Attorney General Probe of Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Adds to Heat on Smith

Another investigation of the office of Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith was announced this week, this time by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, increasing the pressure on the embattled six-term sheriff to resign or not seek re-election.

Smith already faces a possible civil court trial in the spring, following a blistering civil grand jury report last month, which followed a unanimous no-confidence vote in August by the Board of Supervisors and calls for her resignation led by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.

Smith, who turns 70 in June, is holding firm, hiring a pair of Silicon Valley heavyweights, Allen Ruby and Jim McManus, to mount a legal challenge to grand jury accusations of misconduct. If that case goes to trial, she could be removed from office, with a new interim sheriff appointed by county supervisors.

Bonta on Jan. 19 announced the launch of a civil rights investigation into the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, seeking “to determine whether [the office] has engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct amidst deeply concerning allegations relating to conditions of confinement in its jail facilities, resistance to lawful oversight, and other misconduct.”

His senior assistant attorney general, Michael L. Newman, also informed county officials of the investigation in a Jan. 19 letter to Board of Supervisors President Mike Wasserman.

The probe announced this week is not a criminal investigation, and does not name Smith.

“Public safety is built on trust,” said Bonta in a video announcement. “When communities feel they are treated fairly and equitably by law enforcement, it increases trust and that in turn contributes to increased public safety.”

“It is clear that there is a lack of trust in Santa Clara County as a result of deeply concerning allegations around county jail facilities and other misconduct. These concerns have been repeatedly voiced by elected leaders, editorial boards, community members, and more,” Bonta said.

“Public institutions are subject to public oversight,” he said. “That’s why the California Department of Justice is launching a pattern or practice investigation into the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. We will be thorough and impartial in our efforts to ensure that the civil rights of the people of Santa Clara County are respected.”

In response to the attorney general's announcement, Smith said, "I have always welcomed any external review of the Sheriff's Office and we will immediately open all records. I have great confidence in the Attorney General's Office and I believe they will provide the expertise for a fair and impartial investigation. We remain focused on our mission, which is to continue to provide the highest level of public safety services.”

Smith had been silent since August amid the allegations and related political firestorm. At that time, she told supervisors that the blame for conditions in county jails, especially with regard to the treatment of mentally ill inmates, rested with state and county officials, not the sheriff or her department.

Newman made it clear in the letter to Wasserman that the focus of the attorney general investigation will be broader than the jail, constituting a deep dive into all aspects of the sheriff’s office.

In his statement this week, he wrote, on behalf of Bonta, that state law authorizes the attorney general to conduct “civil investigations into whether a law enforcement agency has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state or federal law.”

A press release from Bonta’s office said that “the attorney general has made no determinations at this time about specific complaints or allegations or about the agency’s policies and practices.”

It encouraged “anyone with information relevant to this investigation to contact the California Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section." Members of the public may also send information to the California Department of Justice in Spanish and other languages.

In the weeks ahead, attorneys and special agents at the California Department of Justice will be interviewing community members and organizations, local officials, oversight entities, the sheriff’s office, individual officers and others, according to this week’s announcement.

“If our investigation determines there is no pattern or practice of wrongdoing, we will close the investigation and work with the sheriff’s office and the county to identify and implement recommendations for strengthening public trust that has been eroded over the years,” Newman said in the letter to Wasserman. “However, if our investigation determines that there is a pattern or practice of conduct depriving any person of the rights conferred by the state or federal Constitutions or state statutory laws,”  he said his office will seek to remedy any and all violations of law as expeditiously as possible.”

The letter asked the county to “immediately place a ‘litigation hold’ on all potentially relevant documents or other physical evidence for the duration of this investigation and any resulting litigation, or until the parties otherwise reach a resolution.”

This includes “any and all materials, including communications (external and internal), related to the following: the Sheriff’s Office’s use-of-force policies, training, practices, and records; the hiring, firing, or promotion of deputies or any other employees; any internal investigations, force reviews, or instances of officer discipline; the recruitment, hiring, firing, promotion, rehiring, or retention of peace officers and staff; any community engagement by the Sheriff’s Office and its personnel; policies, training, practices, and records for the Sheriff’s Office’s public complaint systems; the conditions of confinement, including medical, mental health, and other services, as well as management and staffing of jail facilities; and any and all documents and communications related to complaints or allegations of misconduct, from any source, and any investigations, whether formal or informal, related to those complaints, allegations, and investigations.”

This hold includes, but is not limited to, all memoranda, correspondence, writings, notes, paper files, e-mails (including “cc’s” and “bcc’s”), e-mail attachments, instant messages, text messages, telephone messages, computer files, website data, backup media, photographs, charts, graphs, reports, data, images, maps, drawings, manuals, logs, diaries, calendars, newspaper articles, magazine articles, sound recordings, videotapes, contracts, drafts, agreements, minutes, and other official documents or legal instruments. ESI may be located in a variety of locations, including but not limited to, computers, network and email servers, mobile phone devices such as smartphones, including personal devices, CDs, DVDs, USB flash drives, memory cards, online storage, external hard drives, tablets, office laptops, personal laptops, offsite storage, vehicle “Black Boxes,” and phone company voice mail records.

Newman warned the county that none of its officers or employees could “alter, destroy, interfile, annotate, remove, or modify any documents relevant to this investigation.”

“The existence of copies elsewhere or identical copies in possession of someone else will not excuse any destruction of documents or other materials. The litigation hold extends to all physical evidence collected and documents prepared, dated, or issued before and after the date of this letter,” Newman wrote.

 

10 Comments

  1. Robert,

    I agree that you can percieve the situation in that way. And I cannot argue it can be in fact real. BUT, if the evidence collected in an investigation proves that this person has done violations of the laws, you cannot claoim that only because of not donating that the person doesn’t take either civil or criminal liability, RIGHT?

  2. Sheriff Smith has attributed a much higher degree of professionalism and objectivity to Bonta than I would ascribe to a highly partisan Leftist politician.

  3. HB,

    That statement makes very little sense. Sherriff Smith does her job, but if she violates the laws both civil and criminal, again so be it. But you have not demonstrated any wrongful acts on the part of Bonta. In fact I did some looking into complaints and didn’t find any. But yes he has wrapped up a lot of legal victories regarding enforcement of the state laws, right? Mostly in the Real Estate Investor illegal activity, the Labor Law enforcement , and Civil Rights cases.

  4. With the intense focus to remove Sheriff Smith, it makes us wonder what the motivation is. I don’t really pay any attention, but I thought this was all about issuing gun permits for nefarious reasons or not issuing gun permits when they should have been issued. I guess this is about something else entirely. Can anyone tell us why Sam and others want to remove the sheriff from office?

  5. Wiki has these comments about him (the part in quotes is from wiki, my comments are interlineated):

    “Bonta was elected to Alameda City Council in November 2010. Within a year, he declared his intent to run for state assembly. In 2012, some Alameda residents started a recall campaign against him but the effort never qualified for the ballot, with Bonta winning election to the state assembly in November 2012.”

    “Bonta introduced legislation in January 2013 that would require California public schools, as funding is available, to teach students “the role of immigrants, including Filipino Americans” in the farm labor movement. It was signed into law in October of that same year by Jerry Brown. Bonta’s mother, Cynthia Bonta, helped organize Filipino and Mexican American farmworkers for the United Farm Workers.” In other words, he voted to take time away from critical education to replace it with Social Justice nonsense. What if they can’t read, write and do basic math? All will be well if they know the names of some community organizers.

    “Bonta introduced legislation to repeal a McCarthy-era ban on Communist Party members holding government jobs in California. The bill received criticism from Republicans, veteran groups and Vietnamese Americans, with Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen calling it ‘blatantly offensive to all Californians.’ After passing the State Assembly, the legislation was later withdrawn.” He promoted putting communists (both home grown and of the Chinese variety) in charge of our government.

    “Bonta and State Senator Robert Hertzberg co-authored Senate Bill 10, which when passed, made California the first state in the nation to eliminate money bail for suspects awaiting trial and replace it with a risk-assessment system. On August 28, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill into law.” WOW, no cash bail — that has worked out great! 🦹‍♂️

    “Bonta introduced legislation to end the use of for-profit, private prisons and detention facilities in California. Signed in 2019 by Gavin Newson, AB 32 made California the first state in the nation to ban both private prisons and civil detention centers.” Released more criminals onto our streets — nice, real nice.

    “Bonta introduced Assembly Bill 1481 in 2019, which sought to outlaw baseless evictions and mandate landlords demonstrate “just cause” in order to evict residential tenants. The bill was combined with a statewide cap on rent increases and other rental proposals into a single piece of legislation.That bill, Assembly Bill 1482, was passed by the California Legislature and signed by Newsom in October 2019.” Along with other boneheaded ideas, this legislation has exacerbated the housing shortage in California. And, of course, it is often used by unscrupulous tenant’s attorneys to damage landlords.

    “Bonta joined Assemblymember Kevin McCarty and other colleagues in 2019 as a lead author of Assembly Bill 1506, a bill to mandate an independent review of officers involved in shootings in California by the California Department of Justice. The bill was signed into law in September 2020 by Newsom.” Now, every time an officer has to use deadly force, even when obviously justified, he will be subject to years of harassment by the AG’s office.

    🤮 And now, TADAH, my personal favorite:

    “In February 2021, CalMatters reported that Bonta had regularly solicited donations, also known as “behested payments”, from companies with business before California’s legislature for his wife’s nonprofit organization.” So, in conclusion, in addition to have faced a recall, turn criminals loose, dumbed down schools, eliminating cash bail (golly gee this working out great!), making it as difficult as possible to keep criminals locked up, taking rights from law biding landlords, subjecting police officers (who did their job) to years of harassment and expenses with invasive investigations, it would appear that he is also a grifter who fundraises for his wife from people who have business before the government he runs.

    https://calmatters.org/projects/california-political-legislative-nonprofits-rob-bonta-wife/

    Perhaps not technically illegal, but I am certain that some people might use the term sleazy.

  6. HB you wrote:

    Wiki has these comments about him (the part in quotes is from wiki, my comments are interlineated):

    RIGHT OFF WIKIPEDIA ITSELF DOES NOT CALL ITSELF A PRIMARY RESEARCH SITE SO RELYING ON WIKIPEDIA ALONE FOR YOUR RESEARCH IS NOT GOOD. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GOOGLE IS WIKIPEDIA A PRIMARY RESEARCH SOURCE. Thus that information is not reliable. And if he did anything regarding his job in any position, that means he was an effective and reliable leader.

    “In February 2021, CalMatters reported that Bonta had regularly solicited donations, also known as “behested payments”, from companies with business before California’s legislature for his wife’s nonprofit organization.”

    However, that action may be something to politically complain about, it is not yet actually illegal. In fact the person who wrote the California Political Reform Act clearly said “this should not be allowed, and the LAW SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PROHIBIT IT.”

    SO YOU HAVE NOT YET ESTABLISHED WHERE Bonta violated any state laws. Thus, you are back at the question, if the Attorney General is REQUIRED UNDER EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF LAW to investigate and if evidence is found to pursue either Civil or Criminal Liability of the Sheriff. A lot of complaining that Bonta succeeded in many legislative acts, but that means he did his job well, RIGHT?

  7. Steven G. hypothesizes and insinuates endlessly that there is “evidence” of “criminal liability” and “violations of the laws” merely because some oily, grandstanding pol initiates an investigation during election season.

    Meanwhile one of SJI’s sister weeklies reports that a neighboring county jail “recently” had “sexual assault by officers, [violation of constitutional rights], overcrowding, understaffing and multiple deaths.”

    https://goodtimes.sc/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-jail-oversight/

    If Rob Bonta were enforcing the law equally and well, wouldn’t he be investigating the Santa Cruz Sheriff and holding them to account? Poor Santa Cruz will have to make do with some lame “oversight committee” because the AG won’t pay any attention.

  8. Vacancy,

    There is evidence, established by a Grand Jury, or don’t you remember?

    The county’s civil grand jury officially accused Smith last week of a range of misconduct charges, following allegations over the summer from county supervisors Joe Simitian and Otto Lee that triggered a Board of Supervisors’ “no confidence” vote.
    The accusations include:
    • Trading concealed carry weapons permits, or CCWs, for campaign donations
    • Unfair CCW consideration for non-VIPs
    • Failing to provide non-VIPs timely notice of their applications
    • Accepting gifts in excess of $500 – which included San Jose Sharks suite tickets from an applicant
    • Failing to report that gift
    • Perjury for omitting that gift from financial forms
    • Failing to cooperate with the investigation into an inmate injured during transfer
    So when you said is that a hypothesis or an insunuation, that was a false statement.

  9. Ands by the way there was a rand jury in Santa Cruz and that decision was:

    “ACTION ITEMS

    Last June, a Civil Grand Jury investigation into the Main Jail concluded that the “Board of Supervisors has failed to assert and exercise proper oversight within their purview of the Main Jail.” The adoption of an inspector general or oversight committee, the Civil Grand Jury stated, would “provide necessary public transparency and structure to support the Board of Supervisors’ supervision of the Sheriff’s Office Corrections Bureau.”

    This kind of inclusive evidence of MORE than the Sherrif is stil under way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *