Tragic mistakes with dire, fatal consequences. Two lives were ended, others changed forever.
After nearly nine months of investigation by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office is now tasked with deciding how to charge the teenager who ran a red light and smashed into an SUV carrying three people, killing two of them.
“The matter remains under investigation,” according to an email Thursday from Greg Risling, spokesman for the L.A. County DA’s Office.
Riley Scott Mee, of Newhall, now 18, told officers on Feb. 6 he “was attempting to time the green light, but the light never turned green” as he headed south on Bouquet Canyon Road, toward Newhall Ranch Road, according to the Sheriff’s Department’s “probable cause determination” form.
The detective’s initial observations in that form also mentioned signs of alcohol intoxication — “a faint odor of alcohol” and red, watery eyes.
A witness indicated the teen’s Chevy Colorado truck was going approximately 80 mph when it smashed into the front driver’s side bumper of the Honda CR-V with three people inside.
The collision had such force that both front-wheel assemblies broke free from the truck, according to notes from the crash. The truck flipped and rolled southeast through the intersection, and the CR-V was sent head-on into a third vehicle, a stopped GMC Sierra that was hit so hard that the subsequent collision spun the vehicle 150 degrees. All three vehicles ended up on the northbound lanes on Bouquet Canyon.
Within an hour of deputies being called to the scene, a traffic investigator issued the then-17-year-old a pair of tests with a Breathalyzer-type machine. His blood-alcohol level registered at .026 and .024, which would be legal, if he were over 18.
As a minor, the law has a zero-tolerance policy, and he was arrested on suspicion of vehicular manslaughter and causing a DUI injury crash shortly thereafter.
Investigators soon learned there may be more to the story.
Unusual circumstances
“Sometimes, when we have cases, they start out in one direction, and then sometimes they can branch off, and that’s exactly what happened in this particular case,” said a Sheriff’s Department source, in response to questions about several additional warrants in the crash investigation.
The case was treated a little bit differently than a normal crash from the onset of the investigation, due to a number of factors, according to an official who spoke on background.
A local deputy said on background that the Traffic Services Detail, which is considered a part of the Major Crimes Bureau, can be assigned to investigations that are considered “high profile,” or involve multiple fatalities, particularly if the department anticipates the investigation to take more time.
There was more than one fatality, as the crash resulted in the deaths of a married couple, Silvia Patricia “Patty” Lux, 49, and Genry Ortiz Torres, 54, both of Canyon Country, and left their daughter, Erin Paulina Ortiz, a 25-year-old, seriously injured.
However, there also was an awareness by the LASD that the suspect’s family was well-known in the relatively small, tightknit community that is the Santa Clarita Valley.
Similar observations about the nature of this kind of community were made by detectives during the unrelated, ongoing Main Fire investigation.
For all those reasons, the crash investigation was led by the Traffic Services Detail from the beginning, with multiple local traffic investigators assisting with their expertise, according to department officials and court records.
An LASD spokeswoman did not respond to a question Thursday regarding who assigned the case to the Major Crimes Bureau.
The Traffic Services Detail, with help from the local Traffic Unit, also looked into the driver’s background.
Possible warning
When traffic investigators look into a suspected DUI, one of the things they establish is whether the suspect had a criminal history that involved a similar incident.
That’s because during the sentencing for any DUI charge, the defendant is given what’s known as a “Watson admonishment.”
“In People v. Watson, the California Supreme Court held that second-degree murder may be charged when the facts surrounding a vehicular homicide support a finding of implied malice,” according to a city of Sacramento page that defines the admonishment. In 2006, the warning was codified and ordered given as state law for all convictions. Now it’s also given for any arrests on suspicion of DUI, according to officials.
The then-17-year-old driver had no criminal convictions on his record. A local traffic deputy also reached out to Hart High School, which the teen attended, to determine if there was any disciplinary background involving drugs or alcohol.
The material in the search warrant return does not explicitly state whether he received the formal Watson advisement.
In January 2025, the school received an anonymous tip about his truck. A search made by a campus supervisor uncovered 750-milliliter bottles of alcohol and a “g-pen” commonly used for marijuana, according to disciplinary records that were included in a deputy’s search warrant.
“Your affiant has probable cause to believe (the suspect) was advised of the dangers of driving while being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs as part of the (Community Action Prevention Education) program,” about one year prior to the crash, according to the detective’s affidavit.
“The program educates youth on the dangers of underage substance use on physical and mental health, offers harm reduction strategies and provides guidance on how to reduce risk trajectory and promote change,” according to a “Parent Information Sheet” about the program from Hart High.
Prosecutors with the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office are ultimately the ones responsible for deciding whether the state would view that as a formal admonishment.
A member of the Traffic Services Detail declined to comment for this story.
