Yolo County DA Jeff Reisig had a big moment on Wednesday when he announced, flanked by law enforcement leaders, that the FBI had joined with “local and state law enforcement to disrupt coordinated criminal activity centered in Woodland.”
US Attorney McGregor Scott (yes, the same McGregor Scott who investigated the Picnic Day incident) yesterday announced the arrest “of 18 federal defendants on narcotics and weapons-related charges as part of a multi-agency law enforcement investigation into coordinated criminal activity in Woodland, California.”
He was joined by, among others: FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Scott Kernan, Woodland Chief of Police Luis Soler, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, and Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto.
According to a release, early on Wednesday “a coalition of local, state and federal law enforcement officers conducted 69 searches pursuant to federal warrants and parole or probation search conditions at various locations throughout Northern California. Officers arrested 18 individuals on charges alleged in six separate federal indictments and one federal criminal complaint that were unsealed today.”
U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott stated, “Today’s operation is the result of a months-long endeavor involving federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to disrupt coordinated criminal activity that, although centered in Yolo County, spread to several other Northern California counties. This operation demonstrates how federal law enforcement can join forces with our state and 
local partners to make our communities safer and stop illegal guns and drugs from flooding our streets.”
“The FBI is committed to joining forces with our state and local partners to effectively combat the gang and drug-related violence that plagues our communities,” said Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan of the FBI Sacramento Field Office. “Our shared goal is stopping gang violence, getting drugs and weapons off the streets, and helping to bring justice to the victims of crimes committed in our communities. Today’s arrests demonstrate the strength of successful law enforcement collaboration and highlight our shared commitment to the public we serve.”
They called this “Operation Silent Night.”
“Over the last several years, many of the defendants who were arrested today and their associates have plagued Yolo County with their criminal activity. This operation has helped to disable their organization at its most basic level and will hopefully have positive long term impacts on public safety,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig.
At the press conference, he said, this was “a violent criminal street gang that has plagued much of the region and frankly reached across the nation.
“Guns, drugs and violence are the trademarks of this gang, and members of this gang have used those guns and weapons to assault and kill their enemies and even to kill innocent civilians,” he said.
One of the poster children cases was the death of 41-year-old Ronald Antonio, whose picture he held up. However, as the Vanguard has reported, at least one of the convicted defendants in that case is likely wrongly convicted.
While this sounds like an impressive operation, bear in mind that it bears striking similarities to the 2012 Operation Red Sash.
At that time, the Yolo Narcotic Enforcement Team (YONET), in a multi-jurisdiction effort led by, among others, the California Department of Justice, claimed 18 arrests which they said would disrupt a criminal gang network.
During the operation, which began in November 2011, YONET agents served 12 state arrest warrants and 16 state search warrants in the West Sacramento, Sacramento and Roseville areas. The investigation resulted in 18 arrests, 4 guns, body armor, a stun gun, and drugs.
“Operation Red Sash” targeted mid-level to high-level members who were distributers of illegal narcotics, according to the release.
They write, “Several of the members identified in this investigation are probationers, six are on parole, and several are validated gang members from Norteño, Northern Riders or Broderick Boys criminal street gangs.”
Two years later, in April of 214, the operation was an unmitigated failure.
Almost immediately, there seemed to be problems. Locals familiar with a lot of the people arrested told the Vanguard that most of the individuals were not active gang members. Some of them dealt drugs, but they were mainly dealing to support their own personal habits.
Gang affiliations at best were old, in some cases going back decades. This was not the major case it was billed as.
In a multi-defendant trial, a jury basically cleared most of the co-defendants. The jurors would find all four co-defendants not guilty of any of the gang-related charges. The only charges upheld were against defendants Wayne Lewis and Robert Montoya for selling and conspiring to sell drugs to undercover YONET agents, Gary Richter and Ryan Bellamy.
When the Vanguard asked one juror why they decided on the acquittal, he said, “There was just not enough evidence to pin the gang enhancements to the drug sales, it left us with a gap for reasonable doubt.”
Because of the size of that case, the DA’s office was originally going to try it in three parts, but they never got past the first group.
Will Operation Silent Night prove more successful than Operation Red Sash? Or is this simply an election year ploy by the DA to reinforce his gang fight credentials in a county of modest crime rates?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Will Operation Silent Night prove more successful than Operation Red Sash? Or is this simply an election year ploy by the DA to reinforce his gang fight credentials in a county of modest crime rates?”
This is an important question in the first year in which DA Reisig has a credible opponent for the DA position since 2006. Recommend checking both candidates histories and web sites for more information about their positions and philosophies.
Reisig will never get a fair shake from the Vanguard, last week he was being questioned for releasing gang members in the Kenmore case and this week he’s being ridiculed for going after gang members.
How does the saying go? Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I think voters see through this and appreciate that Reisig is going after “gang violence, getting drugs and weapons off the streets, and helping to bring justice to the victims of crimes committed in our communities.”
Unfortunately you’ve insisted on mischaracterizing my comment last week. I found it intereesting that they chose to outright dismiss the charges rather than attempt to get the co-defendants to plead to a lesser charge. That wasn’t a criticism, it was an honest question. Some of the defense attorneys have told me they had nothing to really charge them with, but they did get a grand jury indictment, so while I find it interesting, I again ask that question. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question.
I also don’t think its unreasonable to question this operation after Red Sash went so badly for all involved really.
I wrote:
David wrote:
David wrote last week:
Now that sounds like David is questioning the DA’s decision to release the gang members to me. What am I mischaracterizing?
Except that I’m not questioning their decision in the sense of second-guessing it, I’m questioning their decision in the sense of not understanding why they arrived at the decision.
It’s not like, oh man, he should be charging them. It’s oh, I wonder why they completely dropped the charges rather than trying to squeeze out a lesser charge.
I know there is legitimate cause for the raids and yes, it is real, actually really scary to know this stuff goes on.
But I also know that the details, how many people, who, etc, actually innocent or guilty, will not be available for public til trial if it comes to that? And again, we don’t ever really know all the details even in trial, as I have learned in past.
What I can say is that I do believe this operation is probably far more legitimate than “Operation Red Sash,” simply by what evidence unfolded during trial of Red Sash, as I covered that trial in 2014. This involves no way means we should discredit law enforcement efforts in doing their job. Or slandor them for taking down bad people.
What does concern me, however, is the DA’s misleading the public, linking these raids to recently convicted, Justin Gonzalez and his case thru media outlets.
The added stress on an already devastated young man and family serves no purpose and will ultimately cost our county.
Just a thought, but it does raise a question of whether or not the timing of DA re-election contributed in part to the timing of the raids? We dont have proof either way.
If it’s true this operation has been in the making 2 years and we have confiscated drugs, guns, murder for hire knowledge , we at least have proof of legitimately done raids.
If Gang relation is alledged, it must be proven or disproved by attorneys on both sides. Too early yet to say..
But in conclusion, at the end of the day, you still have bad things going on amongst bad people, right. It is still criminal activity that we must take serious and support the stopping of, in the right ways, of course.
In regards to Justin Gonzalez conviction, I implore the public to give his appellate lawyer the chance to exonerate him without bias or belief of publicly misleading information and/or opinion.
I will always stand behind the innocent, be it a defendant wrongfully accused or convicted and I know both have been wrongfully accused.
IMHO…
” I will always stand behind the innocent, be it a defendant or a cop wrongfully accused or convicted and I know both have been wrongfully accused.”
Edited this part, it left out part of statement.
Keith
I would pose the question,” Is he doing this in the most cost effective manner for the citizens of this county?”. It is important to bear in mind that every time there is a trial in which the prosecution is unable to prove its case, this is a potential waste of tax payer money. Every time there is a large “sting” type operation that is not productive, that is also a waste of money. I do not doubt DA Reisig’s good intentions, however, I do believe that it is completely valid to question whether or not a different approach, more in alignment with the majority of counties and with the majority of Yolo County residents might provide equal or greater public safety at less cost.
In addition to wasting taxpayer money, you’re disrupting the lives of people that are struggling to begin with. It’s one thing if they are involved in serious criminal activity.
David
That too. I just wanted to stress that there is a little “c” conservative reason as well as a liberal reason for questioning whether the current DA’s office is most effectively serving the people of the county.
Dear Mr. O,
Um. Like “Constitution”, yes?
If there’s anyone who should be questioned as much as anyone, it’s a County’s DA. If there’s a very obvious example of a similar operation that failed, it’s the duty of any journalistic entity – whether it’s a vanguard or an enterprise or a bee or a democrat – to bring that to the Universe, ‘specially – as my Nagymama Klein Ilona used to say – “… egy választási évben” (in an election year.).
Howard
I am not sure what poster you believe has an “anyone but Reisig” stance. Since there are only two of us here, I am making the assumption that you are referring to me. All that I have stated is that I recommend strongly looking at the positions of both men. True, I have my preference but that is based on actions and positions of both candidates, not a condemnation of anyone.
Reisig has been involved in some beneficial changes for the county especially in the area of youth justice. He remains an outlier in terms of “overcharging” and seeking prolonged sentencing compared with other DAs.
His opponent Dean Johansson has experience as both a prosecutor and as a defender and a different philosophy of crime prevention, charging and sentencing.
Both views are worth considering prior to voting. Which is all I have said ,although it is true from my previous postings that there is little doubt which approach I personally prefer.
I “self-moderated”, as I realized a tad too late, that I had over-stated. If anyone knows if there is a laptop app that has an automatic 2 minute warning pause, before a post is “recognized”, please give me the link…
Am pretty sure others could benefit from such a feature, as well… bottom line, my post is in “the bit-bucket”, by my own hand… can we move on?
“can we move on?”
I can.
It is important to remember that while the entire (mostly rural) “County” and South East Davis streets with mostly million dollar homes have “modest crime rates” but the neighborhoods in Woodland and West Sac with lots of gang members have “high crime rates”.
When David writes “Is it Real?” I’m wondering if he thinks the DA is lying about having a raid or lying about arresting gang members (and does he have any evidence that a raid didn’t happen or that the people arrested were not in a gang)…
P.S. Looking at the DA’s hairdo I’m wondering if he was a Vanilla Ice fan in the early 90’s
Look again at the Operation Red Sash. They purported it to be mid to high level gang members. What they actually hit were people long out of the game who were still using or even small time drug dealers. When I ask – is it real – that’s what I’m asking.
Ken A
“the neighborhoods in Woodland and West Sac with lots of gang members have “high crime rates”.”
Acknowledged. However, there is still the question of the best approach to addressing gang activity and whether or not the ” good guy vs bad guy” ( direct quote from Citizen’s Academy, not some liberal interpretation) focus of the current DA is the best approach to the reduction of gang related crime. Given the “success” rate so far, I would think consideration of a different approach might be warranted.
I’m not a big fan of the DA (or his new hairstyle) but since most hard working poor people living in poor areas surrounded by gang members can’t afford to move to a home on a street of million dollar homes in South East Davis or even a modest half million dollar home in Old East Davis I’m wondering if Tia can let us know what her “different approach” would do to reduce the crime in areas with lots of gang members (and tell us if she would ever actually arrest any gang members).
I was wondering the same thing Ken A.
Maybe if one just sat down with gang members and reasoned with them and told them that their life choices are wrong and they need to change everything will come up roses.
Part of my problem is a lot of the people they end up calling gang members, aren’t really gang members.
Ken A
I have no approach at all. I’m a doctor, not a lawyer or expert of any kind in our justice system. What I am suggesting is that everyone pay attention to the positions/approaches of both candidates. I am stressing this because when tabling, I have encountered many people from Yolo County who either do not know who the current DA is, were unaware that there was an election for DA or are unfamiliar with the first candidate in opposition since 2006. I happen to believe that name recognition is not necessarily the best way to make a decision about who would best serve the county as DA and so am encouraging people to educate themselves.
I will be happy to share a general approach from medicine that I think might be applicable. Primary prevention is always ( yes, always ) more cost effective than treatment). I suspect the same may be true for gang membership and related crime. I have yet to meet or even hear of a local gang member who is highly educated and still involved in street crime. So, I would think that encouraging youth to stay in school rather than expelling or incarcerating for minor infractions might be one positive step.
Here’s an example for Keith…
Operation Red Sash what they said when arrested: ““Operation Red Sash” targeted mid-level to high-level members who were distributers of illegal narcotics, according to the release. They would write, “Several of the members identified in this investigation are probationers, six are on parole, and several are validated gang members from Norteño, Northern Riders or Broderick Boys criminal street gangs.”
When they went to trial: “The jurors would find all four co-defendants not guilty of any of the gang-related charges. The only charges upheld were against defendants Wayne Lewis and Robert Montoya for selling and conspiring to sell drugs to undercover YONET agents, Gary Richter and Ryan Bellamy.”
The point in question: who is a gang member and what are they doing?
Even more interesting…
I know what it is to get your parking ‘validated’… I understand how your/my CV is subject to ‘validation’…
Do not understand the term in this thread’s context… membership cards, ‘validated’ by the gangs?
Am thinking, not the latter…
Meant as honest question of what “validation” means in the context quoted…
[and don’t expect anyone except the quoted one, to answer]
2.18. Criteria To Determine Gang Profile: A subject can be entered into the CALGANG® database when two of the following criteria are found through investigation, coupled with the officers training and expertise. The only single criteria approved for entry is an in-custody jail classification interview:
2.18.1. Subject has admitted to being a gang member.
2.18.2. Subject has been arrested with known gang members for offenses consistent with gang activity.
2.18.3. Subject has been identified as a gang member by a reliable informant/source.
2.18.4. Subject has been identified as a gang member by an untested informant.
2.18.5. Subject has been seen affiliating with documented gang members.
2.18.6. Subject has been seen displaying gang symbols and/or hand signs.
2.18.7. Subject has been seen frequenting gang areas.
2.18.8. Subject has been seen wearing gang dress.
2.18.9. Subject is known to have gang tattoos.
2.18.10. In custody Classification interview. (All others require two criteria).
See problems with the “in-custody jail classification interview”, and the CV of all of the other ‘testimony’, but, thank you for the criteria… had no clue…
Obvious questions… “seen by whom”? “known by whom”?
It’s very subjective. Also while Calgang’s criteria are two points, some jurisdictions require three points to validate. There is also little oversight and hard to get your name removed.
Thank you again… figured out the “subjective” part, but am concerned about “who” makes those subjective ‘judgements’…
It is the police officers and gang detectives.
More than somewhat disturbing, not knowing about the individuals who make those “calls”… don’t expect you to know those answers… and, if someone knew, they probably could not ‘tell’.
Looks like it could either be ‘fact based’, or completely ‘arbitrary/biased’, and anywhere between those two.
Disturbing…
In general I’ve found gang laws to be disturbing. Not only validation, but also the level of expertise (lack thereof) for gang experts, the ability for gang experts to render opinion based on non-scientific principles, and the use of predicate offenses in gang testimony which allows a whole bunch of extraneous but inflammatory material to come in.
David
Absolutely my impression after attending Citizens Academy.
In general I’ve found gangs to be disturbing. FIFY
In order to combat gangs, we’ve urinated on the constitution and in the process swept up a lot of people who aren’t really gang members, especially in places like Yolo.
Howard
“More than somewhat disturbing”
Information as provided by local law enforcement and the DAs office at Citizen’s Academy designed to inform the public about these issues was very disturbing. These criteria were reviewed with us, but in the end basically came down to how a designated “gang expert” ( police officer with gang experience) interpreted the criteria. Given their “good guys” vs “bad guys” approach ( in their own words, not made up by me) it was quite clear that they interpreted the criteria to fit their preconceived notion. Of further interest to me was that they were very open about this and made no pretense of objectivity.
And there is no science involved in gang expertise. In other areas of law, it would be inadmissible hearsay, but call it a gang and suddenly really soupy evidence becomes the basis of convictions.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t have anyone in Yolo County jail for “just” being in a gang, so why do you care who the DA says is “officially” in a gang?
A friend lives in the Santa Cruz Mountains near a lot of actual members of biker gangs and in many cases a “hangaround” or “prospect” (that is not an actual biker gang member) will be breaking more laws, cooking more meth and stabbing more people than the actual gang “members”.
Why wait until a biker prospect is “patched in” and becomes an actual “biker gang member” before you arrest him for his crimes of before the kids that start with smaller crimes hoping that they can become part of MS13 actually kill someone to prove they are “worthy” to become an actual “gang member” (and get the cool “13” face and neck tats).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/nyregion/four-arrested-in-gang-related-killings-on-long-island-court-documents-say.html
That’s not an accurate statement, I’ve seen a number of people found guilty of the 186.22(A) but not the underlying “crime.”
There’s a volume of research that gang charges attached to a case make it easier for prosecutors to convict.
And then there’s the fact that gang charges turn reasonable sentences into much longer ones.
PC 186.22(A) does not make it a crime to be a “member” of a gang (or even “hang around” a gang) it makes it a crime to “Willfully promote, further, or assist felonious conduct by the gang members”
Do you think it should be legal to “Willfully promote, further, or assist felonious conduct by the gang members”?
So you asked what difference does it make and then you cite a legal interpretation of the law rather than what I cited which was the application of the law in which case, people are found guilty of the 186.22(A) but not the underlying “crime.” You’re asking the wrong question now.
I don’t understand why my post was deleted which showed Reisig’s platform and his election website. After all the article referenced the election and another poster brought up the election and some candidate credentials earlier in the thread.
[moderator: sorry, collateral damage. Post it again if you like. No images, please.]