OFFICE OF THE: DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF VENTURA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

March 30, 1993

REPORT ON THE DEATH

OF

DONALD SCOTT

MICHAEL D. BRADBURY
District Attorney

This report has been compiled from the original 62 plus pages
into this version

by:
the

Outpost of Freedom

Electronic version
March, 1997

[Note: The original report was scanned, and a cursory review made. There may be errors in this transcription, especially in case law and statute information. A copy of the original report can be provided. Contact Gary Hunt at the Outpost of Freedom for information.]

---

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE INVESTIGATION

Ill. FACTUAL SUMMARY [included in separate page because of size]

A. Initial Investigation
B. National Park Service Visit
C. Arranging the Aerial Surveillance
D. D.E.A. Overflight
E. Border Patrol Search
F. Corroboration
G. Fish and Game and Coastal Commission
H. Undercover Threat Assessment.
I. Obtaining the Search Warrant
J. Personnel and Preparation for Serving Warrant
K. Knock Notice
L. Entry
M The Shooting
N. Alter the Shooting
O. The Search
P Weapons
Q Autopsy
R Additional Aerial Observations
S. Interview of Plante

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS [included in separate page because of size]

A. Border Patrol Search
B. Land Forfeiture
C. Evidence of Marijuana Cultivation
D. Validity of Search Warrant
E. Service of Warrant
F. Shooting.

V. CONCLUSIONS

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

ATTACHMENTS

1. List of Officers
2. Diagram of House
3. Transcript of Answering Machine Tape
4. District Attorney's letter - Subject: Motive

I. INTRODUCTION

Donald P. Scott, age 61, owned and lived on a 200-acre property known as the Trails End Ranch, 35247 Mulholland Highway, in the Ventura County portion of Malibu. California. On October 2,1992, while serving a search warrant at the ranch Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputies Gary R. Spencer and John W. Cater, Jr. shot at Scott, resulting in his death. The shooting and the events leading up to it have raised a number of issues of concern to this office, other law enforcement agencies, and the public. This report summarizes our investigation and conclusions.

Back to Top

II. THE INVESTIGATION

The investigation by this office was conducted by District Attorney Senior Investigator Richard C. Haas, Senior Deputy District Attorney Michael D. Schwartz and Deputy District Attorney Kevin G. DeNoce assisted with the legal research and analysis.

During our investigation. we interviewed some 40 witnesses and reviewed statements of approximately 20 additional witnesses. We reviewed hundreds of pages of reports and other documents, including the reports of the Ventura County Sheriff and the internal investigation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff. We also visited the ranch and reviewed dozens of photographs, audio tapes of phone calls and interviews, and a video tape of the scene of the shooting. With few exceptions, the individuals and agencies we contacted cooperated with our investigation by being interviewed and providing us with requested documents. We greatly appreciate their assistance.

Deputy Spencer was interviewed several times and volunteered to provide us with any information we wanted. He offered to take a polygraph examination, but we declined based on our general concerns regarding the reliability of polygraphs. The United States Border Patrol provided us with written materials but refused to allow its agents to be interviewed.

In this report, we have noted some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. We have done so to give a more complete report of what our investigation has found, with this caveat: it is a common human experience that there will be some variation between witnesses in their perception, recollection and reporting of events. Discrepancies may mean that a witness is lying, or may reflect the witnesses' honest recollection of what occurred.

Back to Top

V. CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the evidence in this case, the District Attorney is of the opinion that the following occurred:

Upon receiving information from the informant, Deputy Spencer originally thought that thousands of marijuana plants might be growing at the ranch. Efforts to confirm the presence of marijuana were unsuccessful. He was unable to see marijuana from the top of the waterfall and the Border Patrol did not see any plants during two attempts to do so. Agent Stowell claimed to see only a relatively few plants, based solely on their color, but was unwilling to be the basis for a search warrant without corroboration.

It is inherently unlikely that Agent Stowell could see marijuana plants suspended under trees in a densely vegetated area through naked-eye observation from 1000 feet. His failure to take photographs is unexplained, and when the warrant was executed, no evidence- of cultivation was found. Based on all of the evidence, it is the District Attorney's conclusion that there was never marijuana bang cultivated on the property as reported by Stowell.

Spencer learned that the name of Plante and her associates had come up in investigations of heroin smuggling and other narcotics violations. Spencer knew that if he could put together a search warrant for marijuana cultivation, he could get onto the ranch and also search for other drugs, and had arranged to do so. He also knew that if marijuana were found growing, or if narcotics were found in sufficient quantity, it was possible that a very valuable piece of real estate would be forfeited to the government with proceeds from a sale of the property going to the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department.

Spencer could not get Stowell to agree to the search warrant without corroboration. When the Border Patrol failed to find marijuana, Spencer told Stowell that the informant now expected a yield of only 40 pounds of marijuana. The informant denies telling Spencer about 40 pounds, which raises the possibility that Spencer fabricated this information in order to induce Stowell to agree to use his name in the search warrant affidavit. We are unable to resolve the discrepancy between the statements of Spencer and the informant. However, other law enforcement officers have vouched for the informant's credibility.

The Border Patrol entered the property to look for marijuana and not to look for illegal aliens. Their recent claim that they entered the property in a search for illegal aliens is unconvincing and unsupported by the evidence. Because we do not know exactly where they went, we cannot determine whether all of their actions were within the "open fields" exception to the Fourth Amendment.

The affidavit upon which the search warrant was based contains material misstatements that the BMW was registered to Scott at the Trails End Ranch and that Stowell used binoculars. It also omits material information, including the failure of the Border Patrol and others to see marijuana on the property, the altitude of Stowell's flight, the very limited basis for Stowell's opinion that he saw marijuana, and the manner in which Stowell was convinced to agree to the warrant. The misstatements and the omissions make the warrant invalid. While we were misled by Spencer into approving the warrant affidavit, further inquiry by this office might have uncovered the defects in the warrant. Because it cannot be proven that Spencer knowingly lied in the affidavit, there is an insufficient basis for a perjury prosecution,

It is the District Attorney's opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. While the National Park Service could indirectly obtain this land, there is no evidence that it instigated or played a significant role in the forfeiture plan. Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. This search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant.

When the warrant was executed, the deputies sufficiently identified themselves and demanded entry to the residence in compliance with law. The evidence does not establish that Donald Scott intended a shoot out with the deputies. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the deputies went to the ranch with the hope of killing Scott. When Deputy Spencer ordered Scott to lower his gun, Scott did so in a way that Spencer says caused him to fear for his life. There is no evidence to disprove Spencer's version of how the shooting occurred. For that reason, we must conclude that Spencer and Cater were justified in shooting Scott in self-defense. While there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether Plante was in the room during the shooting, her report of the shooting itself is substantially the same a that of Deputy Spencer. The invalidity of the warrant does not form a sufficient legal or evidentiary basis for a homicide prosecution.

This case involves numerous individuals and agencies and is fertile ground for speculation as to the motivations of each of them. What we cannot forget is that Donald Scott's death could and should have been avoided.

Back to Top

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Law enforcement officers should tape record critical conversations with informants and other witnesses.

2. Observations of suspected marijuana during aerial surveillance should be photographed in color.

3. While interagency cooperation for marijuana eradication and other law enforcement purposes can be valuable, involved agencies should ensure that they have the legal authority for their investigative actions, including the entry on private property.

4. In preparing search warrant affidavits, law enforcement officers must not compromise their objectivity based upon forfeiture concerns. Regardless of whether a given search warrant may result in the forfeiture of valuable property, officers must ensure that there is adequate probable cause.

5. Whenever possible, search warrants should be reviewed by a deputy district attorney who is familiar with the specialized areas of law that are involved. Prosecutors reviewing search warrants must act as objective evaluators and before approving an affidavit must resolve all questions relating to probable cause.

6. Search warrants should be obtained and served promptly. Specifically, search warrants for growing marijuana should be served quickly during the harvest season.

7. Returns to search warrants should comply with the statutory requirement of listing all of the properly taken pursuant to the warrant.

8. The Sheriff of Ventura County and other sheriffs and police chiefs statewide should review consent agreements entered into pursuant to Penal Gods section 830. 1 to determine how much authority they wish to give to sheriffs deputies from other counties and police officers from other cities. Specifically, they should consider whether they should require notification and the opportunity to participate in the service of search warrants and other specified law enforcement operations within their jurisdiction.

9. Based on the personal involvement of Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Larry Longo in this investigation, the referral to the Los Angeles County District Attorney will request that Longo not be given access to the file and will suggest that his conduct in the case be addressed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County.

10. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department should reopen its administrative investigation into the conduct of Deputy Gary Spencer in view of the District Attorney's findings.

11. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department should examine its policies and procedures regarding obtaining and executing search warrants to prevent a recurrence of the events which lead to the death of Donald Scott. Specifically, they must ensure that warrants are supported by probable cause and served in a manner that minimizes the danger to both citizens and officers.

12. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department allowed Deputy Spencer to participate in the investigation into the circumstances leading to the shooting of Donald Scott. In view of Spencer's activity in procuring the warrant and ultimately shooting Scott, his participation in the ensuing investigation was inappropriate. Officers involved in shooting incidents should not participate in investigations of their own conduct.

13. The United States Department of Justice should require its law enforcement agencies, including the Border Patrol, to cooperate with investigations by local law enforcement agencies.

14. The Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement of the California Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Campaign Against Planting Marijuana, should establish criteria, consistent with case law, for determining the sufficiency of an expert opinion regarding the aerial identification of marijuana cultivation.

15. Our file will be forwarded to the Grand Juries of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, the Sheriffs of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, the Attorneys General of the United Stales arid of California, and the Federal Bureau of investigation for their review. We recommend that those bodies conduct their own investigations to determine what action is appropriate for them to take.

Back to Top

ATTACHMENTS

PERSONS PRESENT WHEN WARRANT EXECUTED

LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Boyce, Sgt. Larry M.
Burch, Joy
Cater, John
Copplin, Donna
Dewitt, Lt. Richard
Joblonsky, Joyce
Levy, Sgt. Steve
Marco, Sgt. Harry
Mueller, Sgt. Robert W.
Reichie, Dean (Reserve)
Spencer, Gary
Valentine, Dave
Zenman, S.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (FEDERAL)
Barrett, John
Youngblood, Steve

BUREAU OF NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT (STATE)
McClung, Greg
Petit, William

U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Burton, Jim.
Wears, Glen

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CANINE UNIT
Daniel, Charles
Cuessferd, Pat
Lealan, Don
Taylor, Sgt. Steve

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Simonds, Tim
Sutton, Bryan
Young, Tim

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
Yavrouian, Andre
Mintz, Fred

NATIONAL GUARD
Diaz, Frank
Hicks, Capt. Clay
Russell, Ron

Back to Top

TAPE FROM SCOTT'S ANSWERING MACHINE

First Conversation: Deputy Joy Burch (JB) to "911"
JB: _____________ the door.
911: 911 emergency, what are you reporting?
JB: "'kay, is this the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department? Uh. we have a, uh, we have a gunshot victim here.
911: Yeah, we got you _________ on the air.
JB: Alright, somebody's in route?
911: Yeah, fire is on the way.
JB: Thank you,

Second Conversation: Neighbor (N) to Deputy Gary Spencer (GS)
N: Hello, is this, uh, uh, Donald?
GS: No, no, it's a friend of his. Who's this?
N: Is Donald there?
GS: Uh, he's busy, what's up?
N: OK. I Just. I'm Just a neighbor, I just saw a police car go up, wanted to make sure everything is OK. GS: Oh. OK.
N: Everything alright?
GS: Uh, yeah, this is the Sheriffs Department.
N: Oh, OK. Everything OK or what?
GS: Uh, we were serving a search warrant on the property here.
N: Uh, OK, 1 was just checking out...
GS: Yeah...
N: ...and seeing if everything was alright.
GS: Yeah, he didn't call us, we were serving a search warrant.
N: OK, I'I1 talk to you later.
GS: Alright.
N: Bye, bye.

Third Conversation: Lt. Richard Dewitt (RD) to Capt. Larry Waldie (LW)
(Dial tone and dialing)
Recording: We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a 1 or the area code when calling the number. Please hang up and try your call again. (Dial tone and dialing)
LW: Larry Waldie.
RD: Uh, Captain, Dewitt here.
LW: Yeah
RD: I'm on a search warrant with the Hidden Hills crew on this marijuana eradication thing...
LW: Yes...
RD: And they just uh, looks like a 927D here.
LW: At the location?
RD: Yeah.
LW: A dead body's there?
RD: No, we put him down.
LW: We killed him?
RD: Yeah.
LW: Uh, Where you at?
RD: Hold on a minute... Harry do you have the address here?
Harry: Yeah,
?: Hold on and I'11 get it.
RD: Apparently what happened, they did their knock arid notice for quite awhile, came into the house, the guy was, uh, walking out of the back of the house.., he has some kind of revolver, I don't know what kind it is, he's holding in his hand. Told him, put it down... he kinda had it pointing up in the air originally.., as he brought it down he was kinda pointing toward the deputy and I don't know which deputy it is right now... ?:That's it.

Back to Top

---

Go to Diagram of House

Got to District Attorney's letter

---

mail topf@illusions.com

Return to Outpost of Freedom Homepage

How a 32-Man Assault Team Murdered Donald P. Scott at Trails End Ranch

Murder in Malibu
http://www.savetrailsend.org/

REPORT
http://www.savetrailsend.org/report.shtml

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA STATE OF CALIFORNIA REPORT ON THE DEATH OF DONALD SCOTT

MICHAEL D. BRADBURY, District Attorney

INTRODUCTION

Donald P. Scott, age 61, owned and lived on a 200-acre property known as the Trails End Ranch, 35247 Mulholland Highway, in the Ventura County portion of Malibu, California. On October 2, 1992, while serving a search warrant at the Ranch, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies Gary R. Spencer and John W. Cater, Jr. shot at Scott, resulting in his death. The shooting and the events leading up to it have raised a number of issues of concern to this office, other law enforcement agencies, and the public. This report summarizes our investigation and conclusions.

ARRANGING THE AERIAL SURVEILLANCE

While in South Lake Tahoe, Spencer and Los Angeles Sheriff's Sgt. Robert W. Mueller told DEA Special Agent Charles Stowell that an informant told them that approximately 3000 plants were being cultivated in a remote ranch in Malibu. They agreed to meet on September 22 to discuss the case further.

On September 22, 1992, Stowell met in Whittier with members of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, DEA and the U.S. Forest Service. No National Park Service employees or Ventura County officers were present.

Ranger Mike Alt and Special Agent Laurel Pistel, both of the U.S. Forest Service, were present at the meeting. Pistel states that she was invited by LASD, Sgt. Mueller, and that she believed the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a prior marijuana case that the Forest Service and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department had worked on together. While in attendance, she learned that the meeting involved the Trails End Ranch. She states that she did not hear asset forfeiture discussed at the meeting.

At the meeting, Spencer displayed the aerial photographs of the property taken by the California Air National Guard. However, Stowell stated that he could not identify cannabis plants because the photographs were in black and white.

In his report, Stowell states that the photographs show an illegal water system at the property. Forest Ranger Mike Aft stated that it appeared that the water might have come from the National Recreation Area and if so, could be illegal. He said that fact would allow the Forest Service to enter the land, but only if the National Park Service requested their assistance.

We obtained enlargements of the Air National Guard photographs. The only water system that can be seen is a pipe leading from the waterfall to a water tank, which supplies the water to the area where the buildings are located. The vegetation shown in the photographs is extremely dense, and no cultivated plants or footpaths can be identified.

DEA OVERFLIGHT

On September 23, 1992, LASD Deputy David Kitchings and Stowell flew over the ranch for approximately 10 minutes. Stowell reported that he did not see any marijuana until the third orbit over the ranch, when he saw approximately 50 marijuana plants, located approximately 75 yards southwest of an outbuilding on the property. He stated that the plants were at staggered elevations, and had light underneath them. The plants were approximately 25 yards north of and parallel to a dirt road in line with the main residence. He also described the location as being directly in line with the barn and out approximately 75 yards. Stowell checked the remainder of the property but did not locate a large cannabis cultivation site. He stated that if there were 3000 plants on the property, they were well hidden or were in an outbuilding. Kitchings then conducted aerobatics to lessen suspicion that they were conducting surveillance.

Stowell had a camera in the plane during the September flight but stated that he took no photographs. Stowell and other narcotics officers state that the usual procedure is to take photographs. A review of published cases involving over-flights indicates that photographs are frequently attached to the search warrant affidavit. Stowell stated that he should have taken photographs, and could not explain why he had failed to do so (however, in two reports, Stowell states that he was able to photograph the location in an October 5 flight over the property).

Stowell told us that he was flying at an altitude of at least 1000 feet and was not using binoculars because binoculars make him feel sick.

BORDER PATROL SEARCH

At the meeting of September 22, Forest Ranger Mike Alt suggested that a reconnaissance team go onto the property to look for the marijuana and stated that a team could be ready within 24 hours. After the aerial surveillance by Agent Stowell, Spencer asked Alt to put the team together.

On either September 22 or 23, Alt contacted the U.S. Border Patrol in Bakersfield and asked that the Border Patrol's C-RAT team assist the Forest Service with reconnaissance on the property. On the evening of September 24, 1992, Alt met at the Sheriff's Department with four members of the Border Patrol, along with Sergeant Boyce and Deputies Cater and Spencer. Border Patrol Agent Ed P. Dubbe was the commander of the mission, which the Border Patrol called 'Operation Malibu.' The Border Patrol agents were outfitted with climbing gear, cameras, weapons, and other equipment. They all then went in a Sheriff's van to the area of the ranch.

Spencer states that he is not sure exactly what area the Border Patrol searched. He states that at that point, he still believed the marijuana was growing on the ground and that to the best of his knowledge, the Border Patrol was only looking for marijuana on the ground and not in the trees. He states that they reported that they did not cover all of the property, but were confident they did not see any marijuana plants in the areas they covered. He also states that the Border Patrol reported that it was extremely unlikely that 3000 plants were present.

The Border Patrol has refused to allow us to interview its agents regarding this case. The written materials they have provided are contradictory and inconsistent as to times and are uncertain as to locations. As a result, we have been unable to determine the exact area that they searched.

PERSONNEL AND PREPARATION FOR SERVING WARRANT

At 7:00 a.m. on Friday, October 2, 1992, the officers who were to serve the search warrant gathered at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Malibu Station and were briefed. Present were 30 law enforcement officers (13 from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, 5 from the Los Angeles Police Department canine unit, 3 from the National Guard, 3 from the National Park Service, 2 from the U.S. Forest Service, 2 from the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE), and 2 from the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration). A list of persons present is attached to this report.

In addition, two researchers from Jet Propulsion Laboratories (JPL) in Pasadena were present. They state that they were there to conduct research. Los Angeles Sheriff's Sergeant Robert W. Mueller invited them to be present when the warrant was served. One of the researchers was a reserve officer for the Los Angeles Police Department, but was at the scene on behalf of JPL and not on behalf of the police department.

Two of the Los Angeles Sheriffs deputies were from the asset forfeiture unit. They state that it is customary that forfeiture personnel be notified several days before service of a search warrant and accompany narcotics officers serving the warrant to seize cash and documents which may lead to other assets. The forfeiture deputies in this case were notified a week or less before the warrant was served. As is customary, they did not begin any investigation before the warrant was served.

Spencer states that BNE agents were present as part of CAMP and were assigned to assist with locating and harvesting marijuana plants. Spencer states that the canine handlers were assigned to look for evidence of narcotics hidden in buildings or cars and that the LAPD canine unit was used because Sheriffs' canines were not available. An officer with the LAPD narcotics canine unit told us that they brought dogs trained to detect cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, as well as dogs trained to detect marijuana.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Shooting Evaluation states that two unidentified Los Angeles County Probation Officers were also present. No personnel from Ventura County Sheriff's Department, which has the primary law enforcement authority and responsibility for the area, was present or notified that the warrant was going to be served.

The briefing was conducted by Spencer and Sgt. Boyce. According to National Park Service Rangers Bryan Sutton and Tim Simonds, they were told at the briefing that there were weapons in the house, but that no problems were anticipated. According to Simonds, they were told that the warrant was for the property rather than the people and there would not be a quick entry. Simonds also recalls that a deputy stated that the ranch would be seized if they found 14 or more plants. According to Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement Agent Greg McClung, someone said at the briefing that they would look into seizing the property if marijuana plants were found.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

District Attorney Bradbury raises the following questions at the conclusion of his report:

1.What is the legal authority of the Border Patrol to conduct searches for drugs?

2.Did the Border Patrol entry constitute a trespass?

3.Does the Fourth Amendment permit government agents to enter private property to search for drugs?

4.Did the Los Angeles County Sheriff obtain the warrant in order to obtain Scott's land?

5.Did the National Park Service orchestrate the investigation or killing in order to obtain the land?

6.How reliable are the observations of marijuana from the air?

7.What other evidence supports or refutes the presence of marijuana?

8.Did the warrant affidavit contain knowing or reckless false statements or material omissions?

9.Do the misstatements and omissions invalidate the warrant?

10.May the officers be prosecuted for perjury?

11.Why were so many officers and agencies present?

12.Was the presence of Ventura County deputies required?

13.May a peace officer use deadly force in serving a search warrant?

14.Does an invalid warrant make the shooting a crime?

UPDATE
http://www.savetrailsend.org/francisscott.shtml

The IRS is presently forcing the sale of Trails End Ranch to pay unconstitutional Death Taxes. If you would like to help save Trails End Ranch, please contribute to the Donald Scott Memorial Fund:

Donald Scott Memorial Fund
P.O. Box 6755 Malibu, CA 90264
Bank of America
Point Dume Branch
29171 Heather Cliff Road
Malibu, CA 90264
(310) 456-6296

On October 2, 1992, a "task force" composed of L.A. County sheriff's deputies, DEA agents and U.S. Park Service officers executed a search warrant -- crossing Los Angeles County lines into Ventura County (without notifying Ventura County police) -- on California millionaire Don Scott's estate.

The search warrant was based on information from an informant that marijuana was growing on Scott's 250 acre estate, a piece of land coveted by the government. DEA agents planned to use this to seize Scott's estate, which federal officials had earlier tried to buy to incorporate into its scenic corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains. "But Scott would never negotiate with government officials, whom he distrusted," according to the Los Angeles Times.

The task force arrived at Scott's estate before 9 a.m.. They crashed through the door and pushed Scott's wife, Frances Plante, through the kitchen into the living room. She screamed "Don't shoot me! Don't kill me!", apparently awakening her husband, who came downstairs brandishing a gun over his head. According to Plante, the officers told him to lower the gun, and, as he lowered his arm, they shot him to death. They left him lying in a pool of blood on the floor as they searched the premises, finding no trace of marijuana anywhere on the estate.

When Scott's wife ran to the body, they "hustled her out of the house." Recorded phone conversations show that while the dead or dying millionaire lay in a pool of his own blood, police used the phone to make calls, and answered a call from one of Scott's neighbors, telling the neighbor Scott was "busy."

Several weeks before the raid -- according to Malibu Surfside News reporter Anne Soble, (who covered this story in extensive and probing detail) -- a game warden and a California Coastal

Commission employee paid a visit to the Scotts, bringing with them a six-pack of beer. During the visit, they asked for a tour of the Chumash Indian trails on the property, which the Scotts refused because of rattlesnakes. Scott's widow, Frances Plante, believes the visit was connected to the investigation leading to the raid - particularly since U.S. Park Service agents -- who had an obvious interest in obtaining the property -- participated in the raid.

Part of the allure of the estate is its repute as an archaeological site of the Chumash Indians -- a fact not missed by the forfeiture squads, who seized old maps and other historical documents relating to the property, during the fatal October 2 raid, according to Scott's wife, Frances Plante.

__________________

Source articles: "Millionaire Killed in Multi-Agency Assault on Historic Malibu Ranch", by Anne Soble, Malibu Surfside News, 10-8-92.

"A Violent Confrontation Ends Man's Colorful Life", Los Angeles Times 10-12-92, p. A3.

"Drug Task Force Kills Millionaire During Search", Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10-13-92.

"Los Angeles County Sheriff's Took Lead Role in Raid the Claimed Life of Malibu Rancher", by Anne Soble, Malibu Surfside News, 10- 15-92.

"Friends and Family Recall Slain Malibu Man's Zest for Living," by Anne Soble, Malibu Surfside News, 10-22-92.

"Malibu Groups Start to Raise Questions About Agency Roles in Fatal Trail's End Ranch Raid," by Anne Soble, Malibu Surfside News, 10-29-92.