POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE ON EAST MOUNTAIN DRIVE

Thursday, July 6 – Deputies arrested a man on East Mountain Drive for possession of crystal methamphetamine after they pulled him over for speeding.

The drugs were discovered after Deputy Maupin pulled over a vehicle for speeding on East Mountain Drive. While he was questioning the suspects, Maupin said a bag of crystal methamphetamine spilled to the ground.

The suspect was subsequently arrested and booked at Santa Barbara County Jail.

Parole Violation at Summerland Hotel

Friday, July 14 – A young man was arrested in Summerland for violating of his parole and for the possession of methamphetamine.

Deputy Lampe was dispatched to the parking lot of an inn in Summerland where three kids were acting suspiciously. Upon arrival, the deputy asked the young adults whether they were on parole, to which one boy raised his hand. The cop also asked whether anyone possessed any drugs or drug paraphernalia, and the same young man raised his hand again.

The cops searched through the young man’s belongings and found two pipes, one used for marijuana and the other for crystal methamphetamine, along with a baggy containing white residue.

The man was arrested and transferred to County Jail.

Photographer Nabbed for Trespassing on Cold Springs Road

Saturday, July 15 – A man was arrested for trespassing at a Cold Springs Road home after attempting to take photos of pop singer Avril Lavigne’s private wedding.

The photographer had sneaked over a fence on the property and he reportedly hid in the bushes to take photos.

The owner of the residence said she wanted to press charges.

Do Sheriffs Deputies Care About Montecito?

The following is a letter submitted by a Montecito resident who, after reading the Journal’s coverage last issue about crime increases in Montecito (MJ # 12/14), alerted Sheriff Jim Anderson about poor treatment she claimed she received from a County Sheriff’s deputy.

Sheriff Jim Anderson,

I feel you should know about the way Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s deputies handled our case. We had been on vacation and were returning on June 14 when we got a call from the alarm service concerning our in-home alarm going off. The sheriff’s department came out and looked around inside and did not see anything and left. We figured a bug or moth had set it off. When we returned five hours later, we noticed that honey had been spread all over our fountain, that our truck had been badly keyed and that honey and salt had been spread all over it. Also, honey and salt was all over the outside screen door of our son’s room, and all of our roses had cups of salt spread around them and had been watered in. We called the sheriff and the deputies arrived.

A deputy looked at the damage and surmised that it was a teenage “prank,” since our son had recently broken up with his girlfriend. Our son had been receiving nasty text messages from a friend of the ex-girlfriend. We gave the name, address and phone number of the girlfriend, as well as the friend’s, to the deputy. The deputy said he would be in touch with these two girls and their parents.

I specifically asked the deputy about fingerprinting the car or other areas; he looked and said he did not see anything. Is that not the point of dusting for prints, so you can see them? He refused to try. He took out soft gloves that were too big for him and tried to open the lid to the car’s gas tank. If there had been any prints, he wiped them off! He did not see that the tank had been filled with sugar.

A week or so later the deputy called to see if we wanted to prosecute. We called back and left him a message saying “no” because we had no proof that it was these kids. We then received a call from the deputy who wished to confirm whether we did not want to prosecute. I told him “How could we pursue the case? There is no proof. You did not even try to help us.” I asked him what the two girls and their parents said when he talked to them? The deputy proceeded to tell me that he had not talked to them because he could not reach them! They hadn’t returned his call. He asked me if we had talked to them, and, if so, what did they say? I was appalled by this.

These kids came into our locked property, came into our locked home, salted all of our roses, which are beginning to die now, and did over $5,200 worth of damage to our truck. We later found they had also salted our fruit trees, salted and honeyed and had put sugar in the gas tank of our motorcycle. We have no idea the final cost of this damage. We are very fortunate that the teenagers were frightened off by the alarm. I hate to think what damage they would have done if they had gotten into our son’s room.

I am disgusted by the way the Sheriff’s Department dealt with this case. The many people we have told about this problem are horrified. Our daughter, a sergeant with the San Francisco Police Department, was shocked that the deputy did not even try. After all, what do we pay taxes for?

Just today we picked up our truck. I certainly hope the Sheriff’s Department doesn’t make it a practice of treating people this way. I have a feeling that this deputy felt that we are living in Montecito and therefore must be rich; therefore, it is just a prank and we can afford the bills. If this is the way deputies serve the public, we are in big trouble. Considering his lack of help, I doubt whether there even is a report. Obviously the Sheriff’s Department is having a great deal of trouble with public relations. “News Feature” in the July 6-19 issue of Montecito Journal is about the level of service Montecito is not getting. Granted our case is not on the scale of the $100,000 to $600,000 burglaries reported in the article; however, taking a little time and concern for the victim would go a long way to appeasing the public, and if we are lucky, preventing further trouble down the line.

Sincerely,

Concerned Montecito resident

(Because the pending case involves minors, the Journal agreed to withhold the person’s name)