Uncategorized

A Morgan Hill man who was convicted of the brutal murder of Bertha Paulson in 2013 was sentenced to life in prison last week.Michael Sheppard, 64, must serve a minimum of 15 years for the crime of second-degree murder, according to Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Chuck Gillingham.At the Jan. 19 sentencing hearing at the South County Courthouse, Paulson’s older sister and an advocate for the family read statements to the judge.Paulson’s sister, Margaret Waskey, traveled from the family home in rural Mountain Village, Alaska, to attend the sentencing hearing.The advocacy group Mothers Against Murder helped Waskey with travel expenses to Morgan Hill. MAM Executive Director Margaret Petros said a portion of Sheppard’s court-ordered restitution will go toward reimbursement of those expenses, if he ever pays.“We don’t expect that much money to come from the criminal—he’s in prison,” Petros said.Petros added that Paulson’s family members are pleased with the judge’s sentence.“We believe he will not walk out of prison, which was very rewarding for the family,” Petros said after the sentencing hearing. With justice served, Paulson’s family is now in the process of planning a memorial service and burial in Alaska, Petros added.Sheppard’s jury trial took place in October 2017 at the Morgan Hill Courthouse. The jury found that Sheppard killed Paulson, 45, the night of June 15, 2013 at his home at Morgan Hill Apartments, a small mobile home park just north of downtown. It was the only murder in Morgan Hill in 2013.Court files and testimony during the trial showed that Paulson died of a broken neck and suffered fractured ribs, collapsed lungs and numerous cuts. Her body was covered in bruises. These injuries resulted from a “brutal” attack by Sheppard inside his home, Petros described at the time.Paulson had moved to the West Coast—first to Seattle and then to the Bay Area—from Alaska about four years before her death, according to Petros and Waskey. When she arrived in Morgan Hill, Paulson was homeless, living in an encampment behind Morgan Hill Apartments, where Sheppard lived.Sheppard and Paulson had been in an “off and on” dating relationship at the time of Paulson’s death, according to Morgan Hill Police. Witnesses testified during the trial that they had seen Sheppard assault Paulson before the night of her death.During the October trial, Sheppard testified that he had been drinking heavily when he and Paulson began verbally arguing. This escalated to a physical altercation that ended in Paulson’s death.Initially, Sheppard admitted to police that he beat Paulson until she was unconscious. He tried to revive her but, unable to do so, he moved her to the railroad tracks behind his residence. Witnesses found her there, dead, the next morning.At the trial, Sheppard added that he used a shopping cart to move Paulson’s body. Sheppard also testified that when he laid her body near the railroad tracks, he tried to make it look like she had been raped. Police said she was found with her pants down and a jacket over her upper body.

The arraignment for Morgan Hill City Councilman Larry Carr on the charge of domestic battery has been postponed to Feb. 16 at the South County Courthouse, according to Santa Clara County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Vishal Bathija.The hearing was originally scheduled for Jan. 26, but Carr’s attorney requested the rescheduling due to a prior commitment by Carr, and Bathija did not object to the request.Carr, who has continued to attend city council meetings since his Nov. 25, 2017 arrest, and the rest of the council have a two-day annual “goal setting retreat” scheduled for Jan. 26 and 27.Carr faces the misdemeanor domestic battery charge in relation to a Nov. 25 incident in which Morgan Hill police say he battered his girlfriend of 11 years at the home they shared in the city’s downtown. The alleged criminal contact occurred after the couple had returned home from spending the Thanksgiving holiday in southern California.Carr and his girlfriend had been arguing about family matters since earlier in the day, according to the police report of the incident, which is on file at the Superior Court Clerk’s office.After police responded to a call requesting a welfare check at the couple’s residence, officers separated Carr and his girlfriend to take statements from them independently.Carr told the officers the only contact he made with his girlfriend during the argument was accidental, as he quickly moved his hands up to block a glass of water she was poised to launch toward him, the police report states. He specified that she only threw the water from the glass at him, but he “instinctively” thought she was going to project the vessel itself in his direction when he saw her pick it up and make a throwing gesture.His girlfriend told police that Carr deliberately “ripped the glasses from her face and threw them to the ground, causing them to break,” and pulled her hair in the process, according to the police report. She also said when she was on the floor looking for her glasses, she pulled a chair out from the kitchen to facilitate her search. Moments later, Carr grabbed the chair and threw it down a flight of stairs, his girlfriend told police.Carr told officers it was his girlfriend who threw the chair toward him, as he was walking down the stairs, according to the police report. He further said he used his arm to block the chair from hitting him. The police report does not say Carr showed any injuries.The victim did not suffer any injuries or complaint of pain, police reported.Although initial MHPD reports stated that the victim, Carr’s girlfriend, had called to report the disturbance, the detailed police report states it was her sister who called authorities. The report says Carr’s girlfriend called her sister during their argument, and told her that Carr “was threatening her, pulled her hair, took her glasses and broke them.” Carr’s girlfriend was aware that her sister had called police before they arrived to investigate the report Nov. 25.The victim’s sister also told police that while she was on the phone with her sister during her argument with Carr, she heard him “yelling and screaming” in the background, according to the police report. The sister also told police that she was aware of four previous incidents of domestic violence between Carr and his girlfriend that were not reported to police.After talking to both Carr and his girlfriend, officers determined Carr was “the primary aggressor.” He was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, and booked at Santa Clara County Jail.Carr has continued to deny the charge of domestic battery, but has not returned recent phone calls requesting comment.The city councilman was convicted of a similar misdemeanor charge in 2015, in relation to an incident at the couple’s previous home March 23. Carr pleaded no contest to domestic battery and completed a 16-week counseling program. The court later dismissed the charge from his record, at Carr’s formal request. Carr has also denied acting violently in that incident, and he pleaded no contest to avoid prolonged court proceedings.In 1993, Carr was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence resulting in bodily injury in relation to a vehicle accident in which he and two occupants of the vehicle he hit were flown to a nearby hospital. In a Dec. 8 statement on Facebook, Carr called this a “young stupid mistake 25 years ago.”

The majority of the Morgan Hill City Council still isn’t ready to make a decision on whether to legalize marijuana sales, commercial cultivation, deliveries and other activities in the city limits, as authorized by California Proposition 64.And the two voting councilmembers—Mayor Steve Tate and Councilman Rene Spring—who are ready to vote on a long-term local policy couldn’t be more opposed in their views of how much commercial and recreational marijuana activity the city should allow.Tate said at the Jan. 17 council meeting he prefers the city’s current “moratorium” on commercial marijuana sales and related activities in Morgan Hill. He cited public safety as his primary concern, shortly after Police Chief David Swing gave the council a presentation that listed impaired driving, youth access and other crime concerns the police department is likely to deal with as marijuana availability increases in the area.“I am not going to vote for anything that will make this community less safe,” Tate said.Spring, on the other hand—enticed by the possibility of up to $1.6 million in new annual revenue from potential local marijuana sales taxes—noted that marijuana is “already here” and the city should take advantage of Prop 64’s new leniency.“The world is changing. This is a great opportunity to jump on the wagon and do something we as a society and community can benefit (from),” Spring said at the Jan. 17 meeting. “Yes, we can tax it if voters approve. I’d be OK if that money goes into prevention and more (police) positions. This might give us access to state grants (which) could be used for education.”City officials have been considering what to do about marijuana under Prop 64 since the state’s voters approved the law, which legalizes recreational marijuana use (for those age 21 and up) and commercial sales, in November 2016. Statewide, Prop 64 passed with 57 percent of the vote. About 58 percent of Morgan Hill’s voters voted “yes” to Prop 64.Prop 64 also allows individual cities and counties to decide whether or not to allow commercial marijuana activity, and to what extent. Swing told the council their options are fourfold:• Allow sales, testing, commercial cultivation, delivery and/or production;• Allow testing, commercial cultivation, delivery and/or production;• Registration program for personal cultivators (Prop 64 allows all adult residents to grow up to six marijuana plants for personal use, on private property);• The city’s current marijuana policy, which prohibits the sale, cultivation and transport of marijuana for recreational, medical or other uses. In July 2017, the council updated its ordinance to remove references to “medical marijuana” in response to the approval of Prop 64, and clarifies that existing local restrictions apply to both medical and recreational cannabis sales, cultivation and distribution.None of the options would prohibit adults from using marijuana in private, as Prop 64 allows.A registration program for personal cultivation, however, would require any Morgan Hill resident who is growing marijuana for personal use to register their plantings with the police department, Swing explained last week. He said such a registry would be helpful to police and EMS who arrive at the scene of a residential emergency, so those responders will know if there are marijuana plants growing on site.Failure to register one’s plants could be a misdemeanor, infraction or no penalty, depending on the council’s preference, according to City Attorney Don Larkin.While the nearby City of Fremont has enacted such a registry, the courts have not had a chance to test the idea. Larkin said Prop 64 allows “reasonable regulation” of marijuana cultivation, and he expects the state and district courts “will be weighing in” on exactly what is reasonable.Pros and consBut for the time being, the city will leave the current policy unchanged, and will not implement a cultivation registry or allow any commercial marijuana activity in Morgan Hill. At the Jan. 17 meeting, the council directed police and city staff to conduct more research on the different options.This includes commissioning a scientific survey to determine more details of the public’s support for commercial and retail marijuana business, along with an associated tax or fee program, among Morgan Hill’s voters. Swing said such a survey would cost about $27,000, or more depending on the length of the survey.“We need to know what voters want before we put it on the ballot,” Councilman Rich Constantine said, referring to any marijuana program that would impose a new local tax on consumers and businesses.Councilman Larry Carr added he would like to see more details on “how strictly” the city can regulate marijuana businesses—for example, the quantities or strength of pot that could be sold by a licensed local dispensary.Swing’s presentation to the council included information on other states’ experiences with recreational marijuana—such as Colorado—and how legalization has impacted health and public services. He noted that if Morgan Hill begins to allow retail sales, the community would become the “sole access point for cannabis in South County,” as the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County governments also currently prohibit sales.A key concern among law enforcement officials is the potential increase in drivers who are impaired by marijuana, Swing said. “The effects of marijuana are compounded when combined with alcohol,” he noted. Driving under the influence of marijuana is a state vehicle code violation.Furthermore, preventing youth access to marijuana products will be a challenge under Prop 64, noted Swing. He presented information to the council that indicates that in Colorado, areas with fewer marijuana dispensaries show a lower rate of youth cannabis use.And there are fears associated with the “all-cash” nature of the marijuana business, which could make cannabis storefronts and delivery people targets for robbery, Swing said.The benefits of allowing the gamut of commercial marijuana activities include more revenue for city services—between $675,000 and $1.6 million annually—as well as more jobs, Swing said.Cities that allow retail marijuana sales under Prop 64 will also be eligible for certain state grants, though Swing said the details of such funds and what they could be appropriated for are not yet available.

Morgan Hill residents and City Councilmembers Jan. 17 strongly rebuked a proposal by a fellow citizen to fly a “Traditional Family” flag over City Hall as homophobic, divisive and a contradiction of the community’s values.Morgan Hill resident Olympia Peralta submitted the proposed flag last year, in accordance with the city’s “flag raising” policy, which was approved by the council in September 2017. She was hoping the flag would fly at city facilities during the month of February 2018.At the Jan. 17 meeting, the council unanimously rejected the flag on a 5-0 vote, also in accordance with their policy. That policy states that any commemorative flag to be considered for display on city flagpoles must “(identify) with a specific date, historical event, cause, nation or group of people,” and must be “consistent with the city’s vision, mission, and ongoing and strategic priorities, incorporating themes of diversity, equity, social justice and inclusion.”The “Traditional Family” flag design proposed by Peralta—which depicts a silhouette of a man, woman and two children holding hands with a red heart above their heads—seeks only to divide the community and promote hate, according to councilmembers and members of the public. The flag does not support a recognized cause, and is not consistent with the city values identified in the city’s policy, according to city officials.The policy applies to city flagpoles at City Hall, the Community and Cultural Center and the Centennial Recreation Center. These flagpoles daily fly the flags of the State of California and the U.S., but any proposed commemorative flag is subject to the council’s approval. One example of a commemorative flag is the Rainbow Flag that the city flew for LGBTQ Pride month in June 2017.“As a member of the LGBTQ community, I was deeply troubled when I saw this,” said Councilmember Rene Spring. “It is extremely hurtful.”Spring, who met his husband 20 years ago, went on to describe his experience as a gay man. He and his husband only got married “after years of being afraid” of legal and social repercussions against their orientation—a typical experience for LGBTQ people all over the world.He added that the flag proposed by Peralta is similar to flags used by “right-wing homophobic groups” in France, Russia and other countries.“I do not think flags like that reflect what we are in Morgan Hill,” Spring said. “We are proud to be living in an inclusive community. This flag is offensive to all the LGBTQ members, but also to all our friends. Raising this kind of offensive flag would send the wrong signals across the board.”Other councilmembers objected to the label “traditional family,” noting that there is not a consensus on what the phrase defines. Councilmember Rich Constantine noted that Webster’s dictionary defines a “family” as “traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children,” without specifying the gender of the parents.As a black American, Constantine noted his family has experienced discrimination sponsored by the government, as many members of the country’s LGBTQ community have.“Let’s remember the rights we have, have been trampled on for quite some time. This is not ancient history,” Constantine said. “And we still have a long ways to go.”Councilmembers and members of the public also pointed out that the families defined by Peralta’s flag as “traditional” are not oppressed or targeted for discrimination as minorities and the LGBTQ community have been throughout the country’s history.“People (in the LGBTQ community) are targeted, abused and murdered for who they are,” Councilmember Caitlin Jachimowicz said. “Traditional families are celebrated every day.”The agenda item was on the council’s consent calendar for the Jan. 17 meeting, with a recommendation by city staff to reject the flag. While items on the consent calendar are typically approved without discussion, four members of the public asked that the item be pulled for further comment. These residents addressed the proposal before the council made their remarks.Joy Joyner said, “A lot of people were unaware this item was on the agenda,” but she and others wanted the public to be aware of the undertones of hatred that she thinks inspired the “Traditional Family” flag request.“This flag proposal was designed specifically to alienate members of this community. ‘Traditional families’ have never had laws (enacted) against them. They have never faced the fear of having their head bashed against the curb for loving the person they love,” said Joyner, who went on to describe that she has been the target of such violence because she is a member of the LGBTQ community.Only one Morgan Hill resident, Brian Faircloth, spoke in favor of the family flag proposal. He said it is “simply not true” that “traditional values” are not under attack, but he didn’t offer any specific data. “What you’re saying is ‘traditional values’ are not supported in Morgan Hill,” Faircloth told the council.Peralta did not speak at the Jan. 17 council meeting, and did not return a phone call requesting comment. Her proposal for the flag noted, “We want to highlight the mothers and fathers who are doing their best day (in) and day out to provide a loving and caring environment for their children and ultimately society.”On April 19, 2017, the council declared the month of June “LGBTQ Pride Month” in Morgan Hill, which led to the rainbow flag raising in June. The resolution declaring LGBTQ month notes, in part, “The City of Morgan Hill encourages the celebration of LGBTQ Pride Month to recognize all people in the community deserve to be treated respectfully, fairly and equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Janet and Tom Pocus are nearing the twilight of their 30-year agreement with the City of Morgan Hill that has established their home in the Sunrise Meadows neighborhood as part of the Below Market Rate home ownership program.They’re looking forward to the expiration of that contract when, anticipating retirement, they will finally own their home without any further financial obligations or restrictions on what they can do with the property.But the Pocuses and some of their neighbors are worried that recent correspondence from the city’s affordable housing administrator—as well as many changes to the BMR program since they moved in—might delay, or even eliminate their quest for the American dream.The Sunrise Meadows community—located off Calle Mazatan north of East Main Avenue—consists of about 60 homes. Janet Pocus said all of the homes were built in the early 1990s as part of the city’s vast affordable housing program.On a tip from her sister, Janet said she and Tom—who had three small children at the time—put their name in the city’s BMR lottery when Sunrise Meadows, which was developed by now-defunct South County Housing, was in the planning stages.“They drew our name, and we got to choose the (home) we wanted,” Janet said in the family living room one evening in December. “We got to walk through the walls” during construction. The couple in 1994 paid about $156,000 for the home, which was 75 percent of the fair market value. Under the city’s BMR program, home sales prices are marked down to varying levels that correspond to the new household’s percentage of the Area Median Income. In Sunrise Meadows, the homes sold to families at 80 percent of the AMI at the time, according to city staff.About half the homes in Sunrise Meadows—but not the Pocuses’—were built under a “sweat equity” agreement, in which the lottery-winning new homeowners agree to do some of the construction work on the home themselves. In exchange, they received financial down-payment assistance from the city’s BMR program, which was heavily financed by the Redevelopment Agency at the time.“Everybody moved in six to nine months of each other,” Tom Pocus said.Since the Pocus family moved in, Sunrise Meadows has become what the couple and their neighbors say is the perfect example of what the city’s BMR program was designed to create: a tight-knit community of hard-working families who have supported each other on their quest toward home ownership.The Pocuses’ five children, who are now adults, grew up in the Sunrise Meadows home and graduated from Live Oak High School.“Our church is here, our friends are here, our family is here,” said Tom, a former gymnast and gym owner who now works as a field equipment engineer. “We’re involved in sports programs,” he added. The couple has now lived in Morgan Hill more than 30 years.Thus, the Sunrise Meadows community banded together to seek clarification from city staff when they received a letter in late 2017 from Housekeys, the company that manages the local BMR program on behalf of City Hall. The letter consisted of a number of probing questions about the household finances, some of which the homeowners thought were too “personal” and not relevant to their existing BMR ownership contract.At the Nov. 15 Morgan Hill City Council meeting, some of these residents said they are refusing to sign and return the questionnaires to Housekeys. They fear it is a backhanded effort to rewrite their current contracts under the current terms of the ever-changing BMR program (new agreements with BMR homeowners are now for 45 years, not 30, for example), thus indefinitely extending the date at which they can finally call their homes their own.“We understood after 30 years we would be free to sell the home on the open market,” Michele Harvey, also a BMR homeowner in Sunrise Meadows, told the city council Nov. 15. “That meant it was an investment for us. More so than that, it was a place to build community. That is what we have in this neighborhood…We have seen children born (and) graduate, people pass away, and we have all been there for each other.”City aims to ensure complianceTom Pocus and other residents said in the last 20-plus years they have lived in their BMR homes, they have never received such a correspondence from the city or its affordable housing administrator.City Manager Christina Turner and city housing staff, however, said the Sunrise Meadows residents have nothing to fear. BMR owners are not required to re-qualify under the income requirements for their home, and there is no effort underway to force them to comply with the current affordable home ownership rules such as the updated 45-year contract requirement, Turner said.Municipal affordable housing programs typically include periodic monitoring of BMR homes to ensure the owners are honoring their deed restrictions, and the letter from Housekeys is an effort to do that, Turner said. This certification is ideally completed annually, but that has not been the case in Morgan Hill.“It came as a surprise to many homeowners,” Turner said. “The overarching purpose of the letter is to confirm that the owners are occupying the homes consistent with the original BMR agreements with the city.”The Housekeys letter last year went out to all 509 BMR homeowners in Morgan Hill.BMR property deeds are highly restrictive to the homeowner compared with market-rate home ownership. Aside from the usual required monthly mortgage payments, for example, BMR homes must be occupied by the original owner throughout the term of the contract; owners cannot rent out rooms at market rates; any effort to refinance can be sought only through the program’s preferred loan officers; and if they choose to sell the home before the end of the contract, the city gets first dibs. Any sale of a home in the BMR program before the end of the contract must be restricted to the affordable price.Julius Nyanda of Houskeys added that some of the questions on the letter were optional “survey” inquiries, while others were required for household BMR certification. He agreed the questionnaire could have more clearly stated the difference between these categories.City staff “works closely” with Housekeys in overseeing the city’s affordable housing program, Turner added. Housekeys has run this program since 2015, and is currently under a $500,000 contract with the city for that work. Housekeys also manages affordable housing programs for the cities of Gilroy, Campbell, San Francisco and Burlingame.If Housekeys or the city finds that a BMR homeowner is not in compliance with the deed restrictions, they can take legal action to regain possession of the home. The city has done this on limited occasions in the past, “all in the spirit of preserving the affordability of the unit,” Turner said.‘Byzantine’ contracts difficult to understandSunrise Meadows resident Alberto Juarez is currently in litigation with Housekeys, which filed a lawsuit claiming he was in violation of the BMR deed. Juarez’ mother, the original owner of the home, labored on the home construction herself under a sweat equity agreement.However, his mother died recently. Housekeys subsequently claimed that the family was in violation of the BMR agreement because the owner is no longer occupying the home, and she had placed the home in a family trust, according to Juarez’ attorney Eugene Flemate.Juarez and Flemate argue they are not in violation, and the home’s deed states Juarez’ mother could pass the home to her heirs when she died. After months of out-of-court negotiating and mediation, Flemate thinks Juarez—who wants to retain ownership of the family home—will reach a favorable outcome.However, Flemate said the vague, confusing wording of the “byzantine” BMR contracts makes them difficult to interpret for both Housekeys and the homeowner.“A contract is supposed to think of all the possibilities, like ‘What if you die?’” Flemate said. “It looks like nobody thought of that.”Morgan Hill Housing Manager Rebecca Garcia said a total of three BMR homes in the city limits are in litigation, where the owners are accused of violating their affordable housing deeds.City staff expects to bring an agenda item on Morgan Hill’s BMR program to the Feb. 7 city council meeting. This item will discuss the new state Housing Accountability Act and how it will affect the local program, as well as updates on affordable rental projects, “a forecast of upcoming BMR units for sale in the pipeline, BMR ownership certification process update” and other points, Garcia said.In the meantime, Tom Pocus said he will continue to work with and advocate for his neighbors who worry about losing their homes under an arbitrary enforcement of the rules.“The neighbors need a voice to stand up to these people,” Pocus said. “We’re making sure justice is served. I don’t trust the city council, or Housekeys at all. Many people are afraid to say anything because they’re afraid to be singled out.”

Police arrested a Hollister man Jan. 12 who is accused of robbing a Morgan Hill eyeglasses store and lounge at gunpoint on Christmas Eve, according to a press release. The same suspect is allegedly responsible for similar crimes in neighboring communities.Morgan Hill Police, assisted by agents from the Unified Narcotics Enforcement Team, conducted surveillance and follow-up investigation on the suspect, Matthew Aaron De La Rosa, in Hollister. De La Rosa was located with his girlfriend, Christy Aguirre, 44 of Hollister, on Jan. 12. Aguirre was arrested by the San Benito County Sheriff’s Office on suspicion of multiple unrelated offenses.Detectives executed a search warrant at De La Rosa’s home, which he shared with Aguirre, police said. During the search, police found evidence that tied him to the Christmas Eve robbery in Morgan Hill, as well as another robbery in Monterey.Police questioned De La Rosa after his arrest, and he confessed to a total of six armed robberies—in Morgan Hill, Sunnyvale, Monterey, Seaside, San Jose and Capitola, according to MHPD. He was booked at Santa Clara County jail on suspicion of multiple armed robbery charges.On Dec. 24, 2017, De La Rosa entered EYEfiniTEA Optique & Lounge, 15700 Monterey Road. Wearing a surgical mask, the suspect looked around for a few minutes, selected two sets of eyewear and approached the counter as if he was going to pay for the merchandise, police said.Once the clerk appeared behind the counter, De La Rosa lifted his shirt to display a handgun in his waistband, according to authorities. He then demanded money from the cash register and fled with an undisclosed amount of cash and the eyewear.The Morgan Hill Police investigation led officers to identify the suspect. MHPD released photos of De La Rosa to other nearby law enforcement agencies, some of which determined the same suspect had committed similar crimes in their jurisdictions, according to Morgan Hill police.

An intoxicated Santa Cruz man driving a Tesla sedan nearly jumped Coyote Creek in north Morgan Hill this past weekend, according to police.About 3:45am Jan. 13, police responded to a single-vehicle accident near the intersection of Cochrane Road and Malaguerra Drive, Morgan Hill Police Sgt. Troy Hoefling said.A 2017 Tesla Model 3 was traveling eastbound on Cochrane Road when the driver “failed to recognize” that the road took a sharp right turn at the intersection of Malaguerra Drive, just in front of Coyote Creek, Hoefling said.As a result, the Tesla continued straight off the east shoulder of Cochrane Road, into a street sign and a tree, Hoefling said. The vehicle came to rest about 40 feet off the roadway, partially submerged in Coyote Creek.The driver, Colin Flynn, 38 of Santa Cruz, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, police said. He was not injured in the accident.Flynn initially told officers at the scene that he had swerved to avoid a deer, according to a post on the MHPD Facebook page. Police transported him to the Morgan Hill Police station, where he refused to provide a blood sample to test his blood alcohol content. Officers later obtained a search warrant, with which Flynn eventually complied, according to police.The vehicle has been removed from the crash site.Hoefling noted that emergency personnel who responded to the accident had to be cautious of the fact that the Tesla is an electric vehicle, with batteries that could spill hazardous waste into the creek if damaged, or pose a risk of electrocution. However, such risks did not materialize in this incident.

Uncontrollable juvenile