.
Feedback

Wild Party of the Super Wealthy? 6 Arrests, Stabbing in Rancho Santa Fe

Deputies arrest a victim at a hospital; one suspect slipped away from home where 200 gathered.

Updated at 12:10 p.m. Nov. 25, 2012

ENCINITAS, CA—Rancho Santa Fe has a small population—a little over 3,000. But it has big mansions and outsized incomes—nearly $200,000 per capita. That makes it one of the wealthiest communities in the country.

The ritzy North County enclave also is notable for once being home to Bing Crosby and Mary Pickford. 

It has boasted* residents such as diet guru Jenny Craig, investor T. Boone Pickens and golfer Phil Mickelson.

But wild parties?  That may be new to The Ranch.

One person was stabbed, another hit with a sheriff's stun gun, and six people were arrested at a raucous house party in Rancho Santa Fe early Saturday.

Deputies said the stabbing suspect got away in the confusion as they arrived just after midnight to a report of a stabbing at a home in the 17400 block of Los Morros, near the intersection of La Bajada, a crossroads just southeast of Encinitas.

San Diego sheriff's Sgt. Joe Passalacqua said arriving deputies found 200 people and evidence of a bloody crime, although the stabbing suspect and victim had fled.

“As deputies attempted to investigate, a fight broke out between individuals in the crowd and a Taser was used to arrest one person, while four others were arrested for disorderly conduct or resisting officers,” Passalcqua said.

Deputies also discovered several intoxicated minors on the property at 17434 Los Morros, which online records say is a 4,064-square-foot, 4-bedroom, 6-bath home built in 1988 and had an estimated value of $2 million.

A man with stab wounds to his arm was later discovered by deputies at a local hospital. Passalacqua said the unidentified stabbing victim was pepper sprayed and arrested after he became aggressive with deputies.

After being treated and released by medical staff, the stabbing victim was arrested by deputies.

The suspect in the stabbing remains at-large.

The homeowner was arrested, cited and released by deputies for violating the county’s Social Host Ordinance, which penalizes adults for providing alcohol to minors.

The investigation of the incident continued, deputies said.

—City News Service contributed to this report.

*Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the names of some celebrities as current residents of Rancho Santa Fe.

jacky bob jack November 25, 2012 at 02:26 am
WOW, talk about someone who knows nothing about Rancho Santa Fe. Jenny Craig, T. Boone Pickens, Phil Mickelson NONE OF THEM CURRENTLY LIVE AT THE RANCH. Pickens got divorced from his wife, Craig sold her ranch to her daughter and Mickelson was selling or sold his house. Ignorant.
jacky bob jack November 25, 2012 at 02:27 am
And Gates' vacation home is La Jolla. He HAD a home BRIEFLY at Fairbanks Ranch.
jacky bob jack November 25, 2012 at 02:28 am
AND, there have been large underage parties at that house and at the Ranch fir several years, all of which were publicized in the media. You need to stop faking it and get a real job stone.
Betty Chase November 25, 2012 at 02:34 am
WOW, talk about someone who knows nothing about Rancho Santa Fe. Jenny Craig, T. Boone Pickens, Phil Mickelson NONE OF THEM CURRENTLY LIVE AT THE RANCH. Pickens got divorced from his wife, Craig sold her ranch to her daughter and Mickelson was selling or sold his house. Ignorant.
And Gates' vacation home is La Jolla. He HAD a home BRIEFLY at Fairbanks Ranch. AND, there have been large underage parties at that house and at the Ranch fir several years, all of which were publicized in the media. You need to stop faking it and get a real job stone.
RATSJ November 25, 2012 at 03:43 am
Don't forget about some of the corrupt people that have called RSF their home...David Dominelli and Randy "Duke" Cunningham for starters. Lots of schemers and crooks live behind those big walls. Not as great as you might think!
steven Jacobs November 25, 2012 at 01:08 pm
rappers maybe?
Steve November 25, 2012 at 02:32 pm
Why is it that if the people involved had been working class or middle class the names of the homeowner, the stabbing victim and the suspect (if name were known) would be printed but because they are rich they are not named. A prime example of why we need to dismantle the class structure in this country.
Don Andrews November 25, 2012 at 02:34 pm
Well, EVAN ( if that's your real name ) just the way you wrote your comment, bragging about "partying since I was 12 years old" and " the drugs,girls' " etc, you obviously must be a product of someone that must have been on a "trip" when you were born.
ellen November 25, 2012 at 02:48 pm
I was a 2nd generation in Rancho Santa FE family raised horses & raced in Del Mar Santa Anita & Caliente, dont ever remember anyone talking that filty as you Evan, I am sure you are from Encinitas & not RSF, So watch your dirty mouth !!!!
Sabra Bruning November 25, 2012 at 03:42 pm
MONEY doesn't buy Jesus. These may well be a bunch of Judas types.
The spirit of the world....will always be riotous, rebellions, decadent, unmerciful, drunkards, etc, etc, etc. Who do you think fills the kingdom of God? REPENTANT rebels, riotous, decadent...! LOL....WHAT A BUNCH, eh? Not good. Money just can't buy class. Instead, they should be humble, thanking God for their many blessings and giving much of that money judiciously to good causes.
Ned November 25, 2012 at 04:21 pm
Wonderfull another reason that the "upper crust" should pay more, MUCH more, in taxes.
Keith November 25, 2012 at 05:01 pm
Copious volumes of alcohol and large gatherings simply do not mix well, as this story illustrates.
Kelly November 25, 2012 at 05:23 pm
Pretty sad for you, Evan. Obviously, your partying since 12 has affected your brain and your education. You must have slept through your English classes since you can't seem to put together a coherent and grammatically correct sentence.
Lynn Marr November 25, 2012 at 05:37 pm
Yes, I agree that those names that are part of the public record, such as the names of persons arrested, should have been reported. Evan, posting here, sounds like a typical sock puppet.
I find it confusing that the alleged victim of the stabbing was arrested and pepper sprayed when he was discovered at "a local hospital?" The hospital's name should also be public record. I also don't feel that people should be arrested SOLELY for allegedly "resisting arrest," which is the crime of obstructing justice. This leaves far too much discretion up to officers. Alleged "resisters" cannot be resisting arrest if they are not accused of any other crime! That's not equitable, but it's done all too often in this county.
yannaro November 25, 2012 at 06:54 pm
Check the tenses. "once being home to...", "has boasted..."
Emma November 25, 2012 at 07:08 pm
@jacky bob jack..........it says *has boasted*. Past tense. So the writer is correct. Where's the ignorance?
A R November 25, 2012 at 07:11 pm
The article reads, "It had boasted...", with a footnote indicating a correction made to the story. The word "had" tells me that those named may have owned property there in the past.
David Campbell November 25, 2012 at 07:50 pm
Wow talk about someone who can not distinguish between HAS boasted
( past tense ) and DOES boast.. from the article... It has boasted* residents such as diet guru Jenny Craig, investor T. Boone Pickens and golfer Phil Mickelson. you must be an Obama supporter huh Jacky?
mike November 25, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Steve you poor misguided fool, we are not all equal, some are better stronger, smarter better looking and yes have more money than others , i dont want to live in a we are all the same sing happy songs, and hold hands world you think will be wonderful,,, sameness breeds mediocricity and a lack of wanting to accomplish things
yannaro November 25, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Hmmmmm, I replied here before and my comment was not published because of content, when, in fact, all I did was use a form of the f word which tells you what it is without spelling it, as well as the r word that accompanies it in the above comment. So why was my comment not published but the above was?
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) November 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Yanarro, I've deleted the profane comment above. Also, you're right, masked profanity is not allowed.
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) November 26, 2012 at 01:36 am
I've deleted and rejected various other comments for masked profanity, profanity and personal attacks. Please keep it civil.
MH November 26, 2012 at 12:14 pm
This shouldn't be surprising. I grew up in the South Bay in L.A. County and the wildest parties were always in Palos Verdes Estates and in the mega-mansions of L.A. and there was often someone who got violent and had to be removed. Who cares? Many of us would have appreciated it at one time in our lives.
MH November 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Hope you don't "reject" and "delete" too many comments Mr. Woolfolk that the survivors aren't too boring for debate and responses.
Full Name November 26, 2012 at 12:52 pm
See that asterisk that you reprinted in your post? "It has boasted*..." (<-- see it?!) That asterisk is used to call out a footnote. So, if you look to the bottom of the article, you'll see another asterisk which says: "*Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the names of some celebrities as current residents of Rancho Santa Fe." In other words, the original article claimed those "celebrities" were current residents of RSF. Since they are NOT, as Jacky described, the editors corrected the mistake and added an asterisk to call out the mistake in the footnote.
Not that politics has anything to do with this, but......you must be a Romney supporter, huh David Campbell?
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) November 26, 2012 at 04:37 pm
Haha! I think there was one very fun one. And I think I've only deleted two or three.
MH November 26, 2012 at 07:17 pm
clarification...appreciate the wild parties, not the violence.
Monique Ramsey November 29, 2012 at 09:54 pm
OMG- I used to live at 17535 - just down the street. My 'od 'hood is #gangsta. LOL (And the street was *beyond* quiet back then - no fun parties at all.)

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.