By Danielle Eden C. Silva
In Department 8, the Honorable David W. Reed presided over the preliminary hearing of a co-defendant burglary and vandalism case. Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin represented the People, Deputy Public Defender Karen Soell represented Marcus Daniel Tafoya and Conflict Counsel Rodney Beede represented Daniel C. Slover.
The prosecution called their only witness to the stand, Officer Josette Fair of the Woodland Police Department.
On March 22, 2018, Officer Fair had been dispatched to the Woodland Gas Plaza. The owner of the business met with the testifying officer there, noting he had discovered the burglary and vandalism before immediately calling the police. When Officer Fair arrived, the bottom and top of the entry door was broken. Broken glass and unopened packages of Marlboro cigarettes had been scattered across the ground. Inside, she noted a bent, 6-foot pipe and a medium size rock. Inside, cigarettes and liquor were recorded as missing.
Officer Fair and two other officers watched the surveillance video. The owner had noted to them the time on the video was three hours off. As each officer watched a different angle, Officer Fair could see glass shattered from a camera inside the store. A subject walked in wearing a black Mardi Gras mask, a dark colored jacket, black trunks with grey leggings underneath, and gloves. The subject’s face was completely covered save for the eyes. The officer noted the body structure of the subject to be male.
After the subject entered, he jumped over the front counter, selected cigarettes and liquor, and left through the broken glass door. Outside, a tan Buick pulled into camera view, with its license plate number visible. The vehicle had been parked in the parking lot and pulled up to the subject. The subject spoke with someone in the car from the passenger seat. The driver was a male wearing a white shirt. After speaking, the subject went back into the store and the driver went back to the parking spot, turning off the headlights.
Later, another officer would stop a car at 12:40 am. Officer Fair contacted the arresting officer and the two individuals in the back seat of the police car, seeing Mr. Tafoya and Mr. Slover, whom she identified in court. She testified that Mr. Tafoya was the driver and Mr. Slover the passenger. Inside the car, a Hennessey liquor bottle was found under the driver’s seat and several packages of unopened Marlboro cigarettes. In the black backpack in the passenger seat, a black jacket, unopened Marlboro packages, a wallet, black gloves, and a multi-colored handkerchief were found. Mr. 
Slover at the time was wearing black trunk shorts and grey leggings underneath.
In addition to contacting the individuals, Officer Fair was told by the owner that Mr. Tafoya worked at the Gas Plaza and the employer had lost contact with his employee. She had been following up with the owner and had yet to know about the amount for the broken door, but she estimated over $400. The defense objected on the grounds of non-responsive and speculation, but the court overruled. No exact amount had been recorded of what was stolen.
In cross-examination with Mr. Beede, Officer Fair clarified the owner had said three hours discrepancy in the surveillance video, but really the time was either off by three hours and 15 minutes or two hours and 15 minutes. The time on the video said 2:15 am in the morning of the year 2018. If the act was three hours before, it must have happened at 11:15 pm. She also confirmed the backpack in the Buick closely resembled the backpack in the video. The lighting did not obscure it from her view either, as the area was well lit. The handkerchief in the backpack, however, did not match with the mask in the video. All the cigarette packages were Marlboro.
Officer Fair shared that she was the primary officer and had yet to receive a report of the exact amount stolen. She did know that the Hennessey liquor bottle was sold at $45 and was found in the car underneath the driver’s seat.
Ms. Soell took over cross-examination by confirming the time, but she also laid out a timeline for the court: she noted that Officer Fair had been dispatched after midnight and the car found around 1 am. By the time the subject approached the car, the entrance to the store had already been broken and the subject had already been inside. The surveillance video offered no audio but the subject was seen walking away, not getting into the car. Mr. Slover is not seen in the car until two hours later when the Buick was stopped for suspicious driving. Officer Fair explained that, because all the businesses were closed at night, no one should be driving by. She also noted that more information could be shared but her supplemental report had yet to be approved by a supervisor.
In the last bits of the witness’ testimony, Officer Fair shared that the business had been closed during the break in, Mr. Tafoya shared that the Buick belonged to his father, no one had been in the passenger seat, and, in the video, the car had pulled up parallel to the broken door, with the passenger seat closest.
With Officer Fair excused, Ms. Serafin argued that Mr. Slover was obviously the subject who broke into the establishment and then went to another location. Mr. Tafoya was the driver for Mr. Slover, going so far as to park and turn off his headlights, which made him an aider and abetter. Additionally, both were found in the tan Buick at the time of the stop.
Mr. Beede argued that whatever covered the burglar’s face was not found in the backpack, and the value owed to the store was not clarified. The business had not been completely vandalized and the costs, even with the officer’s speculation, were no more than $500.
Ms. Soell joined in Mr. Beede’s argument, pointing out the delay in time with no indication the suspect had gotten into the Buick. She also requested the charges be lowered to misdemeanors, as Mr. Tafoya is young, has no prior criminal activity, and has complied thus far with the court’s demands.
Ms. Serafin said that Mr. Slover’s prior criminal record should prevent him from having his charges reduced, but Mr. Tafoya could have his reduced to misdemeanors. However, Mr. Tafoya worked at the Gas Plaza and may have instigated the burglary and vandalism through providing the means.
The court ruled that both defendants would have their vandalism charges changed to misdemeanors, but the burglary charges remain as felonies. Arraignment is to be held on May 8 at 9 am in Department 8.
