WOODLAND, Calif. — A dispute over GPS monitoring delayed the release of an accused person facing domestic violence charges during a Nov. 12 felony arraignment in Yolo County Superior Court, prompting a public defender to challenge whether the accused could constitutionally remain in custody because monitoring equipment was unavailable.
Judge Danette Castillo Brown ultimately approved supervised release on the accused’s own recognizance, subject to GPS monitoring and a no-contact order. However, the requirement that the device be installed the following morning raised questions about whether the accused would remain in custody overnight.
The accused faces charges of corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant, felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and felony false imprisonment, along with two sentencing enhancement allegations.
According to allegations discussed during the hearing, the charges arose from an altercation in which the accused allegedly strangled his partner. The prosecution referenced police reports describing injuries and other evidence of alleged domestic violence.
Deputy Public Defender Katie DeAnda challenged the strength of the allegations and argued that the accused’s criminal history did not justify continued detention.
DeAnda requested supervised release on the accused’s own recognizance, emphasizing what she described as a lack of recent felony convictions and violent offenses in the records available to the defense.
She also disputed the allegation of strangulation, arguing that the reported injuries were more consistent with the accused restraining his partner while she was intoxicated.
The defense agreed to a no-contact order and said the accused was willing to live with his brother rather than return to the residence shared with the complaining witness.
Deputy District Attorney Ortiz opposed release without GPS monitoring, citing the alleged conduct and concerns about the complaining witness’s safety.
Ortiz referenced a statement the accused allegedly made to his partner: “If I can’t be with you, no one can.”
The prosecutor argued that the alleged threat, together with the reported injuries and the complaining witness’s account, supported additional restrictions even if there was limited visible evidence of strangulation.
Ortiz also raised concerns about the accused’s criminal history, citing previous domestic violence convictions.
DeAnda disputed the relevance of older convictions and maintained that the records provided to the defense did not establish a recent history of felony violence.
The prosecutor responded by presenting additional criminal history records that reportedly included domestic violence convictions and a prison commitment in 2012.
Ortiz said those records “paint a disturbing picture.”
DeAnda reiterated that her arguments were based on the criminal history information available to the defense and questioned the discrepancies between the records presented by the two sides.
The disagreement over the accused’s prior convictions became central to the court’s consideration of appropriate release conditions.
Ortiz maintained that GPS monitoring was necessary to protect the complaining witness, particularly given the alleged threat and the accused’s reported history of domestic violence.
DeAnda argued that the proposed monitoring requirement was unnecessary in light of the age of the previous convictions and the accused’s willingness to comply with a no-contact order.
A probation officer informed the court that a GPS device could not be installed until the following business day and requested that the accused remain in custody until the equipment became available.
DeAnda objected, arguing that continued detention solely because monitoring equipment was unavailable would violate the accused’s constitutional rights.
The defense maintained that the accused should not be required to remain in jail because of limitations in the resources available to implement the court’s release order.
Ortiz reiterated the prosecution’s concerns about releasing the accused before GPS monitoring could begin, arguing that the delay was necessary to protect the complaining witness.
Brown expressed concern about the criminal history information presented by the prosecution but ultimately authorized supervised release on the accused’s own recognizance.
The judge imposed a no-contact order and required the accused to be fitted with a GPS monitoring device the following morning.
The court also set interim bail at $1,000, according to the courtroom account.
The ruling left the accused subject to supervised release conditions intended to address the prosecution’s safety concerns, while the defense maintained its objection to any additional detention resulting from the unavailability of GPS equipment.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
