.
Feedback

Update: Shots Were Fired at Car That Crashed on SB-101, Injuring at Least One

The crash, which happened at approximately 3:30 p.m. Sunday, involved an apparent shooting victim.

Update: Monday 12:52 a.m.

[Editor's Note: Bay City News contributed to these reports.]

A car that crashed on southbound U.S. Highway 101 in San Mateo County this afternoon was shot at by another vehicle, injuring at least one person, according to Belmont police.

The car, a red 2009 Dodge Charger, crashed at the Holly Street exit in San Carlos around 3:30 p.m., landing in the bushes next to the off-ramp, according to Lt. Patrick Halleran.

The car had been shot multiple times and at least one occupant was injured by the gunfire, Halleran said.

All three of the car's occupants, two men and one woman, were taken to the hospital for injuries sustained in the shooting and in the crash.

Initial investigation determined that the shooting occurred on Hwy 101 at the Ralston Ave. exit. However, the incident may have started as far back as Highway 92 in San Mateo, Halleran said. As a result, the Belmont Police Department took over the investigation, with assistance from the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory and the California Highway Patrol.

Investigators are asking for the public's help in piecing together what happened. Anyone with information on the shooting or events leading up to it is asked to call Belmont police at (650) 595-7400 or the Belmont Police Crime Tip Line at (650) 598-3000.

Updated Sunday 8:02 p.m.

All lanes have reopened on southbound U.S. Highway 101 following a police investigation and accident just north of Holly Street, according to the California Highway Patrol.

A crash involving an apparent shooting victim was reported around 3:30 p.m. near Holly Street, CHP officer James Evans said.

The vehicle was seen swerving before it veered off the roadway, Evans said.

There has been some jurisdictional confusion but the Belmont police department appears to be handling the investigation.

Motorists are being advised to expect residual delays in the area of the crash.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Updated Sunday 6:36 p.m.

Belmont Patch editor Rick Eymer reports that the southbound lanes of Hwy. 101 are now open, however the Holly St. exit remains closed.

Earlier this afternoon CHP and sheriff's officials shut down all lanes of Hwy. 101 southbound following an accident that apparently involved a shooting. 

Patch will update the story as information becomes available.

-----------------------------------

Updated Sunday 5:43 p.m.

All southbound lanes on U.S. Highway 101 remain blocked due to a police investigation and accident just north of Holly Street, according to the California Highway Patrol.

A crash involving an apparent shooting victim was reported around 3:30 p.m. near Holly Street, CHP officer James Evans said.

The vehicle was seen swerving before it veered off the roadway, Evans said.

The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is handling the investigation, according to the CHP.

A Sheriff's Office spokesman has not returned a call seeking further information.

Motorists are being advised to expect delays in the area of the crash and to avoid the area if possible. No estimated time for reopening the roadway has been given.

-----------------

Sunday 4:34 p.m.

An apparent shooting victim has been involved in a crash in San Carlos this afternoon, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The crash was reported at about 3:30 p.m. near Holly Street, CHP officer James Evans said.

A vehicle was seen swerving before it veered off the roadway, Evans said. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office was responding to the scene. Further information was not immediately available.

 

--Bay City News

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Steve Barnes October 1, 2012 at 04:23 am
Let's see ... incident happens on a California Highway, and the California Highway Patrol is NOT the investigating agency ????? At different times the San Mateo Sheriff and Belmont PD are listed as supposedly "in charge" .... REALLY ????
Only in California can it be this messed up.
Nom DePlume October 1, 2012 at 01:00 pm
I don't know where Steve Barnes lives, but I live in Belmont, CA. The California Highway Patrol is an agency of highway safety, not an investigative unit. They tend to traffic accidents, issue citations, etc. when a highway incident turns out to be a crime instead of an infraction, the police of the city where the crime occurred take the investigation. The car came to a stop in San Carlos, whose police force is so small it is sub-contracted to the San Mateo County Sheriff's office. When it was determined that the shooting actually took place in Belmont, it was obviously transferred to the Belmont Police. Only in California are all agencies so eager to do the right thing that they immediately assume responsibility, so that as much evidence as possible is preserved while sorting out which agency will ultimately handle it.
Starlet McGill October 1, 2012 at 01:14 pm
I was hoping that someone would have an intelligent response to this off-handed statement of "only in Cdlifornia" ??? What does that mean., anyway?
Merilou A. October 2, 2012 at 04:42 am
I'd like to point out...... as other good fellow drivers & I sat with patience in that Hwy. 101 southbound mess in Ralston only exit for well over an hour. We watched far to many "Rude & Selfish" drivers who felt their time and needs were more important then the rest of us in line waiting to get off at that exit too!!!! Driving on the shoulder is " Against the Law " It is an "Emergency Only Lane." Wish there was a CHP sitting on the side giving each and everyone a ticket. " SHAME ON YOU "
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
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.