Prowler found nude with stolen undergarments

January 28, 2011

Responding to a homeowner’s report of a prowler, Arroyo Grande Police officers found David Beeman nude, with a large bag full of women’s and children underwear and adult pornography in the caller’s hot tub on January 25.

Beeman, 32, was arrested and booked into San Luis Obispo County Jail for prowling. He was later released on his own recognizance.

On Friday, officers went to Beeman’s home under a parolee search and discovered additional stolen items. Officers arrested Beeman for receiving stolen property, and again, booked him into the County Jail.


10 Comments

  1. Jack L says:

    It’s creepy on many levels.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  2. SLORider says:

    A night out with a bag of underwear? He’s got a lot of work to do to catch up to Charlie Sheen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  3. danika says:

    Parolee ? Did he become a parolee when they released him on his own recognizance or was he a parolee when they initially arrested him? What is actually considered “adult pornography” by today’s legal definition? ( Not that I have any, whatever it is!) ; ) In any event, this is CREEPY. The public is probably better off with him behind bars.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    • Paladin says:

      To answer your question danika, Beeman had to do State Prison time to be a Parolee. It interesting that they did not notice the Parole status at the time of the first arrest? Maybe someone at the State Parole Office didn’t want to put a hold on him. Budget cuts and all.

      Other thing that is odd, he would have been live scanned (automated fingerprinting system) at county jail when he was booked the first time. This scan only takes minutes and they would have gotten a response back from the State telling them he is or was a Parolee. Yet it didn’t flag someone?
      The jail is not suppose to release someone until the live scan returns. If there was a return, the Jail should have called the PD prior to Beeman being released.

      Another interesting point, I believe AGPD has a live scan in the station. Why wasn’t it used prior to booking the first time? Then at booking the information would have been there. The Parole Office or Officer on duty (state parole) could have placed the hold.

      Since Beeman would have been in custody a call to the P.O.’s would get permission to search his residence.

      Something is missing in this story.

      Cindy, he was not out on bail. Bail is an assurance of either property or money that he will appear in jail. Beeman was released from County Jail (according to this report) on his own recognizance, meaning his own signature or promise to appear. He was booked on a misdemeanor charge of prowling, which carries a maximum sentence of 1 year in county jail or fine or both if convicted.

      If he was a parolee why was he released on his promise to appear in court to answer to the charge of prowling?

      Dave, Hard time? The receiving stolen property charge will be reduced or filed as a misdemeanor by the D.A.’s Office or could be dropped entirely if he pleads guilty to the prowling. They will want the prowling on his record, again which is still a misdemeanor. Hard time, the state won’t want him back. He might get a parole hearing at county jail and receive 90 days at the most. He could be on the County Honor Farm in short time. Who knows, he might even get to work in the jail laundry!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      • Dave says:

        Paladin — Great post, but my comment was only meant as a joke.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      • lososospipeline says:

        Any man who trespasses on someones property, naked, with a criminal record, on parole, with girls underwear and pornography on his person is not anyone who should have been released on his own recognizance. I can’t imagine how betrayed the homeowners must have felt, especially if they have children. Unbelievable.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Cindy says:

    This headline might be true but it sure is misleading. You know what I thought?

    By the way, the woman’s underwear I can live with. I know some people just have odd habits and they along with their fetishists are generally harmless, apart from the prowling and stealing. It’s the children’s underwear that I have a very big problem with. I think we need to keep an eye on him until we find out what that’s all about. I guess they didn’t find any kiddy porn around so they decided that it was safe to let him out on bail but why would he want children’s underwear? He needs a closer look and a very short leash in my opinion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  5. Dave says:

    I predict Beeman will be doing hard time for this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

Comments are closed.