would tell the judge to throw the book at them - however, this kid was 19! this one is old enough to vote and to join the service and fight for their country. That means that this kid can take responsiblity for his actions and clean up his act.
So, I read what you wrote elsewhere the other day, someone pointed it out to me:
DUI stops are really a non-issue. CSD security officers, are covered by the district's insurance and policy guidelines, for misdemeanor arrests like DUI's. Some are inclined to suggest our security officers have less powers than the board is willing to permit, that is not so. Our security officers are permitted to make any misdemeanor / felony arrest as deemed lawful per state law. That includes most alcohol related offenses, including DUI's within the CSD boundaries. Please attend one of our monthly security meetings if you need more information, or for some unforeseen reason, disagree. I would be happy to explain it to you.
Rancho Murieta Community Services Distirict
It sure does give the impression that our security officers can make stops for DUIs, and that they suffer no liability in doing so. And that they can actually make arrests in general for this.
I think it would be nice if Director Mobley would clarify the following....
1) Do our security officers have legal authority, to make a vehicle stop if they know that a driver is intoxicated? What is the criteria for knowing?
2) Do our security officers have legal authority, to make a vehicle stop if they only suspect that a driver is intoxicated? What is the criteria for suspicion?
3) What legal liabilities do the officers have (for them and for the district) if they s/he makes a stop, and the driver wasn't drunk, but, say, was distracted by texting on their phone, giving the appearance of being drunk?
4) What legal liabilities do the officers have (for them and for the district) if they s/he makes a stop, and the driver was actually drunk, but, the SSD or CHP can't get out here becuase they are too busy. In this case, the arrest can't be made (since our officers, unless I am mistaken, can't do that, and thus we have detainment with no arrest). Or, similarly, what if these officers do come out, and it's the end of their shift, and they decide not to arrest the individual since the driver may have sobered up by then, or the officer doesn't feel like doing the paperwork that night (and don't tell me that doesn't happen).
I do not understand your sentence: Some are inclined to suggest our security officers have less powers than the board is willing to permit, that is not so.
.....unless something earth shattering has evolved while I haven't been paying attention, your board has absolutetly no authority to grant them powers, you all saw to that several years ago. They are security guards, with no legal authority to detain, and no legal powers outside of citizens' arrests in general throughout the District, and the District covers them in very limited circumstances (which are covered in security policy 2008-05, though perhaps there is something more recent?).
In fact, that policy states: "The Security Chief, Security Sergeant, Security Patrol Officers and Security Gate Officers are not peace officers, and except in limited circumstances authorized by the Security Code [e.g. specifically on CSD propery only], are not responsible for and shall not engage in any law enforcement activities, including but not limited to: chasing, apprehending or detaining suspected criminals; investigating criminal acts; or enforcing state or county laws, including traffic regulations."
So, Director Mobley, can you please explain exactly what authority and liabilities our officers have when they see someone actually driving drunk? I understand that citizen's arrests are authorized when life or substantial bodily injury is at risk, but how does that work under these limiations and liabilities, stopping someone that is driving when they are suspected of driving drunk? I'm thinking that before this motel goes in, it might be a good idea to have all of this clarified?