Sonoma County’s Sheriff Oversight Agency Appeals Decision Limiting Its Authority

Sonoma County’s sheriff’s oversight agency is appealing a September court ruling that significantly limits its ability to subpoena information from deputies’ personnel files during whistleblower investigations.

“This is, to the best of my knowledge, one of the few times that the subpoena power has been tested in court, and I think it has statewide importance for that reason,” said John Alden, executive director of the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO), which filed the appeal on Wednesday.

The civilian agency issued subpoenas in late April demanding the Sheriff’s Office release the personnel files of three deputies and one non-sworn employee in relation to a whistleblower’s allegation of misconduct. The agency also requested access to various disciplinary records, internal affairs reports, and allegations of dishonesty that were filed from 2016 to 2022, according to court records.

Any additional details of the investigation have not been made publicly available.

When the Sheriff’s Office refused the agency’s request, citing employees’ privacy protections, the oversight agency asked a Sonoma County judge to order Sheriff Eddie Engram to comply with the subpoenas.

Attorneys representing IOLERO argued that the agency has the authority to issue subpoenas in whistleblower cases under Measure P – passed by voters in 2020 – significantly expanding its authority and funding.

The Sonoma County Superior Court judge overseeing the dispute in September, however, disagreed. In his ruling, Sonoma County Judge Bradford DeMeo said he found no evidence supporting the agency’s claim to its subpoena powers in whistleblower cases and said that complaints of internal misconduct from Sheriff’s Office employees must be referred to other agencies for investigation.

DeMeo also dismissed the argument that the oversight agency’s executive director had the same authority as an inspector general, to subpoena information from the Sheriff’s Office. That title, he noted, has never been explicitly granted.

If it had, IOLERO’s subpoena power would be further legitimized by AB 1185, a 2021 state law that to create offices of inspector general with the power to issue subpoenas to sheriffs.

But Alden, of IOLERO, said that under state law, his office should be able to subpoena information regardless of whether its director is assigned the title of inspector general. The idea that the oversight agency lacks the power of an inspector general is “absurd,” the appeal states.

Engram, however, praised DeMeo’s ruling.

“I have always maintained that I would cooperate with a whistleblower complaint investigation, but the law does not give IOLERO the authority to investigate them,” he said in a statement last month.

But in its appeal this week, filed in California’s First District Court of Appeal, the agency argues that without the ability to fully investigate whistleblower complaints and issue subpoenas, it would be unable to follow through on voters’ demands for greater law enforcement accountability and oversight.

“The importance of this case goes beyond the subpoenas at issue. It lies in the importance of civilian oversight on law enforcement,” the appeal states. “If the Superior Court’s interpretation is allowed to stand, IOLERO cannot carry out the vital oversight of law enforcement the voters intended in a rural county where the Sheriff provides law enforcement services for much of the County and has primary control over all of the prisoners in the County jail.”

The appeal follows two high-profile cases in recent years involving Sonoma County sheriff’s deputies who seriously hurt or killed suspects, prompting lawsuits that resulted in multi-million dollar settlements.

Alden argued that the role of the agency in whistleblower investigations is to create a culture of transparency and to make sure that the public is aware of possible misconduct within the Sheriff’s Office.

“Whistleblowers inside law enforcement agencies are often afraid to come forward because they don’t feel they’ll be supported by the culture,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important that our office has the ability to receive whistleblower complaints and investigate them, which necessarily means being able to issue subpoenas to get the information.”

The court of appeal could take months to decide whether to hear the case. Until then, the original ruling stands.

KQED’s Julie Small contributed to this report.