Judge’s Ruling Thwarts Investigation of Whistleblower Claims Against Sonoma County Sheriff

A Sonoma County judge has ruled that a civilian oversight agency lacks the authority to subpoena the sheriff for records while investigating whistleblower complaints involving staff.

The decision shocked supporters of law enforcement oversight who closely watched the case that tested the limits of an independent oversight board to force a sheriff to provide information. It struck a blow against the power of an agency born from the death of 13-year-old Andy Lopez a decade ago and strengthened by Sonoma County voters in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd.

The Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach took Sheriff Eddie Engram to court for failing to comply with two subpoenas the agency issued in April of this year.

IOLERO was investigating a whistleblower complaint involving four sheriff’s office staff members who had asked for their personnel records, according to court filings. The watchdog also sought any internal affairs reports and disciplinary records for sustained findings against officers for being dishonest from 2016 to 2022.

Attorneys for IOLERO argued in court filings that Sonoma County’s voter-approved Measure P and agreements made between the county and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association gave the oversight office powers to investigate complaints of staff misconduct and issue subpoenas.

However, in a ruling on Thursday, Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo said he saw no evidence of this authority among the patchwork of local law and union agreements laying out IOLERO’s powers. DeMeo ruled that the sheriff and oversight office must follow a union agreement that separates cases involving whistleblower complaints.

The judge found that IOLERO could only receive those complaints and refer them to another agency to investigate. DeMeo also rejected an argument that IOLERO’s executive director subpoenaed the sheriff in his capacity as an inspector general, a title that would grant additional authority under a new state law, AB1185.

“IOLERO has not been specifically designated as either an inspector general or sheriff oversight board,” DeMeo wrote, “so the Court does not find that there is enough evidence to support that IOLERO is ‘inspector general.’”

“We’re still digesting the Court’s opinion,” IOLERO Executive Director John Alden wrote Tuesday in response to an email seeking comment.

Attorney Jerry Threet, who helped establish the oversight office, called the Sept. 19 ruling “ridiculous” and hoped the oversight office would challenge it.

“I absolutely think they must appeal because this decision has implications well beyond Sonoma County,” Threet said.

Threet said the ruling if left unchallenged, could thwart efforts spreading throughout the state to increase oversight of California sheriffs.

As elected officials are ultimately accountable to voters, the majority of sheriffs have escaped the kind of independent scrutiny many police departments are subject to.