Indictment describes the gang’s nexus of power overseeing thousands of members throughout California including Contra Costa County; Antioch Police Department assist in investigation

Involved in plots to murder 14 victims, plus robbery, drug trafficking and money laundering

SAN JOSE – A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging 17 defendants with racketeering conspiracy, including acts involving murder, robbery, drug trafficking, and money laundering, and charging five others with drug trafficking-related crimes.  The indictment handed down on August 25, 2021, and unsealed Thursday, September 16, 2021 catalogues a litany of crimes allegedly directed by the Nuestra Familia’s command structure incarcerated in California prisons.  The charging announcement was made by Acting United States Attorney Stephanie Hinds, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Crag D. Fair, and Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent in Charge Wade R. Shannon at a press conference this morning. Also appearing at the press conference were Chief of the Office of Correctional Safety for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Derrick Marion, Santa Clara Sheriff Laurie Smith, and San Jose Deputy Chief of Police Elle Washburn. DOJ NF indictment 082521

“The indictment charges all seven of the members who make up the Nuestra Familia’s ruling body: the General Council,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Hinds. “While the physical movement of this leadership was restricted by prison walls, the indictment alleges their power and influence were not so constrained. By disrupting gang leadership, we reduce violence on our streets.  By removing violent actors and crime drivers from the streets, we make our neighborhoods safer.”

“The arrests made yesterday, most significantly the arrests of the Nuestra Familia leadership, will severely cripple the ability of this criminal enterprise to continue to facilitate crimes in communities throughout the state and help break a decades-old cycle of violence,” said FBI San Francisco Special Agent in Charge Fair.

“Today’s operation strikes a substantial blow to Nuestra Familia leadership. This investigation revealed the wide-ranging influence of the gang that extends far beyond prison walls. It is clear they have hard and fast rules, and those who run afoul are met with intimidation and violence that spills into our communities,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Wade R. Shannon. “We will continue to look at these organizations structurally to disrupt and dismantle them.”

According to the indictment, the 17 racketeering defendants were members and associates of the Nuestra Familia (“NF”) prison gang, a violent and lucrative organization formed in the 1960s.  The NF is alleged in the indictment to be a criminal enterprise that was created to organize, protect, discipline, profit from, and maintain the allegiance of gang members on the streets of and within custodial facilities in California.  As outlined in the indictment, membership in the NF involved a process of sponsorship, approval, and indoctrination.  The perpetration of violence and other crimes was ordinarily a prerequisite to entrance, continued membership, and advancement in the organization.  Once membership was achieved, this membership was for life.  The indictment alleges an NF oath provides: “If I lead, follow. If I stumble, push me. If I fall, avenge me. If I betray you, kill me.”

The indictment also describes the NF’s organizational structure and, in particular, the gang’s governing body: a seven-member “General Council,” made up of three Generals and a four-member Inner Council, which makes significant decisions and oversees the activities of the NF and its subservient gangs.  The indictment outlines each position according to the NF Constitution.  According to the NF Constitution, the Street Regiment General oversees the NF’s “overall street operations.”  The General of the Prisons is responsible for the NF’s “overall pinta [prison] functions,” and the General Advocates Office is the NF’s “justice department.”  Tiered just below these three NF Generals was the Inner Council, which consisted of four senior NF members who served as “advisors” to the Generals and provided a system of checks and balances.  All seven members of the NF’s General Council led the NF organization while incarcerated in the California prison system.  Each is charged in this indictment.

Further, the indictment describes the appointment by these leaders of NF members to positions of power over hierarchical and paramilitary structures called “regiments,” imposed on its gang members operating on the streets in California.  While the NF was composed of a relative few, it exercised control and wielded influence over thousands of subordinate gang members in counties and prisons throughout Northern California using such regiments.  These regiments primarily guaranteed the NF’s vast influence and control over its own and its street gang members, ensured avenues to direct violence and other illicit activity, and secured means for the NF to make money through the commission of criminal activity.

The NF oversaw such regiments in Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, Monterey County, Santa Cruz County, San Benito County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Alameda County, Solano County, San Joaquin County, Fresno County, Kings County, Tulare County, Madera County, Merced County, Kern County, Sacramento County, Yolo County, Humboldt County, Shasta County, Lassen County, Tehama County, Butte County, Yuba County, Sutter County, Lake County, Placer County, and Sonoma County, as well as in Salinas Valley State Prison, Pelican Bay State Prison, Pleasant Valley State Prison, California State Prison – Solano, California State Prison – Sacramento, and High Desert State Prison.

According to the indictment, NF members and associates were involved in plots to kill 14 victims between April 2013 and July 2019 as part of the charged racketeering conspiracy.  The defendants charged in the alleged racketeering conspiracy include the following:

Defendant	Age	Charges	Maximum Statutory Penalty
DAVID CERVANTES aka “DC”	73	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
ANTONIO GUILLEN aka “Chuco”	55	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
JAMES PEREZ aka “Conejo”	67	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
SAMUEL LUNA aka “Sammy”	46	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
GUILLERMO SOLORIO aka “Capone”	42	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
TRINIDAD MARTINEZ aka “Trino”	41	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
GEORGE FRANCO aka “Puppet”	56	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
STEVEN TRUJILLO aka “Esteban”	56	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
SALVADOR CASTRO aka “Gangster”	51	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
BRYAN ROBLEDO aka “Turtle”	48	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
ALEX YRIGOLLEN aka “Sleepy”	52	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
JUAN SOTO aka “Drifter”	38	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
EDGARDO RODRIGUEZ aka “Big Evil”	41	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
ROBERT MALDONADO aka “KJ”	46	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
ERIC ZARATE aka “Baby G”	43	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
ROCKY BRACAMONTE aka “Fox”	37	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	Life
JOSHUA CORTEZ aka “Buddah”	28	18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) – Racketeering Conspiracy	20 years

Also charged in the indictment are defendants who allegedly participated in two conspiracies to possess and distribute methamphetamine, one in May of 2019 and the other in September 2020 to March 2021.  The charges pending against these defendants are as follows:

Defendant	Age	Charges	Maximum Statutory Penalty
WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ aka “Negro”	34	21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) – Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine	At least 5 years, up to 40 years
MARVIN RODRIGUEZ	34	21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) – Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine	At least 5 years, up to 40 years
CRISTIAN MORA aka “C-Fresh”	28	21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) – Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine	At least 5 years, up to 40 years
MARTIN JOSEPH RUPPEL JR.	42	21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) – Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine	At least 5 years, up to 40 years
ANAELISA CUEVAS	35	21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) – Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine	At least 5 years, up to 40 years

The court also may order additional terms of supervised release, fines, and restitution.  Nevertheless, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendants are scheduled to make initial federal court appearances before U.S. Magistrate Court Judge Nathanael Cousins and U.S. Magistrate Court Judge Sallie Kim today.

This case is being prosecuted by the Organized Crime Strike Force of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.  The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI (San Francisco, Sacramento, and Phoenix Divisions), the DEA, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshal Service, with the assistance of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, and the San Jose Police Department, and with support from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Antioch Police Department, Campbell Police Department, Fremont Police Department, King’s County Sheriff’s Office, Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, Mountain View Police Department, Sacramento Police Department, Salinas Police Department, Menlo Park Police Department, Santa Clara County Parole Department, Santa Clara County Probation Department, Santa Clara Police Department, Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, Modesto Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, and Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety.

This investigation and prosecution are part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (“OCDETF”), which identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

 

By CHP Golden Gate Division Air Operations

On the morning of September 14 2021, CHP airplane A-31 was returning to the Napa airport, when it’s onboard sensors detected a stolen vehicle in the Antioch area due to a LoJack stolen vehicle recovery system that utilizes GPS to locate users’ vehicles. A-31 began a search of the area, eventually locating the vehicle on city streets. (See video)

When ground units were requested to make an enforcement stop, the truck fled at a high rate of speed. The driver drove wrong way on surface streets and the freeway, entering Hwy 4 at the eastbound Hillcrest Avenue offramp. He exited the freeway on the eastbound onramp at Lone Tree Way, crossed under the overpass and re-entered westbound Hwy 4 in the correct direction. The driver then exited at Loveridge Road in Pittsburg. At one point, the truck became lodged on railroad tracks just north of the Antioch-Pittsburg Hwy aka W. 10th Street.

Eventually the occupants fled from the vehicle in a residential neighborhood and A-31 was able to track the driver to a backyard where he was apprehended.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

 

Investigators hired in January following demand by Councilwoman Torres-Walker

By Allen Payton

It began as a routine traffic stop of two brothers riding dirt bikes illegally on Antioch streets. But it turned into an online, anger-filled, profanity-laced diatribe by a newly elected, anti-cop councilwoman, that continued with her demand for an outside investigation and her filing of a formal complaint against the officers. That resulted in the hiring of an independent investigator who produced a report showing all of the councilwoman’s complaints about how she and her sons were mistreated were baseless. (See related articles here, here and here)

Over eight months after the incident between Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, her two sons and police officers occurred on Dec. 29, 2020, and over seven months after she demanded the investigation and filed the formal complaint, the Confidential Executive Summary of the investigative report from the independent investigator, Oppenheimer Investigations Group, has finally been released. It was made available Tuesday night by Antioch Police Chief T Brooks and describes each of the councilwoman’s claims as either “unfounded” or “not sustained”.

The investigation included interviews with Torres-Walker, APD Officers Calvin Prieto and Andrea Rodriguez, and five others, who were not named in the executive summary nor shared by Brooks, as it is a personnel matter. The investigation included video footage and documents. Those are part of the criminal report which is not yet available.

The Executive Summary provides details of what occurred during the traffic stop and confrontation of the officers by Torres-Walker, as well as your complaints and the findings by Vida Thomas of Oppenheimer.

See the six-page here Executive Summary of Report Concerning Complaint Filed by Tamisha Walker and below.

Questions for Torres-Walker

Torres-Walker was asked if she had the chance to read the Executive Summary and if she had any response or comments she wanted to share. In addition, the councilwoman was asked if she had seen the complete report, including the video footage and documents referred to on page 2, below the heading 1. Introduction and Scope?

She did not respond as of publication time.

Q&A With Chief Brooks

Asked if the complete Investigative Report has been provided to Councilwoman Torres-Walker, and/or the mayor and other council members, he responded, “No. They received the same document you did. The full investigative report is part of the officers’ personnel file and is confidential.  The executive summary was written specifically to provide publicly available information due to the public interest generated in this case.”

In addition, he was asked if the related video footage and documents were available to the public, what video footage was included in the investigation other than the councilwoman’s online rant and if there was cell phone video of the incident. Brooks responded, “Any/all video gathered regarding this incident is part of the criminal report, which is not yet publicly available.”

The criminal report is about the arrest of Torres-Walker’s older son, Yomani Mapp, for evading police after he didn’t stop, when the police attempted to pull him, over while he was riding a dirt bike. Antioch Police submitted a felony charged against Mapp using Vehicle Code (VC) 2800.4, because he drove in the opposite direction while evading police. He could have faced six months to a year in jail or a fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or both. But Contra Costa DA Diana Becton reduced the charge to a misdemeanor using VC 2800.1(a) for just evading police and, if convicted, Mapp could face up to one year in jail. The filing with the court occurred on March 23, the same day Torres-Walker made a $500 contribution to Becton’s re-election committee, according to the DA’s campaign finance report.

Follow up questions were sent to Brooks asking, “when will the criminal report be publicly available, please? And is it completed?” He responded, “The criminal report has been completed and a complaint was filed by the DA’s office.  However, the case has not yet been adjudicated.”

He was also asked if all the witnesses cooperated with the investigation and who were the other five witnesses. Did they include Torres-Walker’s sons, and residents of the nearby homes or other witnesses at or near the scene? “The executive summary is all the information being provided to the public,” Brooks responded. “The details of full investigation cannot be disclosed.”

Finally, he was asked why did it take over seven months to complete and is that common for outside, independent investigations? “Each investigation is unique and the time to complete them varies for differing reasons,” Brooks stated.

Investigation Cost

The contract for the investigation included payment of $420 per hour for the lead investigator, $180 per hour for an editor/writer and $120 per hour for an intern’s time, as well as other related costs of the investigation.  Brooks didn’t know how much it cost the city saying, “All legal services are paid through the city attorney’s office.” An email was then sent to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking how many hours was spent on the investigation and the total amount the city has paid or will pay. He did not respond before publication time.

09/27/21 UPDATE: The cost to the City of Antioch for the outside investigation was $44,610 the city attorney’s office revealed, today. In addition, they reported it consumed a total of 120.2 hours for the investigator, a writer/editor and an intern to complete their work. A breakdown of their individual costs was also requested of the city attorney’s office. (See article)

CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP September 1, 2021

I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

On January 14, 2021, the City of Antioch (“the City”) retained Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP (“OIG”) to conduct an impartial investigation of Antioch City Councilmember Tamisha Walker’s complaint against Antioch Police Department (“APD”) officers Calvin Prieto and Andrea Rodriguez, who are assigned to APD’s Traffic Unit. Vida Thomas was the principal investigator.

On December 29, 2020, Prieto and Rodriguez, who were on patrol, observed Walker’s two sons, who were 23 years old and 13 years old at the time, riding a motorized, off-road dirt bike and an off-road ATV, respectively. The officers began pursuing the older son. After the pursuit, Prieto and Rodriguez detained the 13-year-old. In a formal complaint filed on January 27, 2021, Walker alleged that Prieto and Rodriguez dangerously pursued her oldest son, tried purposely to hit him with their patrol car, and verbally and physically mistreated the younger son while detaining him.1 (See Exhibit 1.) In an interview with the undersigned, Walker also alleged that both officers spoke discourteously to her younger son before she arrived at the scene, and that Prieto spoke discourteously to her once she arrived.

Once the scope of the investigation was determined and agreed upon, the investigator operated with complete independence as to witness identification, interview content, and preparation of findings. The investigation included interviews with eight witnesses – including Ms. Walker, Officer Prieto and Officer Rodriguez – a review of video footage, and a review of documents.

This is a Confidential Executive Summary of an Investigative Report. It is anticipated that this Report will be maintained confidentially by the decision-makers and will not be disseminated except as required by law or as determined by the decision-makers.

II. FINDINGS

At the request of APD, the investigator used the following findings used in APD administrative investigations, pursuant to Policy 1011.6.3. Thus, the investigator used these findings where applicable:

Unfounded – When the investigation discloses that the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve department members. Complaints that are determined to be frivolous will fall within the classification of unfounded (Penal Code § 832.8).

Exonerated – When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was ustified, lawful and/or proper.

Not sustained – When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member.

Sustained – A final determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing officer, or arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code § 3304 and Government Code § 3304.5 that the actions of an officer were found to violate law or department policy (Penal Code § 832.8).

No Finding – The complainant failed to disclose promised information to further the investigation; the investigation revealed another agency was involved, and the complaint or complainant has been referred to that agency; the complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint or the complainant is no longer available for clarification.

A. FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER PRIETO

1. Did Officer Prieto engage in racial profiling of Walker’s sons? (Policy 401.3 – Bias- Based profiling Prohibited)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto engaged in racial profiling of Walker’s sons.

The evidence showed that, while patrolling along A Street as a normal part of their traffic enforcement duties, Prieto and Rodriguez saw Walker’s sons riding a dirt bike and an ATV on the wrong side of the street towards oncoming traffic, and creating a traffic hazard. The evidence also showed that Prieto and Rodriguez had a legitimate law enforcement reason, unrelated to race, for pursuing Walker’s sons.

2. Did Officer Prieto engage in a racially biased use of force towards either son? (Policy 300.2.2 – Fair and Unbiased Use of Force)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto engaged in a racially biased use of force towards Walker’s sons. That evidence did not support a finding that Prieto tried to hit the older son with the patrol vehicle or run him off the road; had his hand on his taser as he exited the patrol car after stopping the younger son; pulled his taser when approaching the younger son; or pushed the younger son to the ground after he stepped off the ATV.

A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Prieto did handcuff the younger son, but only after the younger son engaged in behavior that gave the officer reasonable concern that he would be a harm to himself or others or attempt to flee. Therefore, the handcuffing complied with APD policy.

3. Did Officer Prieto engage in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons? (Policy 300.3 – Use of Force)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto tried to hit the older son with the patrol vehicle or run him off the road; had his hands on his taser while exiting the patrol car; pulled his taser when approaching the younger son; or pushed the younger son to the ground after he stepped off the ATV.

A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Prieto handcuffed the younger son while he was detained. However, the officer only did so after developing a reasonable concern that the younger son would harm himself or others or flee. Therefore, the handcuffing complied with APD policy.

4. Did Officer Prieto behave in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards Walker’s younger son? (Policy 300.3.1 – De-Escalation Requirement)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto behaved in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards the younger son.

Walker reported that Prieto made rude comments to her younger son while he was being detained. Prieto denied making the comments, and Rodriguez denied hearing Prieto make the comments. The available video footage of the incident was not very revelatory. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that Prieto made the comments ascribed to him.

5. Did Officer Prieto behave in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Prieto behaved towards Tamisha Walker in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner. The evidence showed that Prieto’s behavior complied with the APD’s interpretation of the applicable APD policy.

6. Did Prieto’s report fail to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident? (Policy 326.1.1 – Report Preparation)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto’s report failed to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident.

The Combined Case Report (“Report”) prepared by Prieto and Rodriguez (Exhibit 2), appears to comply with the requirements set forth in APD Policy 326.1.1. The Report accurately reflect the incident that occurred on December 29, 2020. Its description of the incidents is consistent with the evidence gathered during this investigation, including video camera footage. There is no evidence that anything in the Report is false.

B. FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ

1. Did Officer Rodriguez engage in racial profiling of Walker’s sons? (Policy 401.3 – Bias-Based profiling Prohibited)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Rodriguez engaged in racial profiling of Walker’s sons.

The evidence showed that, while patrolling along A Street as a normal part of their traffic enforcement duties, Prieto and Rodriguez saw Walker’s sons riding a dirt bike and an ATV on the wrong side of the street towards oncoming traffic, and creating a traffic hazard. The evidence also showed that Rodriguez had a legitimate law enforcement reason, unrelated to race, for pursuing Walker’s sons.

2. Did Officer Rodriguez engage in a racially biased use of force towards either son? (Policy 300.2.2 – Fair and Unbiased Use of Force)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez engaged in a racially biased use of force towards Walker’s sons. That evidence did not support a finding that, while pursuing the sons on A Street, Rodriguez’s patrol car almost struck the older son and tried to run him off the road.

3. Did Officer Rodriguez engage in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons? (Policy 300.3 – Use of Force)

Unfounded. As set forth in the finding above, a preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez tried to strike Walker’s sons while pursuing the older son.

Therefore, the allegation that Officer Rodriguez engaged in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons was unfounded.

4. Did Officer Rodriguez behave in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards Walker’s younger son? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez behaved in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards the younger son.

Walker reported that Rodriguez made rude comments to her younger son while he was being detained. Rodriguez denied making the comments, and Prieto denied hearing Rodriguez make the comments. The available video footage of the incident was not very revelatory. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that Rodriguez made the comments ascribed to him.

For these reasons, this allegation was not sustained.

5. Did Officer Rodriguez behave in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Rodriguez behaved in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker.

It is undisputed that, throughout her encounter with Walker, Rodriguez behaved in a calm manner, using de-escalation techniques to address Walker’s concerns. However, Walker said that when Rodriguez initially called her from the scene to report that her younger son had been stopped, Rodriguez made a rude and unprofessional comment to her, a claim Rodriguez denied. There was no evidence to corroborate this claim and for this reason, this allegation was unfounded.

6. Did Officer Rodriguez’s report fail to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident? (Policy 326.1.1 – Report Preparation)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez’s report failed to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident.

The Combined Case Report (“Report”) prepared by Prieto and Rodriguez (Exhibit 2), appeared to comply with the requirements set forth in APD Policy 326.1.1. The Report accurately reflected the incident that occurred on December 29, 2020. Its description of the incidents were consistent with the evidence gathered during this investigation, including video camera footage. There was no evidence that anything in the Report was false.

Respectfully submitted,

Vida Thomas

1 The names of Walker’s sons are withheld from this summary out of respect for their privacy. They are referred to herein as her older son and her younger son. Walker did not consent to her sons being interviewed

Attorney-Client Privileged

Two weeks after Boise Police Department announces it on their website

By Rolando Bonilla, PIO, City of Antioch

Antioch City Manager Ron Bernal has announced the retirement of Police Chief Tammany Brooks.  He has accepted the position of Deputy Chief in Boise, Idaho, a city of approximately 230,000 residents. The official announcement by the City of Antioch comes two weeks after the Boise Police Department announced it in a press release on their website. (See related article)

Chief Brooks was first hired by the City of Antioch as a patrol officer in December of 1995 when he began working his way through the ranks of the Antioch Police Department (APD).  “The City of Antioch has benefitted tremendously from Chief Brooks’ contributions, especially the last 4.5 years as Chief. He has poured his talents and passion into the organization, always leading by example and asking nothing of our officers he wouldn’t and doesn’t do himself.  He returns every email and phone call and works tirelessly to make Antioch a safer community,” Bernal shared.

During his tenure as police chief, the department reached new levels.  APD became one of the first agencies in California to implement Text to 911, took the application of drone technology to new heights (no pun intended), equipped officers with Narcan for opioid overdose victims that has saved more than a dozen lives, expeditiously deployed body worn cameras following City Council authorization, and established the Business Watch and Alive at 25 programs.  Under his leadership, the department reached fully authorized staffing levels for sworn officers at 115 for the first time in nearly 20 years, reducing violent crime by 22% and property crime by 26%.

“I will be forever grateful having the honor and privilege to serve as an Antioch police officer for the last 26 years,” Brooks stated.  “I’ve been blessed to work alongside some truly amazing people, and for a resilient and caring community.  I will miss both tremendously.”

“I wish Chief Brooks all the best as he heads to Boise,” said Mayor Lamar Thorpe. “He is a talented professional with much to offer.”

Brooks’ last day with the City of Antioch is October 9, 2021.  The City will announce the appointment of its interim police chief in the coming weeks. Whether the council or Bernal, prior to his retirement at the end of the year, will choose the new chief, and either hire from within or conduct a search, are still to be determined.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

By Sgt. Josh Evans #5257, Field Services Bureau, Antioch Police Department

On September 6, 2021, at approximately 5:27 p.m., Antioch Police officers were dispatched to the report of a shooting in the area of Eagleridge Drive and Asilomar Drive. Initial information was that one adult male (18 years old) had been shot in the leg, however, when officers arrived on scene, they located an additional adult male (19 years old) and an adult female (19 years old) who also had gunshot wounds to their legs.

The three victims, all from Antioch, were transported to an area hospital with non-life-threatening injuries and are in stable condition. The suspects in this incident, wanted for assault with a deadly weapon, were not located and the motive for the shooting remains unknown at this time. As of this writing, the case remains under active investigation.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441 or you may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

Multi-agency effort included CHP, Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office, Pittsburg, Hercules, San Pablo Police Departments and East Bay Regional Parks

By Sergeant Brian Rose #4309, Field Services Bureau, Antioch Police Department

On Friday, September 3, 2021, Antioch Police officers responded to the report of a takeover robbery in-progress at a jewelry store inside of Somersville Towne Center. The call stated multiple subjects were robbing the establishment and the frightened employee ran to the back of the store and locked himself inside a room. Officers arrived and immediately confirmed three suspects entered the business, Ron’s Jewelers, and one of them used a hammer to smash open display cases. All three suspects then grabbed approximately $80,000- $90,000 in jewelry and fled from the store. Officers quickly obtained a description of the suspect’s vehicle to include its license plate.

A radio broadcast containing the suspect’s vehicle information was rapidly disseminated and moments later, officers from the Pittsburg Police Department located the car which was travelling westbound on Highway 4. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the driver failed to yield, and a pursuit ensued that spanned across several cities and involved numerous police agencies to include air support from CCCSO, CHP, and East Bay Regional Parks.

At one point, the suspect vehicle briefly stopped in the City of Richmond and one of the passengers fled from the car on foot. This suspect ran into a backyard and was subsequently taken into custody. This suspect was wearing a backpack that contained a large amount of jewelry.

An officer from the California Highway Patrol continued to pursue the suspect vehicle which still contained the two remaining suspects. The pursuit eventually terminated after the suspect vehicle was involved in a collision on Interstate 80 near, University Avenue in Berkeley. The two remaining occupants ran from the car after the collision but were apprehended by officers from the Hercules and San Pablo Police Departments.

The suspects, ages 28, 30 and 32, will be booked into the Martinez Detention Facility for numerous charges to include conspiracy, robbery, burglary, and evading arrest.

The Antioch Police Department and the victims in this case would like to thank all the involved law enforcement agencies for their assistance during this incident.

Anyone with information is encouraged to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

Emails show she wanted to have board “investigate” last Friday’s incident at Antioch High; superintendent refuses claiming violations of employees’ and student’s rights, her contract and Board Policy

By Allen Payton

In response to last Friday’s incident with a violent student at Antioch High School, which was caught on video that she posted on her official Facebook page, Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder has called a special meeting for Thursday, Sept. 2 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss “District-wide Use of Force Policies and Procedures”. (See related article)

Householder posted an announcement of the meeting as an event on Facebook on Tuesday, August 31, at about 2:00 p.m. but it wasn’t posted on the district’s website until Wednesday afternoon.

Although the board president has the authority to call special meetings, which require just a 24-hour public notification, board policy requires it be an item of urgency that can’t wait for the next regular meeting, which requires a 72-hour public notification. The next regularly board meeting is scheduled for next Wed., Sept. 8.

Attempts to reach Householder to ask why the matter couldn’t wait until next week to be discussed were unsuccessful before publication time.

In response to a Public Records Act request, emails between Householder and Superintendent Stephanie Anello show the board president wanted the board to investigate the incident writing, “I have consulted with Vice President Dr. Lewis, and he agreed there are unanswered questions regarding the video of the incident at Antioch High on 8/27.

Please take this email as my official notice calling for a Special Meeting for Thursday, September 2nd at 6 PM, to investigate this incident. There will only need to be one item for discussion/action by the Board: ‘Inquiry into Social Media Post Circulated on August 27th incident at Antioch High School.’

• I would like AUSD staff to be involved for questions, including administration and site safety.
• Additionally, please invite Strategic Threat Management since we contract with them.
• Please attach with this agenda item (1) Strategic Threat Management’s contract, (2) job duties for site safety personnel, and (3) and [sic] written policies that outline how violent situations regarding students is [sic] handled – this can be Antioch High specific, Board Policy, the District’s safety plan – anything to help the board understand different scenarios and responses.
• Lastly, please provide any data we have on student arrests for the last 4-5 years, including but not limited to number of arrests, reasons, school site, grade, gender, and race. Typically, I would only ask for 3 years of data, however, because of COVID, I am extending that time span.”

Anello agreed to schedule the meeting, but refused the remainder of Householder’s requests writing, “I am happy to schedule a Special Meeting. Unfortunately, I can’t agree to the agenda items you requested below for the following reasons:

• This is an ongoing investigation (at the time of your request, staff has had less than 24 business hours to investigate);
• You are asking me to violate employee’s rights;
• You are asking me to violate a student’s right to privacy;
• You are breaching my employment contract;
• You are violating Board Policy;

I’m sure there are many other ethical violations included in this request.

The one item I do believe the Board may discuss at this time is the STM contract. However, I want to go on record as stating I believe that absent of an investigation, this is inappropriate at this time. However, if this is what you would like the Board to consider, please advise and I will calendar the meeting.”

In response, Householder requested the contact information for the district’s attorney.

See complete email exchange between Householder and district staff regarding the special meeting, here: 083121 emails Householder & district staff CPRA 090121

Lewis Responds

When Lewis was asked to confirm his conversation with Householder, and if he supported having the board investigate the incident and her requests of Anello he responded, “No. I mentioned that it should review the procedures since the meeting had been called. That conversation happened after the decision to have the meeting was determined.”

Meeting Viewing and Public Comment Information

The meeting will be livestreamed and can be viewed at https://youtu.be/F-Dsas_w-s0. Persons wishing to make a public comment on items on the agenda can submit their comments until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments can be submitted via an online form at https://tinyurl.com/ausd-public-comment-card or by email to kelliecavallaro@antiochschools.net. Comments received by 4:00 p.m. will be read to the public during the meeting.

Requirements for Calling Special Board Meetings

Education Code 35144 – Special Meetings:

A special meeting of the governing board of a school district may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the board, or by a majority of the members thereof, by delivering personally or by mail written notice to each member of the board, and to each local newspaper of general circulation, radio, or television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be delivered personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at those meetings by the governing board. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the board a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.

The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and district employees.

(Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 641, Sec. 1.)

From Government Code – Brown Act – Open Meeting Laws; Special Meetings:

a) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering written notice to each member of the legislative body and to each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station requesting notice in writing and posting a notice on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one. The notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or discussed. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.

The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.

AUSD policy BB 9320 Meetings and Notices regarding who can call a Special Meeting:

Special meetings of the Board may be called at any time by the presiding officer or a majority of the Board members.  However, a special meeting shall not be called regarding the salary, salary schedule, or other compensation of the Superintendent, assistant superintendent, or other management employee as described in Government Code 3511.1. (Government Code 54956)

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Faces possible prison sentence of almost 35 years

By Scott Alonso, PIO, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Earlier this month, defendant Brandon Lamont Lindsey of Antioch (born March 20, 1994) was found guilty as charged for the attempted murder and attempted robbery of a Yuba City man. Further, a Contra Costa County jury found true the enhancements listed in the charges against Lindsey, including the discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury.

Antioch Police believed the incident to be an attempted robbery at the time. (See related article)

On September 21, 2018, Lindsey arranged to sell opioids to the victim and the victim’s partner in Antioch. Specifically, Lindsey told the victim to meet him on Cavallo Road. Before this meeting, the victim and defendant did not know each or other. The drug sale was set up by a mutual friend of the victim. Upon the pair meeting for the first time on Cavallo Road, Lindsey instructed the victim to bring his car down an isolated road for the sale.

Lindsey conveyed to the victim that his associate would bring the pills in a separate car. Moments after the victim moved his car, another car was positioned and blocked the driveway, which prevented the victim from leaving the scene. Lindsey approached the victim and pulled out a firearm and demanded money. Lindsey fired three times inside the car at point blank range. One bullet struck the victim through his left arm causing a partial loss of mobility in his left hand. Lindsey used a 9mm handgun during the attempted murder and attempted robbery.

In total, the jury found Lindsey guilty of four counts:

• Attempted Murder
  • Enhancement 1, Personal and Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, Causing Great Bodily Injury
• Shooting at Occupied Motor Vehicle
  • Enhancement 2, Personal and Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, Causing Great Bodily Injury
• Assault with a Semiautomatic Firearm
  • Enhancement 3, Use of a Firearm
• Attempted Second Degree Robbery
  • Enhancement 4, Personal and Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, Causing Great Bodily Injury

Deputy District Attorney Kate Dunbar prosecuted the case on behalf of the People. The defendant will be sentenced on October 15 before the Honorable Charles Burch. Lindsey faces up to 34 years and 8 months to life in state prison. The case was investigated by the Antioch Police Department.

Case information: People v. Brandon Lamont Lindsey, Docket Number 05-200113-9.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.