Four days after Pam Vitale was murdered, Scott Dyleski was arrested. Scott's only known tie to Pamela Vitale was an indirect address on a teen credit card scheme, and a claim by Scott that he had seen a woman matching Vitale's description in a car the morning of her murder (See: Lead Detective LIES for more information on the "probable cause"). Scott was arrested without incident at a relatives house in Walnut Creek, CA. Prior to police arriving at Scott's location in Walnut Creek, the home Scott shared with his mother and the Curiel family was raided by police.
Case No.
C06-05751 WHA
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1988
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA STATE LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO
KIMBERLY MARIE CURIEL; FREDERICK MICHAEL CURIEL; M.T. C., A MINOR, By And Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Kimberly Marie Curiel; T.A.C, A MINOR, By And Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Kimberly Marie Curiel; J.M.C., A MINOR, By And Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Kimberly Marie Curiel; HAZEL ANNE McCLURE, MICHAEL JASON SIKKEMA, D.A.M.S, A MINOR, By And Through His Guardian Ad Litem Hazel Anne McClure; C.R.M.S., A MINOR, By And Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Hazel Anne McClure,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA; SHERIFF WARREN RUPF, sued in his individual capacity and as an employee of Contra Costa County; LIEUTENANT KATHLEEN PARKER, sued in her individual capacity and as an employee of Contra Costa County; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT SERGEANTS JAMES MAHONEY and KEVIN DALEY, sued in their individual capacities and as employees of Contra Costa County; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DETECTIVES JASON BARNES, GARY CLARK, CARY GOLBERG, JOSEPH MOORE, GUY UYEDA, AARON VAN ZELF, LAURIE BAILEY, TODD SANTIAGO, MARTIN RYAN, ROQUE BARRIENTOS, ADALBERTO GARIBAY, RACHELLE FAWELL and RUDOLPH OEST, sued in their individual capacities and as employees of Contra Costa County; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES OSCAR ARANDA AND DALE HADLEY, sued in their individual capacities and as employees of Contra Costa County; AND DOES ONE though ONE HUNDRED, et al.,
Defendants.
Recent News
The LIE used to get Scott's warrant continues to perpetuate, now in federal court, and once again a judge, this time a federal judge, seems to have no clue about this blatant misinformation. Take note of the following assertions in the order issued by judge Alsup:
Quote:
Fred and Tom looked at Robin Croen's computer and confirmed that some of the items had been sent to Pamela Vitale's address.
Quote:
Tom Croen's statements revealed that Fred Curiel was also panicking about the connection between the fraud and the murder because they had discovered Vitale's address on some of the packages ordered with stolen credit card numbers.
Quote:
Fred Curiel had approached Tom Croen wanting to know if there was any such evidence on Robin's computer. Curiel also knew that Robin Croen and Dyleski had sent packages to Pamela Vitale's address
This information is BLATANTLY FALSE. Nothing was EVER delivered or intended to be delivered to Pam Vitale's address at 1901 Hunsacker Canyon Rd. See "Lead Detective Lies" and also take note of the prelim testimony of Deputy Sheriff Philip Venable:
Quote:
Q. When you were looking through the receipts and the orders earlier, the one on page 10, the ship-to address was 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Road; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The one on page 11 also reflected a shipping address of 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Road.
A. Yes.
Q. As did the order on page 12?
A. Yes.
Q. And the order on page 14?
A. The ship-to is also 1050 Hunsaker.
Q. Is that also true on page 16?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any indication on any of the documents in front of you that the person who placed those orders ever intended to have them shipped anywhere other than 1050 Hunsaker Canyon?
MR. JEWETT: Objection; calls for speculation as to the purchaser's intent.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. LEONIDA: I'll rephrase the question.
Q. On any of the orders before you is there a shipping address listed other than 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Road?
A. No.
Q. On any of the orders before you, is there any stated intention by the person generating the order form to ship to an address other than 1050 Hunsaker Canyon Road?
After the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court wishes to have parties submit supplemental briefing. Parties should address the question of whether taking each of the three individual plaintiffs to the Field Operations Bureau for questioning or to give statements violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, they should address whether the three plaintiffs went voluntarily, and whether there are genuine triable issues of fact on that point. Parties should not limit themselves to evidence in their favor, and should address countervailing evidence. Evidence, however, should be limited to that which has already been submitted as part of the record on summary judgment. Citations to relevant Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions are also requested. This is not an opportunity for parties to re-argue other issues in this motion; they must confine themselves to the above-stated issue. Submissions should be no more than ten double-spaced pages in length with appropriate font and margins. They should be received no later than AUGUST 10, 2007, AT NOON.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment previously set for August 3, 2007 at 8:00 a.m. has been rescheduled for August 2, 2007 at 4:30 p.m., before the Honorable William Alsup. Courtroom 9, on the 19th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
