By Mariel Barbadillo
On October 28, 2016, Judge Janene Beronio presided over the trial of the People v. Maria Vargas and Jorge Vargas. The co-defendants are charged with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. Mr. Vargas also faces a charge of using force or violence to resist an executive officer, pursuant to California Penal Code section 69.
After two weeks of witness testimony, Deputy DA Frits van der Hoek delivered a closing argument on behalf of the prosecution. He stressed that the People need only prove particular elements of the case for the defendants to be found guilty of resisting arrest. Other aspects, such as the officers’ use of force, are irrelevant to the case at bar.
The charge of Ms. Vargas resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer is undisputed. Ms. Vargas testified to blocking the door to the house when Sergeant Hector Bautista and Deputy Gary Hallenbeck, both of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office asked her to move as they searched for an assault suspect, Augustin Vargas.
The suspect was on searchable probation. Ms. Vargas argued that the officers were deputy sheriffs, not probation officers, so she believed they did not have the right to search the home.
The prosecution rebutted that the officers were in the lawful performance of their duty, so it was obstructive to disobey their orders, despite Ms. Vargas’ belief that she was right to do so.
The charges against Mr. Vargas, on the other hand, are disputed. The prosecution alleges that he “willfully and unlawfully touched Dep. Hallenbeck in a harmful or offensive manner,” grabbing and punching the officer. The defendant argues that is not what happened.
The prosecution urged the jury to evaluate the officers according to the “reasonableness” of their actions in a tense, rapidly evolving situation. The deputies knew there had been issues at the Vargas house in the past: the occupants are on probation for possession of methamphetamine, and their car was allegedly involved in a shooting.
On March 8, 2015, the officers involved in this case got a call about an assault. The victim, “AR,” reported that the suspect tried to run him off the road. When they came to a stop, the suspect punched AR in the face. AR’s wife identified the perpetrator and authorized a private person’s arrest.
The deputies confirmed that the suspect was on searchable probation, so they did not require permission to search the home. The prosecution emphasized that their attempted search was not only reasonable, but also required, given the criminal allegations.
When the deputies arrived at the Vargas home, the garage door was open. They saw two individuals walking toward the side door, and one of the individuals was seen putting his hand in his pocket.
The officers took out their guns and entered the garage, which the prosecution said was a reasonable mode of entrance. Since it was an open garage, and the officers were in full uniform, the prosecution stated the circumstances did not necessitate the typical “knock and announce.”
In fact, the prosecution argued that notifying the individuals of their entrance would have been “dangerous, futile,” or would have led to the destruction of evidence. It was later found that the individual did not have a weapon in his pocket, but rather methamphetamine and a pipe.
People began to exit the house and the deputies were outnumbered. According to the deputies, people were advancing and shouting profanities at them.
At this point, Ms. Vargas opened the door to the garage and told the officers they needed a warrant. The officers told her they were looking for the assault suspect. She then allegedly turned her head towards the door and yelled, “Augustin’s not here!”
Mr. van der Hoek once again emphasized that Ms. Vargas knew the officers were sheriff’s deputies, that they were there to search the house, and she blocked them after being told multiple times to move.
The prosecution stated that those actions alone make her guilty, and that anything that happened afterwards is irrelevant because it does not make her “unguilty.”
The subsequent events the prosecution referred to include Sgt. Bautista grabbing Ms. Vargas, pushing her against a nearby table, and then taking her to the ground and straddling her. Ms. Vargas suffered a lip wound as a result of the force.
Mr. van der Hoek claimed the use of force was justified, but if the jury were to find that the officers’ actions were unreasonable, he said that would be a separate case that should be handled at another time.
He went on to say that the defense tried to paint the deputies as angry and wanting to “crack heads.” However, the violent altercation did not involve the suspect they intended to search. Mr. van der Hoek stated, “If they went to crack heads, that’s the head they would have cracked.”
The suspect eventually exited the house and did not resist arrest.
Mr. Vargas, who was drunk at the time, said, “You’re not going to handcuff me.” The defendant claimed he had his hands up in a surrendering manner, but Dep. Hallenbeck said his hands were up in a defensive manner, as if preparing to fight.
The officer then used his Taser on Mr. Vargas. The prosecution contended this course of action was necessary, as the defendant would not “calm down.”
The prosecution and defense will complete their closing arguments on October 31 at 9AM, after which the jury will deliberate.
