WOODLAND, Calif. – In Yolo County Superior Court on Monday, Deputy District Attorney Diane Margaret Ortiz pushed to keep a man in custody on probation violations and nonviolent charges, arguing he was a public safety risk. The hearing highlighted a dispute over whether costly monitoring fees should determine pretrial release for someone unemployed and without income.
The accused, facing allegations of probation violation, public intoxication, and stalking, had previously been monitored using SCRAM, an alcohol-detecting device worn on the ankle. Prosecutors argued that once the device was removed, the accused violated probation terms and a no-contact order, and should either be detained or required to pay for SCRAM monitoring again.
Deputy Public Defender Aram Davtyan asked the court for release while the probation matter was pending. Ortiz opposed, citing the accused’s history of violations. She argued that within a week of SCRAM removal, he had gone to his parents’ home against court orders and was found with alcohol in his possession.
Ortiz emphasized that the accused’s actions showed he was a danger to his parents. “The criminal protective order in place means the accused is meant to follow those restrictions for the safety of the parents,” she told the court. She also noted that the stalking charge included allegations that the accused pushed his mother onto the couch, saying the family remained victims even if they permitted him inside the home.
Davtyan countered that nothing showed his client was a public safety risk. He pointed out that SCRAM would be an unfair financial condition of release since the accused was unemployed. “If the court finds that alcohol is a problem, it sounds like a reasonable order for some sort of way to monitor alcohol consumption,” Davtyan said. “But when SCRAM becomes a financial condition of release, especially one that the defendant cannot afford, that in my mind becomes an inappropriate condition.”
Instead, Davtyan urged the court to order randomized alcohol testing without fees. He added that the accused continued to return to his parents’ home because he had no job or housing, and they remained his only source of support. Davtyan noted that, while tensions sometimes escalated and police were called, there was no evidence of serious harm.
Deputy District Attorney Farouq Ghazzawi also weighed in, saying the accused’s father and sister had earlier told the court they had “reached a place of no return.” He suggested the mother’s wishes for her son to return home were inconsistent, influenced by her understandable sympathy for him. He argued the father’s poor health and inability to protect himself made the no-contact order necessary.
The mother, present in court, asked for the order to be modified so her son could see his family and return to work. Davtyan said her position had been consistent and resolute in wanting to help her son.
Davtyan again addressed custody. “It’s easy to say, ‘Well, let’s just figure something out to help him while he’s sitting in jail,’ and that’s kind of the problem that I have,” he said. “He should be released and we can keep figuring out what the best way to move forward is, but he should not remain detained while that happens.”
Judge Clara M. Levers granted pretrial release but left the no-contact order in place. Instead of reinstating SCRAM, she ordered randomized alcohol testing.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
