WOODLAND, Calif. — During an arraignment hearing in Yolo County Superior Court, Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang and Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira disputed whether there was sufficient probable cause to detain a person accused of making felony criminal threats online, drug possession and related enhancements. The defense argued prosecutors failed to establish that the online account belonged to the accused and contended the detention was unjust because arresting officers lacked sufficient probable cause for the arrest.
While the complaining witness wished to remain anonymous, the defense argued the accusation alone did not provide probable cause for the accused’s arrest.
Judge Danette C. Brown had a copy of the police report, in which a Yolo County police officer’s signature could potentially serve as witness testimony in addition to providing evidence of probable cause. DPD Sequeira stated the court was not permitted to review the police report and argued it should be stricken from the case file.
In addition to questioning the basis for identification, DPD Sequeira argued the officer whose signature appeared on the report was neither the dispatching nor arresting officer and therefore could not establish probable cause in the case against the accused.
According to the defense, officers failed to obtain witness testimony identifying the accused before the arrest, making the grounds for detention unjustified. However, DDA Tzang disagreed and stated witness testimony was sufficient to establish the accused as the owner of the account and argued that additional individuals connected to the witness would support the claim that the accused owned the online account.
DDA Tzang asked the court to impose bail according to California’s bail schedule, which the defense argued would be unjust because the accused suffers from substance abuse issues and would be unable to post bail at this time. Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution establishes that bail should be reasonable and attainable for the accused unless there are specific circumstances under which bail should be revoked.
Additionally, DDA Tzang asked the court to revoke the accused’s own recognizance release. Judge Brown replied that own recognizance supervision would remain under the jurisdiction of parole officers.
Judge Brown stated the accused was not found to be a danger to the public.
According to DPD Sequeira, probable cause had not been established before the accused’s arrest, and the court was unable to show proof connecting the accused to the online account allegedly used to make the threats. To address the alleged parole violation, Judge Brown issued a stay-away order protecting the victim, and bail will be addressed at the next hearing.
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.
