On January 11, 2023, a routine call for assistance turned into a tense encounter between law enforcement and an inebriated woman at a winery in Douglas County.
Officers were summoned to the scene after reports of a woman trespassing while under the influence.
When they arrived, they found her sitting in her car, clearly intoxicated and unwilling to cooperate.
The deputy on the scene, identified as Debbie Cabrera, approached the woman, who introduced herself as Marcella.
The interaction began with a simple inquiry about her presence on the property.
The deputy informed Marcella that the owners wanted her to leave, to which she responded defensively, insisting she hadn’t done anything wrong.
However, the winery had been closed for some time, and her presence was unwelcome.
As the conversation unfolded, Deputy Cabrera sought to ascertain whether Marcella had been drinking and if there was someone who could pick her up.
Marcella confirmed she had been drinking but claimed that the owner, Kim, was arranging for an Uber to take her home.
The deputy asked for her driver’s license, to which Marcella complied, albeit with a hint of irritation.
Despite the deputy’s attempts to clarify the situation, Marcella became increasingly combative.
She insisted that the flashlight used by the officer was shining in her face, though Cabrera assured her it was not.
Tensions escalated as Marcella continued to assert her right to remain on the property, arguing that she knew the owner and therefore should be allowed to stay.
As the discussion continued, the deputy informed Marcella that the winery had officially trespassed her.
This declaration only fueled her frustration, leading to a back-and-forth where she demanded her license back while insisting she was not doing anything illegal.
Cabrera remained calm, attempting to guide Marcella toward finding a way home without escalating the situation further.
However, Marcella’s refusal to acknowledge the deputy’s authority led to a standoff.
She repeatedly demanded that Cabrera back off, asserting that she had the right to stay.
The deputy, maintaining her professionalism, reiterated the need for Marcella to leave the premises and called for backup to assist in resolving the situation.
As the standoff continued, the winery staff confirmed that they had indeed canceled the Uber that had initially been called for Marcella.
This revelation only added to the confusion, as she insisted that she had arranged for her own ride.
The officers, however, made it clear that it was not their responsibility to ensure her transportation home.
In an attempt to de-escalate the situation, the deputy contacted Marcella’s daughter, who was urged to come pick her up.
The daughter acknowledged her mother’s behavior and agreed to arrange a taxi instead.
However, when this information was relayed to Marcella, she reacted with disbelief and hostility, refusing to cooperate.
The confrontation reached a boiling point when Marcella continued to ignore the officers’ commands and insisted on remaining on the property.
After several warnings, the deputies informed her that failure to comply would result in her arrest for trespassing.
Despite this, she remained obstinate, insisting on her right to stay and verbally attacking the officers.
Ultimately, the situation escalated to the point where officers had no choice but to arrest Marcella.
As they attempted to detain her, she resisted, leading to a physical struggle.
The deputies managed to subdue her, but not without a significant display of defiance and anger from Marcella, who continued to shout and insult the officers.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the challenges law enforcement faces when dealing with intoxicated individuals.
While the officers aimed to ensure Marcella’s safety and resolve the situation peacefully, her refusal to cooperate led to an unfortunate outcome.
The entire episode highlights the importance of communication and compliance in such interactions, as well as the potential consequences of intoxication in public spaces.
