West Sacramento PD Secretary Charged with Child Endangerment – Also Allegedly Threatened Victim’s Father Using Police Connections

By Genesis Guzman

WOODLAND, CA – Defendant Bonnie Logsdon—a secretary at the West Sacramento Police Dept.—dodged a court trial for alleged child endangerment, but testimony here in Yolo County Superior Court this week suggested she may have made her position worse by threatening the victim’s father using her police connections.

Logsdon was charged with one misdemeanor account of endangering the health of a child after she allegedly sanctioned—and also didn’t appropriately supervise—a party for her son where alcohol would be available and accessible to minors.

The victim in question was a minor in attendance at the party and when the victim’s father came to pick his child up he found keys in the child’s pocket, and the child could have left the party highly intoxicated.

When the victim’s father confronted Logsdon, he said the defendant threatened him, using her position at the West Sacramento Police Department as leverage. 

Logsdon’s Assistant Public Defender John Sage motioned for Logsdon to complete a two-year diversion period that included a parenting program, an underage and substance abuse program, and quarterly reviews. 

Deputy District Attorney Caryn Warren objected to this diversion, stating that the DDA had offered Neighborhood Court with the Restorative Justice Program, which the victim’s father was willing to participate in.

However, during the program the victim’s father was unhappy with the results, believing the defendant showed a lack of accountability.

In order for the court to grant diversion, the DDA asked for an admission from the defendant admitting that she furnished a place where alcohol would be available to minors and that she failed to supervise the residence appropriately.

Before speaking to the defendant and her counsel, Judge Timothy Fall addressed the victim’s father and how he felt about the first diversion program that he and the victim participated in with Logsdon.

The victim’s father explained how there was a lack of accountability shown by the defendant, and that the organizers of the program felt that as well, so much so they recommended the case back to the DA’s office.

The father was then contacted a second time to request a second diversion opportunity for the defendant. However, after reviewing Logsdon’s position, the organizers decided not to proceed with the second diversion because Logsdon continued to deny responsibility.

After clarification from the victim’s father, Judge Fall allowed time for Logsdon to speak with her counsel. 

After the quick break, Logsdon addressed the court and the victim’s father with a wavering voice, saying, “I need you both to understand that I learned a big, big lesson from this incident…I would like to do anything I could possibly do to remediate and fix this.” 

The DDA queried the victim’s father in order for him to either approve or deny another attempt at the original Neighborhood Court that was being offered.

In response to her statement, the victim’s father stated “I feel like my family and I have been overly gracious to Ms. Logsdon who I personally believe is in a desperate attempt to protect her employment by making sure she doesn’t go on record admitting.” 

The victim’s father ended his statement with an opposition to the offer and a request to go to trial, to see what the jury will decide.

After hearing the father’s statement the DDA decided to not offer Neighborhood Court and continued to object to the defense’s proposed court diversion.

During the defense closing remarks, PD Sage attempted to shift some of the blame to the victim for underage drinking, but he was quickly shut down by the judge, who said, “We’re not going to tell a minor that they are the ones responsible for an adult’s actions.” 

Judge Fall explained to the victim’s father that if the case went to trial the conviction would be a much shorter probation than the two years that the defense is proposing for the diversion. 

The court approved the defense motion for diversion, but not without stating that he also did not believe the sincerity of the defendant’s statement, but that diversion will allow him to enforce more of the programs she is set to complete. 

About The Author

Genesis Guzman is a sophmore at UC Davis, majoring in English and Political Science. She is from Los Angeles, CA and hopes to attend law school in the future.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for