Category Archives: Brady List

San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Michael E. Otte Committed Perjury, Why wasn’t he charged? Selective Prosecution.

By Michael G. Stogner

On January 4 and 5, 2017, Hon. Judge Lisa Novak heard a motion to dismiss in People v. Rachel Quintana (No. 16-SM-001677) San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Michael E. Otte testified under oath that he did not take a video of the arrest on his cellphone. Another SMCSO Deputy NICHOLAS P. Kostielney on February 2, 2016 Filed a supplemental report after the arrest Kostielney stated that “no cellular telephones possessed any video footage of the incident.” Filing a false police report is a crime.

As it would turn out a person at the arrest took out his cellphone and videoed Sgt. Otte videoing the arrest. Also Judge Novak’s Bailiff came up to her and reported that he had viewed the video Sgt. Otte just lied about under oath. Good Job to the bailiff.

January 20, 2017 at a Judges Meeting, Judge Lisa Novak informed the Court’s Judges that she had made a finding that SMCSO Sergeant Michael E. Otte Perjured Himself.

How many Judges attended the Judge’s Meeting and have known from that moment on that at least two San Mateo County Sheriff Employees committed perjury and did not make sure that the District Attorney’s Office Prosecute them. How many Attorneys at San Mateo County Counsel’s Office know this information. Finally how Supervisors of SMC and their staff know this information.

The D.A.’s office does in fact charge some people with perjury, 4 witnesses in the Sunny Day Murder trials as an example.

Also this relationship that Judge Novak shared should be broken up.

She noted the close relationship between the sheriffs office and the court and cited the need to have an unqualified trust relationship with this partner.

 

Judge are the safety net for the public, The public trust is at stake here they are counting on the judges to no allow Prosecutorial Misconduct, or Law Enforcement Misconduct or Misconduct by County Counsel. Why didn’t Judge Novak report Sheriff Employee to the D.A.?

Note: Michael E. Otte is no longer employed by San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, California Bar Association, California State Bar, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, Don Horsley, Evidence Tampering, Facebook, Google, Government Hiding the Obvious, Grand Jury, Hon. Judge Lisa Novak, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Judicial Misconduct, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff's Public Information Officer, SMC, SMCSO Deputy Nicholas P. Kostielney, SMCSO Michael E. Otte, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office Top Two Investigators being Investigated. By Who?

By Michael G. Stogner

This might come as a surprise to the residents of San Mateo County but Attorneys file False Instruments with the Courts every single day, Would the San Mateo County Counsel’s Office do it? Sure it’s possible, lets find out. The District Attorney’s Office had 73 days to Investigate Massey and Warren, why the long delay. Who’s left in the D.A.’s office to conduct an Internal Investigation of the top two anyway?

Update: 1/10/2020 San Mateo County Counsel Attorney Joseph F. Charles appeared and his two clients D.A. Inspectors William Massey and John Warren remained outside the courtroom for several hours. They did not take the witness stand but never the less it was good to see them there. Mr. Charles asked for and got his Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed Jan. 07, 2020 SEALED. Why would he ask for that?

Another attorney (female) from San Mateo Counsel Office representing the Five Sheriff Employees who were there to testify and one unnamed Sheriff Employee involved in a Belmont “incident” while not on duty many years ago, and had nothing to do with Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez ( according to her) was there to make sure the Belmont Police report was not only not made public but that Juan Lopez’s Attorneys could not see it either. The Judge temporarily SEALED it to give the Government time to file a motion to seal.

Note: Attorney David Washington sued the City of Belmont November 13, 2014 for not providing the Police Report involving Sgt. Jason Edward Peardon, I know this because I filed the suit and personally served the City of Belmont Attorney. The PADP did a story on it the next day, the attorney claimed the suit was unnecessary and a phone could have resolved this matter. Within a couple of days the City of Belmont retained a Law Firm across the bay and Never provided the Police Report.

The Statement by San Mateo County Counsel that “Sheriff Sergeant Jason Peardon has nothing to do with the Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez.” case is Laughable, He is the Juan Lopez case. Finally the Belmont Police Report surfaces only to be SEALED.

According to a Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed Jan. 07, 2020 by Deputy Counsel Joseph F. Charles SBN 228456 in Case No. NF433910A former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez. Mr. Lopez’s next court date is Tomorrow Jan. 09,2020 9:00AM SSF court Hon. Judge Danny Chou.

San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers Office just filed a motion Yesterday Jan. 7, 2020 to Quash Subpoenas for District Attorney’s Office Senior Inspector William Massey and Chief Inspector John Warren to testify tomorrow.

“In response to the October 28, 2019 Citizen Complaint served by Defendant Lopez, the San Mateo County District Attorney Office has commenced an Internal Investigation into  the allegations made by Defendant in his October 28, 2019 Citizen Complaint has recently commenced, is ongoing, and will not be completed until after the completion of the Defendants underlying criminal trial.” This internal investigation subsumes all of the factual issues raised in the Citizen Complaint which include events that transpired as far back as 2015. More importantly Defendant’s criminal trial is likely to reveal the names of witnesses, events, information and additional evidence directly relevant to the District Attorney Office internal investigation into alleged misconduct (and potentially criminal misconduct) allegedly engaged in by law enforcement personnel.

How do they know when x Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez’s underlying criminal trial is going to be completed?

What date was this Investigation opened and Who is conducting it?

Why wasn’t this Investigation opened several years ago when Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez filed a lawsuit with the exact same complaint?

thumbnail-2Senior Inspector John Warren, Lets hope this is on his off time.

Update 5:40 PM 1/8/2020 No response from San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers yet.

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>.   Jan 8 at 11:46 AM

To: John Beiers

Cc: Dave Pine, David Canepa, Don Horsley, Carole Groom, Warren Slocum, Mike Callaghy

Hello John.

I hope you had good Holidays,

I writing a story on the Investigation of San Mateo County District Attorney’s top two Investigators Massey and Warren.

Can you tell me what Date that Investigation was opened?

Also Who is conducting that Investigation.

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers waited to respond until the Judge Sealed the Motion to Quash.

John Beiers <jbeiers@smcgov.org>. Jan 10 at 1:57 PM

To: Michael Stogner

Cc: Dave Pine, David Canepa, Don Horsley, Carole Groom,Warren Slocum and 1 more…

Michael:
I hope you also had a good holiday season.
As you may know by now, yesterday the court ordered the Citizen’s Complaint and any information related to it including the DA’s internal investigation, sealed from disclosure as a confidential record.  Therefore, the County is not at liberty to discuss the investigation or answer any questions about it because to do so would violate the court order.

Best,

John

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe has not responded.

Michael G. Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>.   Jan 10 at 7:31 AM

To: Steve Wagstaffe

Hello Steve,

The San Mateo County Counsel has stated that your office is conducting an Investigation of Inspector Massey and Warren.

Can you confirm that?

Who is conducting that Investigation?

What date was that investigation opened?

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, 911, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, DOJ, Don Horsley, Facebook, Google, Governor of California, Grand Jury, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Kevin Mullins, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, RICO, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, Sean Gallagher, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff's Public Information Officer, SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, SMCSO Sergeant Lou Aquino, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Whistleblowers

San Mateo County News.com Names Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz Employee of the Year.

By Sarah Navratil & Michael G. Stogner

December 27, 2018 and signed off on December 31, 2018, Became public on March 1, 2019 after the San Mateo County District Attorney made it available on their website. District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe held a Private Press Conference where he gave a 26 minute presentation of the Investigation of the In-Custody Homicide of Chinedu Okobi. HOMICIDE was never mentioned.

We at San Mateo County News.com can just imagine the pressure she must have felt for simply doing the job she was hired to do. The amount of other SMC Employees who had knowledge of her Homicide ruling and Omitted that word is shocking.

Congratulations Heather Diaz.

San Mateo County Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz # 21 stated: “Upon arrival of Paramedics and Fire Personnel Chinedu Okobi was assessed and found to be unresponsive.”

“As the death was the result of multiple measures to subdue Chinedu Okobi by law enforcement, and based on the information contained in the Coroner’s Investigation Report, Toxicology Report, medical records, and multiple videos, 

“I have determined the manner of death to be homicide.”

March 1, 2019 SMCDA’s Work Product made public.

You will notice the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Office only names five names. There were SIX Everybody knows that.

The only San Mateo County District Attorney Employee to Include civilian CSO Joseph Gonzales was SMCDA Inspector Gregory Giguiere 80215

October 3, 2018 2:50PM

San Mateo County Sheriff Sgt. Trickett was the Incident Commander at the scene. He identified the “Involved Parties.”

Involved Parties:

Sergeant David Weidner

Deputy Joshua Wang

Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti

Deputy John Demartini

Deputy Bryan Watt

Community Service Officer (CSO) Joseph Gonzales

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #SanMateoCountyNews, AXON, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, California State Bar, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, Community Service Officer Joseph Gonzales, CSO Joseph Gonzales, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, Excessive & Unnecessary Use of Force, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Kevin Mullins, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Rick Decker, Sean Gallagher, Senator Jerry Hill, Sgt. Bob Pronske, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, SMCSO Sgt. Irfan Zaidi, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, SMCSO Sgt. Weidner, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Ed Barberini is San Mateo Police Chief.

By Michael G. Stogner

san-mateo-police-chief-patch___22170637993

He starts February 3, 2020

All San Mateo County Cities and government officials claim that they have found the perfect guy or gal only after an “extensive national search,” A month long National Search etc. Mike Nevin, Jim Hartnett and now Ed Barberini come to mind.

City Manager Drew Corbett said Barberini was chosen because of his diverse law enforcement background and experience in the county.

Why did he leave the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office?

What was his position when the Sheriff and UnderSheriff were caught and detained inside a Human Trafficked Sex Slave residence which included at least one minor April 21, 2007. What was his position when Undersheriff Carlos G. Bolanos went to the media the day and promoted a False Story about the massage parlor mix up. Similar to the Epstein Prosecutors False Story calling the children victims Prostitutes. What was his position in 2010 when a Brave Female San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy reported 45 Sheriff Employees receiving Porn and Rape Videos on the County Server and Sheriff Computers. One San Mateo County Sheriff Employee sending it to the 45. What was his position when UnderSheriff Bolanos interfered in an Investigation involving his son 2011.  Most recently the October 3, 2018 in San Bruno Homicide of Chinedu Okobi by Six San Mateo County Sheriff Employees,

Did he speak out about any of this?

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Body Camera Video, Brady List, Citizen Journalist, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, D.J. Wozniak, DDA Ben Blumenthal, Ed Barberini, Extensive Nationwide Search, Michael G. Stogner, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, San Mateo City Manager Drew Corbett, San Mateo County Sheriff Office Porn and Rape Video, San Mateo Police Department, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate

Political Prosecution Case of former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez.

By Michael G. Stogner

Outrageous Government Conduct

21253_main

Juan P. Lopez

Update: Next Court Date is Jan 9, 2020 9:00AM S.S.F.

Update: Next court date is November 18, 2019 2:00 P.M. Courtroom 8-C Redwood City.

The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office is not to be Political or used as a Weapon. Tell that to San Mateo County District Attorney Senior Inspector William Massey.

A reasonable person would think that the Five Supervisors (Carole Groom, Don Horsley, Warren Slocum, Dave Pine, David Canepa) of San Mateo County would do everything in their power to assure the PUBLIC that this could NEVER happen on their watch.

A reasonable person would think that San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers and David Silberman would do everything in their power to assure the PUBLIC that this could NEVER happen on their watch.

A reasonable person would think that San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy would do everything in his power to assure the PUBLIC that this could NEVER happen on his watch.

I know for a fact that all of the above mentioned San Mateo County Leaders are very aware because for the last 20 years I have been keeping them informed. Public comments at the Board of Supervisor meetings, sending them copies of my articles from SMCN.com. This is a Five year case finally soon to be heard by a Jury.

Next Court Date is November 12, 2019, 9:00 AM, 400 County Center Redwood City.

All concerned citizens are welcome to attend as these motions will be heard.

 

Motion to dismiss for Break of Chain of Custody 

Motion to dismiss for Discovery Violations 

Motion of Brady Violations 

Motion of Outrageous Govt. Conduct

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hon.Judge Donald Ayoob, Illegal Search of Cellphone, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Jon Mays, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Kevin Mullins, Maria Belyi, Marshall Wilson, Matthew Graves, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Munks, Silicon Valley, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Tony Serra, Victim's Advocate, Whistleblowers

Skyline Road Homicides, The 90 Beat

 

 

Were the dumping of dead bodies, on Skyline Boulevard, foreseeable or something of that order inevitable? Did sheriff’s executives fail the community?

The geographic area of Skyline Boulevard, in unincorporated San Mateo County, was formerly assigned patrol deputies to provide line-level law enforcement services for each of the sheriff’s office’s shifts. It was known as the “90 Beat.” The position, that of a deputy sheriff providing patrol services, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, was fully funded for by the County Board of Supervisors and staffed by the sheriff.

Under then Sheriff Don Horsely & Undersheriff Greg Munks, staffing for this position was changed, with the deputies being removed (reassigned) and the funding being used to, first, pay for deputies assigned to East Palo Alto and, later, other pet projects of the sheriff. This practice was continued, first, by Munks who took Horsely’s position as sheriff, in 2007, and then Carlos Bolanos who was Illegally Appointed Sheriff July 12, 2016 by the Board of Supervisors and became elected Sheriff in June 2018 sworn in Janruary 2019.

In short, Horsley, Munks, and now Bolanos, respectively, made decisions to leave county residents who live at and about Skyline Boulevard unprotected, without a dedicated patrol officer, because they were deemed to have less of a need, even though the County Board of Supervisors fully fund the position and, I dare say, have the expectation that this was and is being done.

Could the two recent homicides, on Skyline Boulevard, be, in part, the result of no dedicated deputy sheriffs patrolling that area, providing an incentive for those that would engage in crime there? And, in that regard, couldn’t the resulting crimes have been foreseeable, inevitable, since there was no dedicated deterrent?

Did Horsely, Munks, or Bolanos ever inform area residents of their decision to divert resources? Did these residents not have an expectation their neighborhood was being staffed and protected by sheriff’s patrols?

Had a Deputy not been responding to an unrelated call for service and driven by and noticed the first body, how long would it have been before it was discovered? Shouldn’t County residents expect more from current Sheriff Carlos Bolanos? Has he shown the vision, decision making, results, and stewardship residents should expect from the chief executive officer of a $140,000,000 enterprise / budget? Certainly, this should be a question best put to the residents of the 90 Beat?

Another way to view this, isn’t such failure of leadership and results by Sheriff Bolanos foreseeable, given his past performance? Shouldn’t we both expect and be resigned to it?

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, 911, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, Citizen Journalist, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, John Beiers, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Munks, SMC, Tax Payer's Advocate

SMC Sheriff Sgt. Irfan Zaidi Qualifies as a Brady Officer. Is He on the List? Who controls the list? Is there even a List?

The law enforcement profession requires integrity and trust and an officer who lies violates that trust and tarnishes the integrity of the profession.

October 3, 2018 at 1:00 PM Millbrae, California, Chinedu Okoki a 36 year old man was walking down the sidewalk on El Camino Real. Within 10 minutes he was Tasered 7 times, sprayed in the face with O.C. spray as six San Mateo County Sheriff Employees were on top of him. He was completely limp, unconscious, and never made a sound again. He died there on the spot in the Custody of the Sheriff’s Office.

San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Zaidi was not one of the Six Sheriff Employees involved in the In-Custody Death of Chinedu Okobi. Nineteen days later, On October 22, 2018 he filed an Official Report with the District Attorney’s Office making knowingly false statements.

” I directed Deputy Lorenzatti to remove the metal handcuffs from the suspect which she did, and the suspect was placed on his back. The Fire Department and AMR promptly began CPR.”

District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe on March 1, 2019 provided a video that he and his Team produced for the public it can be found on his website. The placing Chinedu Okobi on his back and CPR starts at the 18:50 mark. The video shows Deputy Lorenzatti did Not remove the handcuffs.

SMCSO Deputy Lorenzatti made an official statement on 10/04/2018 3:50 PM. to Inspector Eric Suzuki.

“They were like, well let’s get him on his back and start CPR, So then I, you know helped em, bring him to his back.

Question? “Okay and were his Handcuffs off at that point?”

Answer: No they were still on.

Eng. #37 Mazza Statement: “When decedent was lifted onto the gurney, a police officer cadet or trainee removed the Handcuffs from the decedents wrists.”

AMR #94 Retanubun Statement: “They put the decedent on to a “Mega Mover” when noticed the decedent still had handcuffs on.” “Saw police cadet nearby who assisted them with the removal of the Handcuffs.”

AMR #37 Uhland: “So they laid the decedent on his back with the Handcuffs still on his wrists.”

AMR #94 Pham: “Decedent was on his back with Handcuffs on when he arrived.”

AMR #37 Holman: “When they rolled the decedent over to remove the Handcuffs, she noticed several scrapes on his hands and a few small abrasion on his back.” “She was unsure if the injuries were there prior or if caused by the CPR application.”

According to Wagstaffe’ Video, Chinedu Okobi was placed on his back at 18:26 mark.

CPR starts at 18:50 mark with Handcuffs On and Hands behind his back.

Handcuffs Removed at 28:47 mark after almost 10 minutes of Chest Compressions.

What caused Sheriff Sgt. Zaidi to file this Bizarre False Official Statement?

District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s Video and Data made public March 1, 2019

LATIMES Article June 6, 2019

Note: 300 Deputies on the list. Sheriff Alex Villanueva, has called the Brady list a “fake list” and says it was the result of corrupt investigations designed to retaliate against certain deputies.

Should deputies’ misconduct be disclosed to D.A.?

Justices seem split on ruling that bars sheriff from giving officers’ names to prosecutors.
By Maura Dolan and Maya Lau
The California Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over a ruling that barred the Los Angeles County sheriff from giving prosecutors the names of deputies who have committed misconduct.
During a hearing, the state high court weighed an appeal of a decision that prohibited the sheriff from giving the district attorney the names of deputies with a history of bad behavior, including lying, taking bribes, tampering with evidence, using unreasonable force or engaging in domestic violence.
By law, prosecutors are required to disclose to defendants exculpatory evidence, including information that could diminish the credibility of police officers who worked on a case.
Several justices suggested Wednesday that prosecutors need the information to fulfill their constitutional duty to disclose potentially exonerating information.
That position has been endorsed by defense lawyers, prosecutors and the California attorney general.
Justice Goodwin Liu noted that prosecutors ultimately bear liability for failing to disclose favorable evidence.
If the prosecution is unaware that such evidence exists, convictions — even valid convictions — may eventually be overturned because of a failure to disclose, he said.
“The prosecution can’t take an ostrich-like approach to this very important duty,” Liu said.
But Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suggested that the Legislature, not the court, might want to take steps to ensure that exonerating information is disclosed to the defense.
She said one possible remedy was to give trial judges sealed lists of law enforcement officers who have a history of misconduct. The judges could review those lists privately in chambers to determine whether the officers’ records were relevant in the case and should be disclosed.
“Doesn’t delivering the list directly to the court under seal … meet the problem without intruding overtly on the officers’ privacy?” she asked.
Justice Ming W. Chin also repeatedly asked whether that path, if carved out by the Legislature or by the court in a future case, could resolve the problem.
The case before the court stems from a lawsuit filed by the L.A. deputies union to prevent former Sheriff Jim McDonnell from turning over to the district attorney about 300 names of deputies with a history of misconduct.
A divided, Los Angeles-based court of appeal ruled in 2017 that the list must be kept secret, even in pending criminal cases in which errant deputies were expected to testify.
The state high court’s decision, due in 90 days, would affect law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
The case pits the privacy rights of law enforcement officers against the constitutional duty of prosecutors to give the defense evidence that might cast doubt on a defendant’s guilt, reduce a potential sentence or diminish the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
That duty stems from a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady vs. Maryland, which said suppression of evidence favorable to the defense violated due process.
At issue is only whether the names can be turned over to prosecutors, not whether they would become public.
But the presence of the names on a list means deputies could be one step closer to having their disciplinary files scrutinized by a judge and their police work called into question during a court proceeding.
Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar noted that the constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense trumps state law intended to protect the privacy of law enforcement officers. He suggested the court could “harmonize” the laws.
He called the case “very challenging,” but also noted that “the Brady responsibility is on the state.”
Justice Joshua P. Groban expressed skepticism about the union’s legal arguments.
“You are saying as long as we can bar the door and keep the law enforcement agency from sharing that with the prosecution, then there is no Brady violation?” he asked the lawyer for the union.
Justice Carol A. Corrigan noted that officers whose names were on a list would have less privacy protection than others.
But she also said that a state law intended to protect officer privacy while allowing some disclosures may be hindering the release of information a criminal defendant is entitled to under the Constitution.
Under the system in place for four decades, defense attorneys and prosecutors may ask a trial judge to review an officer’s personnel file to determine whether there is evidence that must be disclosed.
But without knowing an officer’s history, a defense lawyer may not be able to persuade the judge to undertake a review.
“There are cases in which legitimate and material evidence is eluding their review,” Corrigan said.
Justice Leondra R. Kruger asked whether there were legal safeguards that could be imposed to protect officer privacy after the names were disclosed to prosecutors.
Aimee Feinberg, representing the state attorney general, said courts could issue protective orders to ensure the officers’ names were shielded from the public.
Geoffrey S. Sheldon, who argued for Los Angeles County, said he felt “good” about how the hearing went.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in the case,” he said.
Judith Posner, representing the union, said she couldn’t predict the outcome.
“There were a lot of interesting and probing questions on both sides,” she said.
Police departments in at least a dozen counties, including San Francisco, Sacramento and Ventura, have had a regular practice of sending prosecutors the names of so-called Brady list officers.
California’s strict laws protecting officer personnel files — which underpinned the appellate court’s ruling for the deputies union — were dramatically altered by a new transparency law that opened up records of confirmed cases of lying and sexual misconduct by officers, as well as shootings and serious uses of force.
SB 1421, which went into effect Jan. 1, allows the public to see many of the documents at issue in the L.A. County sheriff’s case.
But the new law does not apply to the broader range of misconduct that could put an officer on a Brady list, including domestic abuse, sexual harassment, racial discrimination and bribery.
Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who ousted McDonnell in a stunning upset last fall, has called the Brady list a “fake list” and says it was the result of corrupt investigations designed to retaliate against certain deputies.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Associated Press, Attorney Generals Office, AXON, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Brady List, California Bar Association, California State Bar, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, City of San Carlos, Community Service Officer Joseph Gonzales, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, Google, Grand Jury, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Burris, John Warren, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Marshall Wilson, Matthew Graves, Menlo Park Police Department, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams, NAACP, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sgt. Bob Pronske, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMCSO Captain Paul Kunkel, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, SMCSO Sgt. Irfan Zaidi, SMCSO Sgt. Weidner, Steve Wagstaffe, Susan Bassi, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yahoo