Tag Archives: Camping

Man stabbed at campsite near Highway 17, Highway 1; Santa Cruz Police arrest acquaintance with blood on his hands, clothes

Posted on by
Cathy Kelly
Santa Cruz Sentinel:   05/25/2012
SANTA CRUZ – A 43-year-old man was stabbed Thursday night at a campsite between Highway 17 and southbound Highway 1, according to Santa Cruz Police.The man received “a few” stab wounds, but they were not considered life-threatening, police spokesman Zach Friend said.He was taken to Dominican Hospital, Friend said.

The victim flagged down a passerby on Ocean Street about 10:45 p.m., saying he had been stabbed, Friend said.

The victim told police that a man he knew stabbed him after the two argued at a campsite where they were staying, according to Friend.

Police arrested Steven Dale Goodwin at the campsite, on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon.

Goodwin, 58, denied the attack, but had blood on his clothes and hands, Friend said.

Santa Cruz police ask anyone with information to call the anonymous tip line at 420-5995 or leave a tip at www.santacruzpolice.com.

Jury convicts Santa Cruz man of four counts of illegal lodging

Posted on by
by Jessica M. Pasko
Santa Cruz Sentinel 03/22/2012

SANTA CRUZ – A Santa Cruz County jury has convicted Gary Johnson of four counts of illegal lodging for sleeping on a bench outside the courthouse.

Johnson, 47, was sleeping next to a sign proclaiming that sleeping is not a crime, a reference to the state law against lodging outside. He and his supporters argue that the state is infringing upon his constitutional to protest the law, which they believe persecutes the county’s homeless population.

After a two-day trial, a jury on Thursday morning found Johnson guilty on all counts. He could face as much as six months in jail per charge when he is sentenced next week.

Johnson was arrested four times in December and January after refusing sheriff deputies’ orders to pick up his sleeping bag and move along. Deputy Daniel Robbins testified during trial that Johnson was arrested twice during one deputy’s shift, first about 10 p.m. and then after being released from jail about four hours later.

Johnson was convicted of the same charge last year, a misdemeanor violation of a state law against lodging outside, after the Peace Camp 2010 demonstrations. The conviction is being appealed.

The county in November instituted a curfew prohibiting anyone not on county business from being at the County Governmental Center from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. The county’s principal administrative analyst, Dinah Phillips, testified that the action was taken after safety and sanitation problems during the Occupy Santa Cruz demonstrations.

“Poverty continues to be crime,” Ed Frey, Johnson’s attorney, said after the verdict. “The judge narrowed the issues that the jury could consider so severely.”

Frey was precluded from using the necessity defense, a legal defense that under state law argues that criminal conduct took place to avoid an even greater harm. Johnson was protesting the law to protect the rights of homeless who have nowhere else to sleep, he argued. Prosecutors rejected that argument and Frey was not allowed to use it in the trial.

“There is nowhere you can sleep legally if you don’t have a property right, so poverty is a crime,” Frey said.

Judge John Gallagher denied Frey’s request to allow Johnson released from custody pending his sentencing on March 29. Prosecutor Shannon Murphy had argued against Frey’s request, citing Johnson’s history of disobeying the law.

“I’ve been angry for a long time about the way you treat homeless people,” Frey told the judge Thursday.

Man on trial for sleeping on bench outside Santa Cruz County Governmental Center

Posted on by
by CATHY KELLY
Santa Cruz Sentinel 03/20/2012

SANTA CRUZ – Trial testimony began Tuesday for a 47-year-old man accused of four counts of illegal lodging for sleeping on a bench outside the courthouse at the County Governmental Center, beside a sign proclaiming that sleeping is not a crime.

County officials and sheriff’s deputies disagree with that statement, however, and Gary Allen Johnson was arrested four times in December and January after refusing deputies’ orders to pick up his sleeping bag and move along.

Johnson was arrested twice during one deputy’s shift, first about 10 p.m., and then after being released from jail about four hours later, deputy Daniel Robbins testified.

Defense attorney Ed Frey asked whether Johnson was obstructing or damaging something. Robbins said he was not.

Johnson was convicted of the same charge last year, a misdemeanor violation of a state law against lodging outside, after the Peace Camp 2010 demonstrations.

He was out of custody pending an appeal when he began sleeping on the bench in December.

After repeated arrests, a judge set his bail at $5,000 and Johnson is being held in County Jail, Frey said.

Frey, 71, said he took Johnson’s case pro bono, because he believes the law is unjust and unconstitutional.

“There is nowhere you can sleep legally if you don’t have a property right, so poverty is a crime,” he said. “People have a right to sleep. Many, many constitutional provisions give that right.”

Frey also said that “lodging” is too vague a description of the illegal behavior.

Prosecutors Shannon Murphy and Judith Jane Stark-Modlin called the county’s principal administrative analyst as a witness.

Dinah Phillips testified that the county in November instituted a curfew prohibiting anyone not on county business from being at the County Governmental Center from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. That action was taken after numerous safety and sanitation problems during the Occupy Santa Cruz demonstrations, she said. Those demonstrators erected a large campsite on city property adjacent to the county buildings and a smaller camping area on the courthouse steps along Water Street.

Several no trespassing signs were posted with the curfew hours, Phillips said.

Frey asked if the county had consulted anyone about the constitutional rights that might be violated by such a curfew, and she said they had, that county counsel had advised them it was within their rights.

Murphy asked sheriff’s Sgt. Dan Freitas, who had warned Johnson, whether Johnson had said he had any purpose for being there other than protesting, or whether he said he did not have anywhere else to go. He did not, Freitas said.

Johnson, a tall, thin man with dark gray hair and a beard, said quietly beside his attorney Tuesday.

Testimony in the jury trial is expected to continue through Thursday, in front of Judge John Gallagher.

Frey said his client could face as much as six months jail time for each of the four violations, if found guilty.

Hikers AND bikers should enjoy Pogonip

Posted on by

As We See It:

SC Sentinel:   03/14/2012

We get that hikers in Pogonip don’t want to share trails with mountain bikers.

We also get that bicycle advocates push hard for what they want, often get it because they are good at organizing and applying pressure, but sometimes leave a trail of resentment behind them.

But their plan to pay for and build a 4-foot-wide trail in the city’s Pogonip greenbelt adjacent to UC Santa Cruz and Highway 9 is one that should be accepted, even if some of the touted benefits of the path are a bit overstated.

The 1.5-mile trail has already been approved by the advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, and next will be taken up the Santa Cruz City Council, either in two weeks or at another date, probably in April.

The proposal for the trail is the culmination of a longtime dream by the biking community, who want more trails in city-owned property. A Sentinel poll last week showed overwhelming support for the bike trail. The trail through Arana Gulch, another Santa Cruz greenbelt, was supported by bicyclists, whose efforts paid off when the state Coastal Commission finally approved the path earlier this year.

The Pogonip trail proposal winds its way up a couple of social hills. One is already occupied by a vocal environmental/conservationist community, veterans of the efforts in decades past to establish the greenbelt. This group likes the quiet and relative unobtrusiveness of allowing only pedestrian access.

These folks have legitimate concerns about environmental problems associated with bikes. It’s more than likely that the hikers and horseback riders who prefer Pogonip the way it is now in terms of trail use will not use the new bike trail. That’s OK. They can continue to use existing trails.

The other issue is the prevalence of crime in Pogonip — specifically drug use and drug dealing, especially heroin and methamphetamine.

The situation got so bad that the Sentinel devoted much of a special report two years ago to investigating the so-called “Heroin Hill” that was making Pogonip off limits except to narcotics officers making arrests.

Since then, aided by money from a tax city voters assessed on themselves, police and park rangers have made major inroads in the Pogonip drug trade. While down significantly, however, vestiges remain.

Another issue in Pogonip has been illegal camping, a problem that continues, as transients and people seeking a place to sleep outside of the long arm of the law often pitch tents in the greenbelt. Unfortunately, this prohibited use also is often accompanied by illegal campfires occasionally leading to wildfires, trash left behind and a host of other environmental degradations.

Will a bike path solve these issues? Yes and no. Yes, in that the more public use, the better. That’s why citizen groups trying to drive out illegal activities from public spaces back the biking trail.

No, because mountain bikers speeding by are not really going to deter wily drug dealers, not to mention illegal campers, tucked back in the shadows and trees.

But this is public property, and a bike path absolutely fits in with public use and access. So we support both pedestrian trails AND the biking trail. While the city obviously does not have the money to make the bike trail happen, bike-path advocates say they’ll raise the $25,000 or so needed to complete the trail and provide the volunteers to maintain it. Based on their track record, they’ll do both — and we urge the council to approve their proposal.