West Sacramento PD Secretary Charged with Boy or girl Endangerment – Also Allegedly Threatened Victim’s Father Working with Police Connections

By Genesis Guzman WOODLAND, CA – Defendant Bonnie Logsdon—a secretary at the West Sacramento Law…

By Genesis Guzman

WOODLAND, CA – Defendant Bonnie Logsdon—a secretary at the West Sacramento Law enforcement Dept.—dodged a court docket trial for alleged youngster endangerment, but testimony right here in Yolo County Outstanding Court this 7 days advised she may possibly have built her situation even worse by threatening the victim’s father employing her law enforcement connections.

Logsdon was billed with one misdemeanor account of endangering the overall health of a baby following she allegedly sanctioned—and also did not properly supervise—a bash for her son where by alcohol would be obtainable and accessible to minors.

The sufferer in problem was a slight in attendance at the social gathering and when the victim’s father arrived to select his baby up he observed keys in the child’s pocket, and the youngster could have remaining the occasion remarkably intoxicated.

When the victim’s father confronted Logsdon, he explained the defendant threatened him, applying her place at the West Sacramento Law enforcement Office as leverage. 

Logsdon’s Assistant General public Defender John Sage motioned for Logsdon to complete a two-yr diversion period that involved a parenting software, an underage and substance abuse program, and quarterly testimonials. 

Deputy District Legal professional Caryn Warren objected to this diversion, stating that the DDA experienced made available Community Court with the Restorative Justice Application, which the victim’s father was keen to participate in.

Nonetheless, all through the plan the victim’s father was sad with the results, believing the defendant showed a absence of accountability.

In get for the court to grant diversion, the DDA asked for an admission from the defendant admitting that she furnished a location where by liquor would be out there to minors and that she failed to supervise the home correctly.

In advance of speaking to the defendant and her counsel, Decide Timothy Fall dealt with the victim’s father and how he felt about the initial diversion program that he and the target participated in with Logsdon.

The victim’s father defined how there was a lack of accountability demonstrated by the defendant, and that the organizers of the method felt that as well, so a lot so they proposed the circumstance back again to the DA’s office.

The father was then contacted a 2nd time to ask for a next diversion option for the defendant. On the other hand, right after examining Logsdon’s posture, the organizers determined not to move forward with the 2nd diversion simply because Logsdon continued to deny obligation.

Right after clarification from the victim’s father, Judge Drop authorized time for Logsdon to speak with her counsel. 

Right after the speedy split, Logsdon addressed the court and the victim’s father with a wavering voice, expressing, “I have to have you each to fully grasp that I figured out a large, significant lesson from this incident…I would like to do anything I could potentially do to remediate and correct this.” 

The DDA queried the victim’s father in purchase for him to both approve or deny a different attempt at the unique Neighborhood Court docket that was becoming provided.

In response to her assertion, the victim’s father mentioned “I really feel like my loved ones and I have been extremely gracious to Ms. Logsdon who I personally imagine is in a desperate try to protect her work by earning certain she doesn’t go on record admitting.” 

The victim’s father ended his assertion with an opposition to the give and a request to go to trial, to see what the jury will determine.

Just after listening to the father’s assertion the DDA made a decision to not supply Community Court and ongoing to object to the defense’s proposed court diversion.

Through the protection closing remarks, PD Sage tried to change some of the blame to the victim for underage consuming, but he was swiftly shut down by the judge, who explained, “We’re not likely to tell a insignificant that they are the ones accountable for an adult’s steps.” 

Judge Slide defined to the victim’s father that if the scenario went to demo the conviction would be a a lot shorter probation than the two many years that the protection is proposing for the diversion. 

The court accepted the defense motion for diversion, but not without the need of stating that he also did not feel the sincerity of the defendant’s assertion, but that diversion will make it possible for him to implement much more of the courses she is set to comprehensive.