Reports from the scene indicated that C4 was found in a unit at Olympic Storage on Olympic Drive next door to the Adagio apartment complex late Sunday afternoon, and detonated later in the evening by a bomb squad.

The Clearlake Police Department, busy with responding to the incident, did not respond to Lake County News’ request late Sunday night for additional information.

Lake County News readers posted details of the incident on the publication’s Facebook page.

Desiree Mcalear-Garcia wrote that she drove by the storage units just before 4 p.m. and saw that the storage unit area was blocked off by a police patrol unit.

When she drove by again just after 8 p.m. she saw Lake County Fire gathering at the theater, according to her account.

At around 8:30 p.m. James Thomas said Clearlake Police and Lake County Fire had closed off Olympic Drive between Jefferson Street and Old Highway 53.

Machael Albericci, who lives at Adagio Apartments, wrote on Facebook that the complex’s residents were evacuated.

Angelica Ochoa said police had the apartment complex’s entrance taped off on one side, with officers standing guard.

California Highway Patrol incident logs indicated that a bomb squad detonated the materials shortly after 9:30 p.m.

When the explosives were detonated, numerous people from around Clearlake posted on the Lake County News Facebook page that they heard the explosion.

Clearlake Police also received kudos on its Facebook page from community members, who thanked the agency for handling the matter in a way that was professional and safe for community members as well as officers.

Radio traffic indicated that Lake County Fire terminated its incident command on the event at approximately 10:23 p.m.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A former Lake County Sheriff’s sergeant who was terminated nearly three years ago has filed a tort claim against the county seeking $3.7 million in damages.

On Oct. 24, Santa Rosa attorney Scott Lewis submitted to the county the claim on behalf of his client, James Beland.

The claim was filed after the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 in an Oct. 18 closed session to deny Beland’s appeal of his termination, according to Mireya Turner, assistant clerk to the board. Turner said Supervisor Anthony Farrington voted against denying the appeal.

Beland alleges that he has suffered a loss of $135,597.95 in wages since his termination; estimated future wages of $1,792,160; lost retirement benefits of $1,250,880; and $75,000 for three violations of his peace officer rights. Total attorneys fees were not calculated in his claim.

Lewis said Beland – who now works as head of security at Konocti Vista Casino – had a history of exemplary performance evaluations before his termination.

“He deserves his job back. He didn't do anything,” Lewis said.

County Counsel Anita Grant told Lake County News that the county has 45 days to take action on the claim. The county’s third party administrator, the George Hills Co., will handle the claim, Grant added.

“They take the action to accept or reject the action,” she said.

If the action is rejected, Grant said Beland will have six months within which to file a lawsuit against the county.

Following lengthy hearings that included witness testimony, a hearing officer who both sides agreed to appoint to consider Beland’s appeal suggested that he be reinstated to his job, Lewis said.

Lewis said the hearing officer found that Beland was terminated without cause and so he should get his job back.

However, the Board of Supervisors voted down that proposal. Grant said she could not discuss the content of the discussion on Beland’s appeal.

In an Oct. 24 e-mail to Grant that accompanied the tort claim, Lewis wrote, “As you can imagine, Jim has no choice but to fight to clear his name as he did with his hearing officer. Without doing so, he will never again be a law enforcement officer.”

Lewis told Grant that to restore Beland to his job would cost $100,000, compared to the $3.7 million he is alleging in lost wages, benefits and peace officer rights violations.

Allegations of retaliation

Beland is alleging that he was terminated in December 2008 in retaliation for statements he made regarding the case of Bismarck Dinius, a Carmichael man who was steering a sailboat on a dark night in April 2006 when it was hit by a powerboat hit by then-Chief Deputy Russell Perdock.

One of the sailboat’s passengers, 51-year-old Lynn Thornton, died as a result of injuries she suffered in the collision.

Dinius was tried in 2009 for felony boating under the influence causing great bodily injury, and misdemeanor counts of boating under the influence and boating with a blood alcohol level of more than 0.08. He was acquitted of the first two charges and the jury deadlocked on the third, which subsequently was dismissed.

During Dinius’ 2009 trial, Beland – who had responded to the crash scene – testified that he had wanted to use a breathalyzer on Perdock, but that he was ordered by another senior sergeant, Dennis Ostini, not to do the test because Perdock was going to have a blood test. Beland later drove Perdock to St. Helena Hospital Clearlake, where that blood test was taken, according to court testimony.

Beland’s internal affairs documents, which Lake County News obtained as part of the discovery documents for the Dinius trial, indicated that then-Sheriff Rod Mitchell terminated Beland on several grounds, including insubordination, dishonesty or personal use of county property, willful disobedience, failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty hours which causes discredit to the agency and one’s employment, and loss of license, certification or other qualification which is necessary for an employee to perform their duties.

The internal affairs documents referred to inconsistencies in Beland’s statements about the Dinius case, including stating that he was ordered not to administer a breathalyzer, and later denying that he received such an order.

The documents allege that during one interview with a member of command staff, Beland made no less than 11 statements insisting he was ordered not to give the breath test, and no less than 11 statements that he had not received such an order, raising questions about his credibility.

“The essential job functions for the position of peace officer with the Lake County Sheriff’s Department include and require the ability to testify as a credible witness,” the documents stated.

Hearing officer considers case

The Lake County Deputy Sheriff’s Association’s memorandum of understanding with the county sets up an appeals process for disciplined or terminated deputies. Lewis said the process calls for a independent hearing officer who considers the evidence and makes a finding.

Beland’s hearing took place Oct. 14-16 and Dec. 7-19, 2009, with further proceedings taking place July 12-13, 2010, Lewis said. The hearing officer’s decision was handed down this past Sept. 1.

Once the hearing officer makes a proposal, it’s up to the Board of Supervisors to approve it or deny it, either in whole or in part, said Grant.

Lewis said the hearing officer “saw right through” the allegations against Beland.

He was concerned about the board’s approach to considering the appeal.

“A hearing officer heard two weeks of testimony, and now the Board of Supervisors is taking a lot less time to review all of the evidence,” he said.

Lewis said he and Beland are trying to work out the issues concerning his employment with the county.

“If we can't come to some understanding we'll go down the litigation road,” Lewis said.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

102411 James Beland Tort Claim

December 2008 - Beland Internal Affairs Records

Sheriff Frank Rivero personally undertook an investigation that led to the arrests of former high school basketball standout Bo Layton Sheffer, 18, of Middletown; as well as Jesus Humberto Mendoza, 19, of Hidden Valley Lake; Eduardo Corona, 20, of Napa; Andrew Garcia-Shope, 18, of Ukiah; and a 16-year-old juvenile, whose name was not released due to his age.

A sheriff’s report said Sheffer, Mendoza, Corona and Garcia-Shope were all transported to the Lake County Hill Road Correctional Facility where they were each booked for selling marijuana, possession of marijuana for sales, conspiracy to commit a crime, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Rivero told Lake County News on Thursday that the evidence in the case “is absolutely solid.”

However, District Attorney Don Anderson said he ordered the four adults released from the Lake County Jail on Wednesday night because the evidence in the case was weak, and he’s assigning his own investigators to get to the bottom of what happened because of contradictory evidence.

He said there was no evidence that three of the four adults in the case violated any laws, with only a “technical violation” found in Sheffer’s case.

Even so, Anderson – who called Sheffer “a good kid” who, like the other three adults in the case, had no previous record – said he would never file such a case, as it involved only a $3 sale for three grams of marijuana.

Rivero said that he received a call at 7 a.m. Tuesday from a Middletown parent who said he had discovered a baggie of marijuana in his 16-year-old son’s possession.

According to the sheriff’s office report, Rivero responded to the man’s home, interviewed him and his son, seized the marijuana, arrested the minor for misdemeanor possession of marijuana and issued the teen a citation for the offense.

Rivero and a deputy then went to Mendoza’s home, where they detained Mendoza and Corona, and then transported the men to Middletown High School where they met with the juvenile arrestee and his father, according to the sheriff’s office report.

Based on his investigation, Rivero is alleging that the 16-year-old met Sheffer and several other subjects in a silver Audi at the Store 24 to purchase the marijuana. Mendoza and Corona were both identified as accompanying Sheffer in the Audi and participating in the transaction, and the two subsequently were arrested.

Rivero and the deputy went to Sheffer’s home, where the Audi was parked in the driveway, searched the home without a search warrant – although Rivero said that Sheffer’s mother granted him access – and found marijuana in the garage, based on the sheriff’s report.

While at the home, Sheffer and Garcia-Shope were detained and then transported by Rivero and the deputy to the high school, where the juvenile positively identified them as having participated in the Tuesday night marijuana sale, the sheriff’s office said.

The two men were then arrested at around noon, and along with Mendoza and Corona were taken to the jail, where jail records showed they were booked early Tuesday evening.

Issues over arrests, procedures

Anderson said the case was brought to his attention by his deputy district attorneys on Wednesday, and after reviewing it he determined there were numerous problems with the case’s handling.

Among them, Anderson said there were illegal detentions, searches and photo lineups, and illegally seized property – specifically, the Audi.

All of those issues, Anderson said, leaves him with very little admissible evidence on which to base a case.

Even if the investigation had been handled correctly, he said it would be a minor case. The baggie of marijuana found contained only three grams, the equivalent of about three to four marijuana joints.

Anderson said possession of less than an ounce of marijuana – with an ounce being just over 28 grams – is only an infraction. “It’s less than a speeding ticket.”

The charge of conspiracy against the young men also doesn’t hold up, said Anderson. There has to be evidence that there was some of a plan; just because the defendants were together in the car doesn’t mean they were conspiring to take part in a sale, he explained.

“This is not a case that any reasonable jury will convict anybody on with the evidence they have now,” he said.

Anderson said he ordered the men be released, and offered to drive home Sheffer due to his concerns that the teenager had been released at night, with no money, no warm clothing and no ride home.

Rivero said his command staff told him on Thursday morning that Anderson had ordered the release. He said he called Anderson and “expressed my concern,” asking Anderson to reconsider his approach to the case.

Anderson confirmed that he and Rivero had a heated phone conversation on Thursday.

He said he would review the case in detail on Friday, and plans to launch an investigation to look at the large number of inconsistencies he’s found between Rivero’s report and the supplemental information he’s received on the case.

If his investigation finds anything new, Anderson said he would consider filing a case, but added, “I can’t prosecute anybody yet. And that’s a big ‘yet.’”

Anderson said one of his biggest concerns is that the 16-year-old – who was seen at the high school identifying the suspects – is already catching heat, and his house has been egged.

“I’m seriously afraid for his safety now,” said Anderson, adding, “I can only imagine what this kid is going through.”

Anderson, himself a former sheriff’s deputy, said when he was on the narcotics task force in the 1990s it was a task force policy not to use juveniles as informants due to “the danger of it all.”

Rivero accused Anderson of “sending the wrong message, that the sale of marijuana to children will be tolerated by his office.”

He said the sales and use of marijuana in schools is a serious problem, and he and his staff plan “will continue to protect our children and arrest the criminals that pray on them irrespective of the DA’s reluctance to prosecute.”

At a Lucerne town hall meeting Thursday afternoon, Undersheriff Pat Turturici told community members that the sheriff’s department is very concerned about marijuana, and cited Rivero’s Tuesday arrests in the Sheffer case as proof.

“He went in there and took care of business,” said Turturici.

Rivero, in e-mailing Lake County News his response to Anderson’s statements, asked that his written comments to be published in their entirety. His comments follow below.

“On Tuesday, 11-15-2011, at about 7AM I received a call from the father of a child who lives in Middletown. The father told me he had discovered a baggie containing marijuana in the possession of his child.

“The evidence in this case is absolutely solid; four adults conspired to sell and in fact sold marijuana to a child. They were arrested and booked at the Hill Road Correctional Facility and charged with sales of marijuana, possession for sale of marijuana, conspiracy to sell marijuana and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

“This morning, command staff informed me that DA Anderson had personally ordered the release of the four and had even offered them a ride home. I called DA Anderson and expressed my concern. Specifically, that DA Anderson is sending the wrong message, that the sale of marijuana to children will be tolerated by his Office. I asked him to reconsider and await his decision.

“The sales and use of marijuana in our schools is a serious problem. I, along with my deputies, will continue to protect our children and arrest the criminals that pray on them irrespective of the DA’s reluctance to prosecute.”

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

Curran was the sex crimes investigator and had been doing the job for 20 or so years. He knows all the convicted registrants in the county by name, their charges, habits and misguided habits.

This move was purely out of spite and inter-department politics.

To be a successful sex crimes investigator takes years and years of training and countless man hours to master the skills needed for this highly specialized field, and even longer to get the kind of conviction rates that Curran holds.

It’s a shame that Rivero is taking actions based on emotion and not logic that this move occurred.

I fear for the citizens of Lake County and their children as to what is going to happen in the coming years with such a talented asset thrown to the way side for personal reasons.

Any of you that know or have met Mike Curran know that he is an excellent investigator and genuinely cares for the victims of crimes for which he investigates, not to mention an all around awesome guy.

I, for one, am outraged and concerned for the children and citizens of Lake County in the new and “better” administration. What was the reason for moving such a highly skilled investigator into a basically mindless assignment?

Rivero is a vindictive, worthless and uneducated administrator who thinks he can handle the job by bullying people into getting his way, as he has shown time and time again!

It’s time we stand up and fight for the people and especially the children of Lake County. Please write to the Board of Supervisors with your comments and concerns on this matter and let’s protect out most valuable asset – our children – from further harm and wrong doing.

After all, it is the people of Lake County who are going to suffer from this ridiculous and unwarranted reassignment.

Michael Sobieraj lives in Lakeport, Calif.

On Thursday morning, two sides in a lawsuit filed over new state laws eliminating redevelopment agencies or requiring them to participate in a voluntary state program presented arguments before the California Supreme Court.

In July the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and the cities of San Jose and Union City filed their suit, California Redevelopment Assn. et al. v. Matosantos et al., which the California Supreme Court agreed to hear.

Specifically, the suit is asking that the court overturn AB1x26, which eliminates all redevelopment agencies effective Oct. 1, and AB1x27, which allows agencies to continue if they agree to take part in a voluntary program requiring them to make annual payments from their proceeds to the state.

At stake are billions of dollars for the state government that would come from the estimated 400 redevelopment agencies around the state.

Arguing on behalf of the state, Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody told the court that the legislation provides a $1.7 billion budget solution for the state in the current fiscal year, with smaller increments in coming years.

If the payments end up being required, Clearlake would have to pay $974,000 for 2011-12 and $244,000 annually afterward; Lakeport would have to pay $309,000 initially and around $73,000 annually; and the Lake County Redevelopment Agency would pay just over $1 million in fiscal year 2011-12 and about $243,000 per year in future years, according to recent estimates provided by local officials.

The legislation is stayed while the court considers the case, but that stay also prevents agencies from continuing work on outstanding projects.

In the Lake County Redevelopment Agency’s case, that has resulted in work being stopped on the Lucerne Hotel renovation. In the city of Lakeport, the Lakeport Downtown Improvement Project is on hold, with the city redevelopment agency short of the money it thought it had for the project because of the new legislation, according to Richard Knoll, the city’s redevelopment and community development director.

Arguments offered against bills' constitutionality

In arguments that lasted just over an hour, the court heard from Moody, the redevelopment association’s lead counsel Steven Mayer and James Williams, deputy county counsel for Santa Clara County.

Mayer argued that AB1x26 and AB1x27 are unconstitutional and violate Proposition 22, which voters passed last November to prevent the state taking revenues dedicated to funding local government services or funds for transportation improvement projects and services.

He referred to Section 9 of Proposition 22, which accuses the California Legislature in recent years of “illegally circumventing” the California Constitution’s Section 16 of Article XVI – which deals with redevelopment – “by requiring redevelopment agencies to transfer a portion of those taxes for purposes other than the financing of redevelopment projects. A purpose of the amendments made by this measure is to prohibit the Legislature from requiring, after the taxes have been allocated to a redevelopment agency, the redevelopment agency to transfer some or all of those taxes to the State, an agency of the State, or a jurisdiction; or to use some or all of those taxes for the benefit of the State, an agency of the State, or a jurisdiction.”

He also stated that the program the state created with AB1x27 was as voluntary as a bank robbery. Even so, he said the information the association had said that more than 90 percent of redevelopment agencies statewide had opted to take part in order to continue.

Here in Lake County, all three redevelopment agencies – Lakeport, Clearlake and the county of Lake – have opted to participate, as Lake County News has reported.

Mayer suggested that the “worst possible outcome” for the association is that they win in their argument against AB1x26 and lose on AB1x27.

Justice Joyce Kennard suggested that Mayer’s argument that the Legislature may not abolish redevelopment agencies wasn’t supported by the state constitution.

State: Legislature can change the rules

Moody argued that state law “expressly recognizes” that the Legislature may change the rules governing redevelopment.

He also said the new laws provide for every legitimate redevelopment agency debt to be paid, although loans to cities aren’t covered.

“The key to Proposition 22 is the actual language of Proposition 22,” Moody said, explaining that the Legislature shall make no law requiring redevelopment agencies to make payments to the state, and there is no requirement of any kind that the voluntary payments be made.

Justice Carol Corrigan asked if the agencies can exist if they don’t make the payments.

“It’s hard to argue that it’s a voluntary payment,” she said.

Moody insisted that the city and county redevelopment agencies are not directed to make the payments.

Corrigan stated that it was a “facile” argument, to which Moody responded, “It’s a challenge to argue this case in the environment we’re in,” noting state tax revenues are down by 30 percent.

Justice Ming Chin asked what result Moody would be happy with, and Moody replied that it would be if both laws were upheld. That’s because of the $1.7 billion budget solution in this fiscal year. If only AB1x26 was upheld, it would mean $1.1 billion this year and annually going forward.

Corrigan asked if there were examples that the money could be taken. He said Proposition 1A was “the tail of the thing.” He said that legislation was designed to prevent raids of local funds by the state and so it focuses on the Legislature taking the money rather than having an agency take part in a program, like the voluntary program the new legislation established.

“The redevelopment agencies took a gamble on this lawsuit,” Moody said.

He also told the court, “It’s more important to look at Proposition 22 as it existed when the voters voted for it rather than the way it’s been presented here.”

Kennard asked, for the purpose of argument, about what would happen if the court decided AB1x27 was ruled unconstitutional. In such a case, she asked if it was correct that there is nothing to prove that AB1x26 is constitutional, and Moody agreed.

Williams said the county was asking that the court uphold AB1x26 and strike down AB1x27, arguing that the latter is unconstitutional because he said the Legislature can’t grant redevelopment agencies the power to spend tax increment revenue beyond what is outlined in Article 16 in the state constitution.

He also argued that AB1x27 was unconstitutional because it redirects certain property tax revenue. Such measures can only be taken when passed by super majorities – or a two-thirds vote of the Legislature – which the law wasn’t.

Justice Marvin Baxter asked Williams why it was to Santa Clara’s advantage to support upholding AB1x26 while striking down AB1x27.

Williams replied that redevelopment agencies have had an “extraordinarily diverse effect” on Santa Clara County, which has lost funds to the agencies. He said schools have been affected the worst.

Local redevelopment officials have indicated that the court’s decision is expected by the start of the year.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

071811 CRA Lawsuit