Parole sweep nets 29 arrests, firearms, narcotics

CALIFORNIA CITY – On Wednesday, Sept. 12, deputies from Lancaster, Palmdale and Altadena Sheriff’s Stations joined forces with deputies from Kern County Sheriff’s Office and officers from the California City Police Department to conduct a parole and probation compliance operation.

The operation, which was conducted from 5 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the California City area, was the result of an overall increase in the number of parolees and probationers that have moved from the Antelope Valley area (Lancaster and Palmdale) to California City.

Due to limited resources, the California City Police Department has not been able to conduct routine compliance checks of these individuals.

During Wednesday’s operation, the officers and deputies conducted checks of 47 separate locations. These checks resulted in the arrest of 29 criminals.

The officers also seized two firearms, as well as narcotics.

Of the 29 arrested, 18 were on active parole or probation, and two of the parolees were listed as “Parolees at Large.”

The operation also included parole agents from the California Department of Corrections, as well as personnel form the Department of Children and Family Services.

Wednesday’s operation was the second time that Lancaster Station deputies have assisted the California City Police Department in a compliance check operation.

The first operation was conducted in January of last year. That operation resulted in 35 arrests.

(Information via press release from the Lancaster Station.)

  28 comments for “Parole sweep nets 29 arrests, firearms, narcotics

  1. Michelle Egberts
    September 18, 2012 at 6:21 am

    Not only is our Probation Department corrupt with misconduct, but CDCR officers, parole agents and civilian employees should also be included as I wouldn’t want to be accused of being biased. Office of Inspector General 2011 Semi-Annual Report

  2. Michelle Egberts
    September 18, 2012 at 5:21 am


  3. Tim
    September 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    If I was a parolee or probationer, eastern Kern County is where I would go!

    No LA Sheriffs everywhere like in Lancaster/Palmdale
    No Eye in the Sky
    No Child molester ordinances
    Lots of open empty desert to grow things in/hide in
    Albertsons in Cal City takes EBT

  4. Tim Wright
    September 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    If youre a parolee or on probation what better place to go than eastern Kern County?

    -lots and lots of SUPER CHEAP houses! We’re talking $25,000 to $50,000 at the most!

    – lots of desert to hide in, grow stuff in.

    – Very few cops due to small budget

    – No LASD everywhere, like they are in Lancaster and Palmdale

    – no Eye in the Sky to worry about

    – EBT can be used at Albertsons in California City

    September 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Please do a sweep in Rosamond! There are a lot of lowlifes moving into our town!

  6. Jean
    September 13, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Good job Deputies.

  7. Dewayne
    September 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Steve… They did the time already!!

    • Palmdale_Steve
      September 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm

      Do the words, parole and probation mean anything to you?

      Parole is the provisional release of a prisoner who agrees to certain conditions.

      Probation literally means testing of behaviour or abilities. In a legal sense, an offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer.

      Comply with the conditions, and this was a compliance check, or go back to jail. Pretty simple, and by the way these convicted criminals had not completed their “time” as you put it.

      • Michelle Egberts
        September 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm

        Understanding a Parole violation (arrest), “parole hold”, and revocation hearing.

        When a California state prison inmate is placed on parole, it means that he/she has agreed to abide by certain terms and conditions upon his/her release from prison. When these individuals…otherwise known as “parolees”…are accused of violating any of those terms and conditions, they can get charged with a parole revocation / violation and may get sent back to state prison.

        But before the parole violation can be sustained, they are entitled to a California parole revocation hearing.

        1. An Overview of California Parole Law
        With little exception, California basically has a mandatory parole system. This means that when inmates complete their state prison sentences, they must be released on parole unless the parole board believes they pose too great a risk to public safety.

        Being released on parole necessarily involves agreeing to abide by a “restricted” lifestyle. This is because people placed on parole (commonly referred to as “parolees”) are still under the control of the California Department of Corrections.1

        When an inmate is eligible for parole depends on a number of factors, including

        1. the crime for which the inmate was convicted,

        2. the inmate’s sentence,

        3. whether or not the inmate earned any “good time / work time” credits (these credits can reduce a sentence by as much as 50%), and

        4. when the inmate was convicted.

        If an inmate has been sentenced to a determinate sentence (that is, a specific sentence such as 5 years), he/she will automatically be paroled once he/she has served that sentence.
        But if an inmate has been sentenced to an indeterminate sentence (that is, an indefinite sentence such as “25 years to life”, which is also referred to as a life sentence), he/she will attend a parole suitability hearing.

        Parole suitability or “lifer” hearings
        Parole suitability hearings are just that…hearings to determine whether an inmate is ready or suitable to be released on parole. These hearings are conducted once the inmate has served the numeric part of his/her indeterminate sentence.

        Also commonly referred to as “lifer hearings”, these proceedings are governed by the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). During the lifer hearing, the board evaluates (1) the circumstances of the inmate’s specific offense, (2) the inmate’s behavior while in prison, and (3) how well the inmate will be able to “re-integrate” into society.

        If, after being released on parole, a parolee violates any of the terms of his/her parole, state will seek to return him/her to prison.

        But before a parole violation can be sustained, the parolee is entitled to a California parole revocation hearing, which is the focus of this article.

        2. Common Parole Terms and Conditions
        Before we can really begin a discussion about California parole revocation hearings (which are also interchangeably referred to as parole violation hearings), we need to address the types of terms and conditions that are typically imposed in connection with parole.

        Examples of some of the most common parole conditions include (but are by no means limited to):

        • consenting to be searched by law enforcement officers at any time with or without a California search warrant and with or without cause,

        • agreeing to live within designated county limits,

        • agreeing to register with local authorities (this provision only applies to a very specific set of individuals: (1) those who are required to register as sex offenders pursuant to California Penal Code 290 PC , (2) those who have been convicted of California Penal Code 451 PC arson, and (3) those who were convicted of certain California drug crimes)4, and

        • agreeing to conditions that relate to specific offenses. These conditions may include, for example, restrictions that prohibit

        1. using or being around designated weapons,

        2. accessing the Internet (this condition is typically only imposed on persons who have been convicted of violating California’s child pornography laws and/or other similar offenses), or

        3. associating with known gang members.

        Again, these last three restrictions are offense-specific. These are not general parole conditions imposed on all parolees, but are only enforced if the offense warrants such a condition.
        In addition to the above parole terms and conditions, parolees are prohibited from violating any other laws. The parole board can set a California parole revocation hearing…and even revoke parole…for a parolee who is accused of committing another crime even if no criminal conviction is sustained.

        Example: Tom is on parole, a condition of which is that he not violate any laws. Tom gets arrested for a DUI on the 101 freeway. Tom’s DUI lawyer is able to win a “not guilty” verdict at jury trial. Nevertheless, Tom can still be charged with a California parole violation for having violated a criminal law while on parole.

        3. California Parole Violation / Revocation Hearings
        — The Process
        Parole revocation hearings are also governed by the Board of Parole Hearings, but are presided over by a single deputy commissioner. Unlike other board members who are appointed by the California Governor and confirmed by the California State Senate, deputy commissioners are hired in the same way as any other civil servant. Most have prior experience in law enforcement and/or corrections.

        The deputy commissioner’s job during a California parole violation hearing is to determine whether the parolee should be returned to prison and, if so, for how long. If the commissioner revokes parole, the inmate can be reincarcerated for a maximum of six months.

        If, while reincarcerated, the inmate commits subsequent acts of misconduct, that period may be extended for up to an additional twelve months.

        If parole is being revoked for committing a new crime, the maximum time the inmate can be reincarcerated is still six months. However, the D.A. may elect to file a new case against the inmate, separate and apart from the parole revocation. If convicted, the inmate can be reincarcerated for the new offense as well.

        Parolee rights in a parole revocation hearing

        Parolees have certain due process rights during a California parole violation hearing. “Due process” rights are guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protect individuals against arbitrary actions and judgments by the government.
        With respect to parole violation hearings, these rights include

        1. the right to a California criminal defense attorney,

        2. written notice of the alleged violation,

        3. the disclosure of any adverse evidence,

        4. the right to be heard and present evidence on one’s own behalf,

        5. the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses (unless the hearing officer finds good cause for not allowing the confrontation),

        6. a neutral and detached hearing board, and

        7. a written decision explaining the outcome of the hearing.

        With respect to number 5, the safety of the potential witness is weighed against the inmate’s right to confront that witness.
        Because of this struggle, “hearsay” evidence is sometimes admissible in a probation revocation hearing. Simply put, “hearsay” is second-hand information, which is typically considered unreliable. However, it is generally admissible in both parole and California probation revocation hearings as a way allowing an alleged victim/witness to testify without being present.

        Probable cause hearings
        There are actually two components to a parole revocation hearing: the preliminary or “probable cause” hearing and the final parole revocation hearing. The probable cause hearing is held first to determine whether there is probable cause to proceed with the final parole revocation hearing. “Probable cause” means that there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the parolee violated parole.

        Both hearings are basically conducted in the same manner…in each, the parolee’s criminal defense lawyer is entitled to present evidence in his/her defense or mitigation of the accusations. Similarly, the state presents its evidence in support of why parole should be revoked.

        The timelines of both hearings are regulated by a 2005 California parole law which states that (1) the probable cause hearing must be held within ten days after the inmate has learned of the allegations, and (2) the final revocation hearing must be held within 35 days of the parole hold.

        A “parole hold” takes place when the parolee is initially arrested and taken into custody for the alleged violation. The parole hold remains in place until either (1) the parolee is rereleased if he/she wins the probable cause hearing, or (2) until he/she is either rereleased if he/she wins the probation revocation hearing or is reincarcerated if he/she loses.
        If probable cause exists to believe that the violation occurred, a final parole revocation hearing takes place.

        When the Board hears from the arresting officer and any victims/witnesses to the alleged violation, it may already have made up its mind as to guilt. However, the parolee, his/her California criminal defense attorney, and his/her witnesses also have the opportunity to challenge the state’s evidence…and to present their own evidence in defense of the charge(s).
        In addition, the parolee’s parole agent also testifies about the parolee’s success/failure while on parole. And, depending on the facts, he/she recommends (1) that the parolee should be allowed to remain on parole, or (2) that the parolee should be returned to prison.

        More relaxed rules
        It bears repeating that parole revocation hearings aren’t equivalent to criminal trials. Some of the evidentiary procedures are more relaxed. This is particularly true of hearsay evidence (discussed above).17 This means that notes, letters, affidavits and other evidence that would normally be excluded from a criminal trial may be admissible in a California parole violation hearing.

        The burden of proof required in a parole revocation hearing
        A “burden of proof” is the level of certainty that is required before a judge or jury can find someone guilty as charged. In a California parole revocation hearing, that level is referred to as a preponderance of the evidence. In essence, “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is more likely than not that the parolee violated parole.

        This is a much lesser standard than is required for a criminal trial. During a trial, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is the highest level of proof to which prosecutors are held. It essentially means that there is no logical explanation other than the fact that the defendant committed the alleged crime.

        The reason why California parole violation hearings are conducted with a lesser burden of proof is because parole is viewed as an extension of incarceration…parole is not equivalent to freedom. Parolees remain under the custody of the California Department of Corrections.…and are therefore not entitled to the same level of protection as someone who hasn’t yet been convicted of a crime.

        False allegations

        False accusations can arise in a number of ways when it comes to parole violations:

        • from a past victim who is angry that you have been released from prison,

        • from a cop on a power trip who has a grudge against parolees, or

        • from an “ex” lover who simply doesn’t want you around…the possibilities are endless.

        If you can convince the deputy commissioner that the facts don’t support the charge(s), he/she will likely return you to your parole status.

        It wasn’t me

        Just like there are endless possibilities for why someone might falsely accuse you of violating parole, there are endless possibilities for why you could mistakenly be accused of violating parole. For example,

        • maybe you fit the description of another suspect who committed a nearby crime (mistaken identification is responsible for many wrongful arrests and prosecutions),

        • maybe you were with others who were engaged in unlawful activity but you, yourself, were not, or

        • maybe you were framed by an angry, jealous, or vengeful individual, in an attempt to hide his/her own criminal acts.

        Your due process rights were violated

        Even though parole revocation hearings are less formal than criminal trials, you are still entitled to benefit from certain rights. To recap, some of these rights include (but are not limited to):

        1. receiving notice of the allegations against you,

        2. having your hearing within a specific time frame, and

        3. disclosure of any evidence that weighs in your favor.

        If these…or any other rights are violated…they are supposed to override any wrongdoing on the parolees part.

        • otis
          September 14, 2012 at 4:53 pm

          Hope all of you parolees, street lawyers & law students are reading this. :-)

          • Adam Chant
            September 14, 2012 at 7:27 pm

            Yea, Google it and you will find the original source of this content.


            The more you copy and past things here the more obvious it becomes that you are still pushing an agenda based on other people’s intellectual property. How is this any different than the Cons you have been convicted of in the past?

          • Michelle Egberts
            September 14, 2012 at 8:01 pm

            @Adam Chant… You and other individuals who have blogged against me on this site need to familiarize yourselves with “CYBERSTALKING LAWS”. I will not hesitate to report you, and the others to the Editor of this site. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!

            Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of “harassment” must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.[1] Cyberstalking is different from spatial or offline stalking in that it occurs through the use of electronic communications technology such as the internet. However, it sometimes leads to it, or is accompanied by it.[2] Both are criminal offenses.[3] Cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers – online or off – are motivated by a desire to control their victims.[4]

            A cyberstalker may be an online stranger or a person whom the target knows. A cyberstalker may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.

            Cyberstalking is a criminal offenses that comes into play under state anti-stalking laws, slander laws, and harassment laws. A cyberstalking conviction can result in a restraining order, probation, or even criminal penalties against the assailant, including jail.

            DefinitionsFurther information: Stalking
            Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers writes that:

            “Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect).”[5]

            CyberAngels has written about how to identify cyberstalking:

            When identifying cyberstalking “in the field,” and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats.[6]

            A number of key factors have been identified:

            False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or[7]
            Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim’s friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective.
            Monitoring their target’s online activities and attempting to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims. [8]
            Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim’s name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
            False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.
            Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim’s computer by sending viruses.
            Ordering goods and services. They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim’s name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim’s workplace.
            Arranging to meet. Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.[9]

            Cyberstalking is a form of cyberbullying.

            Further information: Cyberbullying
            MotivesMental profiling of digital criminals has identified factors that motivate stalkers as: envy; pathological obsession (professional or sexual); unemployment or failure with own job or life; intention to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior; the stalker is delusional and believes he/she “knows” the target; the stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status; belief they can get away with it (anonymity); intimidation for financial advantage or business competition; revenge over perceived or imagined rejection.[10][11]


          • Annoyed
            September 14, 2012 at 8:37 pm

            You know, you can paste a link without pasting the entire freaking page. Jeez.

          • Marie
            September 14, 2012 at 10:44 pm

            Michelle, as for your comments on you sueing people. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL. You ever hear about judges ruling that you can’t file hundreds of frivilous lawsuits like you have?????? People sneeze the wrong direction and you file charges. You are becoming the biggest joke in AV. Please, save your family some dignity and just shut up. I feel so sorry for your family. What an embarassment you have become to them and this entire community. How many lies will you tell to cover the lies you have already told. Please, stop. You are not helping yourself or any of the so-called causes you get involved in. But, you won’t because your craving for attention outweighs any logic you may have had at some time.

          • Stinger
            September 14, 2012 at 11:29 pm

            Much as I appreciate your message of redemption, Michelle, I gotta agree with ‘Annoyed’ on this one – Waaaayyyy too long of a cut and paste.

            How about you just give a paraphrase, maybe a brief cut of the source in point, and a link for us to check out the rest, ‘kay?

          • ...
            September 15, 2012 at 10:58 am

            Wow, what a loser. Michelle preaches for the consitutional rights of parolees and child molestors, then wants to trample on people’s 1st ammendment rights.

            Michelle: You are a loser, and a scammer. Sue me.

            Le me know if you want my address, where I can be served.

          • Backwards
            September 15, 2012 at 1:15 pm

            Michelle your “copy and paste” reply states
            ” False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites.”
            How can Adam Chant and others be accused of violating the Cyberstalking Law when their accusations are in fact NOT false?

          • Adam Chant
            September 16, 2012 at 12:44 pm

            I think that if you look back I have always been fairly neutral in my replies to information you have provided on this site. Whether it’s a simple copy and paste job or blatant plagiarism I could care less, but factually its considered bad form to blanket copy/paste content that (you have so obviously pointed out) is freely available in the public domain.

            I can assure you that I show the same effort of proof with every individual on this and every online venue I frequent.

            Should you continue to copy/past long technical content as personal diatribes that is otherwise available in the public domain I’ll ask to have you banned from this site for being a spamer.

            And to quote Michelle Egberts on September 14, 2012 at 8:01 pm The AV Times Website.

            “YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!”

    • Stinger
      September 13, 2012 at 9:41 pm

      Sorry, Dewayne, but P_S is right on this one. Parole is an early release program where the participant gives up his/her civil rights for the opportunity to be released from prison early under supervision. I have attended many parole orientations where the terms are very clearly spelled out for the parolees.

      These people are well advised upon release what the rules were and that they will definitely be subject to many suprise compliance checks.

      As a human being, I empathize that they made stupid mistakes, but the terms were clear, so I do not hold that much sympathy for their stupidity.

      • Michelle Egberts
        September 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm
        Division of
        Adult Parole
        Operations (DAPO) Parolee Conditions
        All parolee’s who are released to the community for a period of parole supervision has Conditions of Parole imposed upon release. Additionally, some parolee’s have added special conditions of parole, which are unique to each person. Conditions of parole and special conditions of parole are simply defined as:

        •Conditions of Parole – Written rules that you have to follow.
        •Special Conditions – Added written rules that help your chances of finishing parole.
        Simply stated, the standard conditions of parole are outlined below.
        •The release date and how long the parolee may be on parole.
        •Advisement that the parolee, their residence, and possessions can be searched at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant, and with or without a reason. This can be done by a parole agent or police officer.
        •By signing the parole conditions, the parolee waives extradition if they are found out of state.
        •The parolee’s obligation to always tell their parole agent where they live and work.
        •The parolee’s obligation to report upon release from prison or jail.
        •The parolee’s obligation to tell their parole agent about a new address before they move.
        •The parolee’s obligation to tell their parole agent, within three days, if they get a new job.
        •The parolee’s obligation to report to their parole agent when told to report or a warrant can be issued for their arrest.
        •The parolee’s obligation to follow their parole agent’s instructions.
        •The parolee’s obligation to ask their parole agent if it is OK to travel more 50 miles from their residence, and receive approval before they travel.
        •The parolee’s obligations to receive a travel pass before they leave the county for more than two days.
        •The parolee’s obligations to receive a travel pass before they can leave the State.
        •The parolee’s obligation to obey ALL laws.
        •The parolee’s obligation to tell their parole agent immediately if they get arrested or get a ticket.
        •An advisement that if a parolee breaks the law, they can be sent back to prison even if they do not have any new criminal charges.
        •The parolee’s obligation to not be around guns, or things that look like a real gun, bullets, or any other weapons.
        •The parolee’s obligation to not have a knife with a blade longer than two inches except a kitchen knife. Kitchen knives must be kept in your kitchen.
        •Knives you use for work are also allowed if approved by the parole agent tells, but they can only be carried while at work or going to and from work. The parolee must possess a note from the parole agent approving this, and it must be carried at all times.
        •The parolee’s obligation to not own, use, or have access to a weapon listed in Penal Code Section 12020.
        •The parolee’s obligation to sign their conditions of parole. Failure to sign them can result in a return to prison.

        NOTE: These conditions do not apply to Non-Revocable parolees as they are not under the supervision of a parole agent. However, Non-Revocable parolees are subject to search.

        • otis
          September 14, 2012 at 4:56 pm

          Folks understand why you’re an expert on and advocate for parolees, Ms. Egberts; but what’s up with the “sex offenders/child molesters” stuff..?

          • Adam Chant
            September 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm

            More like an expert of plagiarism and copy and paste. At least this time there was a reference to the original source.

            The previous post was plagiarized from the following link.

            Can you get me a copy of Reba McEntire’s signature too?

          • Michelle Egberts
            September 14, 2012 at 8:24 pm

            @Adam Chant… FYI, you do not have to cite sources (or citations)for facts that are not the result of unique individual research. Facts that are readily available from numerous sources and generally known to the public are considered “common knowledge,” and are not protected by copyright laws. You can use these facts liberaly without citing authors.

            Calling you an IDIOT Adam Chant would be an insult to all the stupid people!

  8. Aganda21MustEnd
    September 13, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Once you are in the system, that is were they want you to stay!

    • Palmdale_Steve
      September 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm

      Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time and the scrutiny.

    • anotherdummy
      September 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm

      You do know what “parole” is, right? Early, conditional, and supervised, release of an inmate. Those conditions include the amount of time you are subject to random checks. It is a trade off for being released.

Comments are closed.