Home › Education › Education: College
Former CSUCI police chief arrested in weekend DUI case
Hospital had refused to take a blood sample, officials say
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Education: CollegeA former Oxnard police lieutenant and CSU Channel Islands police chief, now the assistant police chief at UCLA, was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving over the weekend even though hospital personnel refused to take a blood sample, authorities said this week.
Jeff Young, 52, was taken to St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard after his SUV crashed into a tree Saturday afternoon in Camarillo, the Ventura County Sheriff's Department reported.
Deputies asked St. John's personnel to take a sample of Young's blood to check for alcohol levels after noticing the smell of liquor on his breath, but the hospital staff refused, said Capt. Ross Bonfiglio, public information officer for the Sheriff's Department.
Taking a blood sample is standard procedure in cases where someone is suspected of DUI, and Bonfiglio called the staff's refusal "a significant point of concern."
"This is a very unusual circumstance," he said, adding that sheriff's officials are investigating the incident.
Rita O'Connor, a spokeswoman for St. John's, declined to comment, saying in an e-mail that "in general, we do not respond to requests for information about patient cases out of respect for patient privacy."
Even without a blood sample, deputies arrested Young, a Camarillo resident, at the hospital on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, Bonfiglio said.
He was later released pending further investigation, Bonfiglio said.
Young could not be reached for comment, and the extent of his injuries was unclear.
Investigators will ask the Ventura County District Attorney's Office to prosecute Young for misdemeanor DUI, Bonfiglio said.
The accident occurred as Young was driving alone north on Carmen Drive about 12:40 p.m. Saturday, Bonfiglio said. Young was approaching the intersection of Las Posas Road but apparently failed to follow a curve in the road, Bonfiglio said.
The vehicle crossed the road, hitting two traffic signs along the way before it crashed into a large pine tree, he said.
Deputies noticed the smell of alcohol on Young's breath when they arrived, Bonfiglio said.
They would have given him a Breathalyzer test at the scene if not for his injuries, Bonfiglio said.
Young was taken to St. John's, where deputies made numerous attempts to get his permission for a blood sample, "but we could not get a signed consent from him," Bonfiglio said.
Bonfiglio said authorities are legally entitled to obtain a sample by force if needed and asked medical personnel to do it, but "the hospital did not take one."
James Ellison, chief assistant district attorney, said Wednesday that his office has yet to receive any documents about Young's arrest from the Sheriff's Department.
Young began working as an Oxnard police officer in the 1970s. He eventually became an administrator there. After 23 years with Oxnard, Young in 2000 became the first police chief at the new CSU Channel Islands in Camarillo.
Young went to work for UCLA about two years ago, said Nancy Greenstein, a UCLA police spokeswoman. He is now second in command there, Greenstein said.
UCLA police are aware of Young's accident and are in contact with the Sheriff's Department, said Greenstein, who declined to comment further.
Posted by CloudyDaze on April 3, 2008 at 5:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This just does not make any sense. Something smells fishy. If it was me in the same situation, you can bet samples of my blood would be taken. Must be nice to be a member of the good 'ol boys club.
Posted by ladybear_4me on April 3, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They would have had to take him to VCMC to force the blood sample draw. Protocol.
Posted by RC on April 3, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
that is a bunch of crap. He is not above the law and should have been forced to take a blood sample just like any body else.He could have killed someone
Posted by captainbob on April 3, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
above the law, the blue silence. I hope they throw the book at this hypocrite. I wonder how many campus parties he attended!
Posted by KatieTeague on April 3, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This doesn't make sense to me either. Must be more to the story.
Posted by DoctorDude on April 3, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
""deputies made numerous attempts to get his permission for a blood sample, "but we could not get a signed consent from him,""
.....Yet ANOTHER example of how Law Enforcement refuses to cooporate in police investigations when they are involved. Once again I ask, if law enforcement won't cooporate why should the public?
Posted by DoctorDude on April 3, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is this dude ripped at noon?
Posted by ladybear_4me on April 3, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nurses aren't allowed to do legal blood draws from the patients if they don't have a signed consent. That's why they would have had to take him to VCMC. That's what happens to those in the general public who refuse also. If he was too injured to transport, that's the only reason I can see for him not being taken there for a forced draw. Maybe he was too injured to sign a consent. We don't know. We weren't there in the ER with them. On the other hand, the DA has options to use that may not appear in this article.
Just because this was an officer involved, off duty, doesn't mean that he's going to get off easy. He's probably going to have it harder since they are held to higher standards, plus he's going to lose his job and his right to work in law enforcement if proven guilty.
On that note.. please allow the accused to be tried and judged in a court of law, not the newspapers.
Posted by MyTwoCents on April 3, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this had been a "good 'ol boys club" deal you never would have heard about it. Saint John's is a private Catholic Hospital. The law allows for the cops to do a forced blood draw but St. John's policy has always been not to do this and this is nothing new. That is their right and they cannot be forced to change their policy. There are other ramifications for not submitting to a chemical test so let the matter play out before getting too excited that nothing will happen.
Posted by goldcoaster on April 3, 2008 at 9:14 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Ventura22 on April 3, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great. Now he's qualified to work for VCSO.
Posted by cameronincam on April 3, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A person who refuses to comply with the breathalyzer test option may be required to submit to a blood draw without violating the Fourth Amendment (People v. Sugarman (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 210, 214-216) as long as there is probable cause to believe he was driving under the influence and the blood draw is performed in a reasonable, medically approved manner. (People v. Ford (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 32, 35.)
The courts have consistently held that after a driver refuses to take any of the proffered chemical tests, he or she may not later retract the refusal to avoid the consequences of that refusal. (Cole v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 870, 873-874; Dunlap v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 279, 280-281). "[O]nce the suspect refuses to take one of the . . . tests, . . . there is no requirement that the officers thereafter give him a test when he decides he is ready." (Skinner v. Sillas (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 591, 598; accord, Morgan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 165, 170-171.)
Posted by imbetnonit on April 3, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like he IS above the law.
Posted by B8R_N4MD on April 3, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And the news always truthfully prints exactly what happened..... There are alot of missing facts in this article, which is written to stir controversy. There is alot more to this than is written here. Lets not judge too quickly.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on April 3, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The deputies did their duty as best as they could, so stop generalizing. cameronincam provided the relevant precedents. The PC also covers the situation. Young hurt his own case by refusing to allow the testing. It is now up to the DA.
Posted by B8R_N4MD on April 3, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The article did not say he refused, it stated they were unable to obtain a signed consent. There is a difference. They did not provide any further details so we dont know why they were unable to.
Posted by gypsygirl on April 3, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NOT FAIR.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on April 3, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Someday a doctor or nurse employed by St. John's will have a drunk driver run into a member of THEIR family. And if that DUI driver goes to St. John's, I want to see what their "policy" will be then? I disagree with ladybear4me, "Nurses aren't allowed to do legal blood draws from the patients if they don't have a signed consent"> There is no law preventing nurses from doing so; it is either their personal decision or hospital policy, but NOT a law. In fact, they are given an civil exemption. VSO did their job and obviously they didn't cut Young any slack. The real problem is the County of Ventura has no policy in place to send a nurse or phlebotomist to St. John's to draw blood under these circumstances. It's all about money.
Posted by roger on April 3, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
St. Johns policy for 20 years is not to force blood if the subject doesn't consent, meaning signing the voluntary blood form. VCMC will force blood draws and law enforcement agencies have gone there in the past (Sheriffs Office most often).
Maybe Capt. Bonfiglio has been out of patrol too long and should get updated to investigative procedures in Ventura County, that even his own agency follows, and not try to pass it off on St. John's Hospital (a private hospital) when they could have obtained a forced blood at VCMC after Young was treated for his injuries.
Injuries? STAR, maybe that might have been important to the story. Could he have head injuries or significant other injuries that prevented deputies from administering field sobriety tests which would have helped determine whether they give him a breath test. I don't know if VSO has portable breath tests but the police departments in this county do.
Posted by imbetnonit on April 3, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it against the law to impede an investigation by law enforcement?
Posted by suejones on April 3, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The doctor that was handling Young was a personal friend of his and would not do it. The reason VCSO did not take him to VCMC in the first place was the extent of his injuries (He was unconscience). If VCSO knew that the hospital was going to refuse they would have sent him to Ventura. Because he was also already admitted, VCSO could not remove hime and take him to VCMC.
This is not a case of the "good ole boys club". The Sheriff's department is very unhappy about this whole situation. I hope Young loses his job for being an a**!
Just my 2 cents from someone who really knew what went on!
Posted by ebrockway on April 3, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
roger,
Did ya read the article?
"They would have given him a Breathalyzer test at the scene if not for his injuries, Bonfiglio said."
Hard to blow (and yes, VCSO aint some Hillbilly PD, they have the PAS device) when paramedics are working on the victim. Sure he could've been transported to VCMC after release, but who says when he'll be released?
Doesn't an ER take a blood sample to determine blood type as a standard procedure after an accident?
And another thing, this can't be the first time an accident occurred when the driver was suspected of DUI and was too injured for an FST and breath test. What was done the last time?
How about this, if you refuse a breath test, what happens?
Go here and figure it out;
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11_...
Seems to only apply AFTER the arrest is made, so if he was advised of his rights, and refused the test...? Was he physically unable to give consent?
Nobody with any sense can say the VCSO treated this guy like a "Good ol' Boy" and cut him slack. It can be a tangled up mess when you have to take a suspect all the way to VCMC for a forced blood test.
Posted by slkrchck on April 3, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i'd swear he used to work for phpd in 1981. i was in his office and i kept staring at his name plate.
Posted by Mapgal on April 4, 2008 at 12:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Anyone who has ever worked for this guy knows he is a class act. He has dedicated his life to public service and stood in the face of the type danger, most of you would only run from. While you sit in your glass house, just be thankful that the good ol' VCSD isnt knocking at your door. Anyone who knows this department knows they have more skeletons in their closet than anyone (isnt that right Bonfiglio). Nobodys perfect and if he messed up, he'll take his lumps like a man. Meanwhile it sounds like the rest of you need to invest in a mirror and start working on the person looking back at ya.
Posted by John_Q_Public on April 4, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The guy is as human as the next person and with that comes poor judgement and mistakes. Most people "know better" before they do something they shouldn't, like drinking alcohol and getting behind the wheel thinking they're okay.
Some of "us" realize we are not saints and most of "us" who may have driven a car with a .08 blood alcohol level just didn't get caught . This guy is already payig dearly for poor judgement.
He shouldn't have been AND shouldn't BE treated any different than anyone else.
Starting from the moment of his accident, after his trip to the hospital, after his arrest, after his release, after the DA reviews the investigation and IF or when he goes back to his employer.
Right now, it doesn't look like he's in the clear. EVERYBODY knows better and his job didn't make him superhuman or resistant to poor judgement.
Like the millions before him that have done the DUI thing AND GOT CAUGHT...he's going to do everything he can to make the outcome less painful for him and his family (if he has one)
Posted by ironwoman on April 4, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A responsible adult doesn't drink and drive...bottom line. A law enforcement officer takes an oath and should be an example to the community. If an officer is going to arrest people for drinking and driving, they certainly shouldn't be doing it themselves.
It's beyond poor judgement. You take an Oath to serve the public, not serve yourself.
Posted by SayItLikeItIs on April 5, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Deport the guy!
Posted by imbetnonit on April 5, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this high school?
Posted by hockeyfan3144 on April 6, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Ventura22 on April 3, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great. Now he's qualified to work for VCSO.
look at your own agency before you make that statement.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on April 6, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NothingButTheTruth , Exactly what I was thinking.Why didn't they send someone there to draw the blood for them?
vcr ,I do agree with ya.......
Although Im sure the alcohol is out of his system now I doubt that he will be convicted of a DUI. Maybe a smaller offense. I don't know. But I think he will get off. He probably requested to go to St.Johns knowing the policy there.
Posted by cason on April 6, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cops are not above the law. The case has not been judged yet. St. Johns is doing their business as usual. But to all of us. Lets do our best to avoid drinking and driving. This guy is lucky if all he lost was his job, it could have been someones life!
Now, hopefully the star keeps us posted on the final verdict in this case as it appears so many readers are interested.
Posted by chargerchick21 on April 7, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
it's interesting how many of you people act like you know EXACTLY what happened and the circumstances...because you read a news article in the Star you have the right to make judgements or jump to ridiculous conclusions? yeah right. Seriously if you don't know what ACTUALLY happened then stop acting like you do.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on April 7, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
chargerchick21 ,Its a comment board,not a fact board..........we have the right to express our feelings. As do you!
Posted by chargerchick21 on April 8, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gee thanks Anna...I didn't realize we could post comments. All I am saying is that people are assuming things that are irrelevant and make no sense. Trust me there is a lot more to this story than what this news article shows.
And VCR you need to rewind what you said about law enforcement being picked on as kids. That is a statement you only hear from academy rejects who could not hack it or get their out of shape self over the six foot wall.
Posted by ripley on April 9, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
chargerchick21 - I know this guy and he'll never get his butt over even a 3ft wall to save his own life! Plus, he retired 7 yrs. earlier from OxPD. We don't need to know many details about this story - it'll all come out later. Prejudicial fact remains that he refused a blood sample and he'll try everything he can to get out of it - see how many others try the same stunt.
12 Noon, huh?... he just finally got caught and lucky he didn't kill someone. His arrogant attitude - it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy HA! I have faith that the DA's office will make him pay his dues...YES!!!
Posted by ripley on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll repeat: More facts will come out later.
I'm sure there's NO disputing, though, that he drove into a TREE at noon - or, maybe he didn't see it?
Right! Hopefully, we can trust the reports from the STAR will remain unbiased and accurate, and we DO have a right to know them.
And, hey, sometimes I almost miss trees too when they're in my way while driving.
And, it's not as if law enforcement never, ever covers for each other - we're not that stupid, MR. Camarillo.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.