Can face up to 6 months in jail, $1,000 fine

Torres-Walker absent

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council on a 4-0 vote passed an ordinance banning organizers and advertisers of and spectators at sideshows. The matter was finally dealt with after discussing the matter since last fall and holding two previous votes, one which adopted an ordinance without targeting spectators and the follow up vote, for which none of the three council members present supported it. (See related articles here, here, here and here)

Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the agenda item were opposed to including a ban on spectators citing possible constitutional issues and profiling by police, and concerns that those stuck in their cars could be cited.

Before hearing from residents during the public hearing, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The city attorney would have acted as the proponent” but was absent from the meeting. The mayor then asked who would be the opponent, resident Alexander Broom volunteered and was given 10 minutes to speak.

“There are some large concerns I have with Attachment A which goes after the spectators,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a crime that I could be a witness to and be guilty of a crime. I think there are some constitutional issues there.”

“Anyone who is found to be within 200 feet witnessing or observing a sideshow,” he pointed out as one example.

“There are multiple instances that I would go to part of car culture, then you have people who show up and ruin the event,” he stated. “Me just being present doesn’t mean I’m a participant. This ordinance…is far too broad. I would encourage you to not include the spectator portion.”

“I had one of my friends come out to one of these events and a car show broke out. He was profiled,” he stated. “I could face up to six months in jail for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“There are so many other routes you can go after spectators for this disturbance,” he said. “I think this opens up the city to more lawsuits…to more civil rights violations.”

“I’m open to compromise. I’d rather see the second ordinance go forward that doesn’t include spectators,” he concluded. “This is far too broad.”

Ralph Hernandez said, “These car culture violators should figure out how to lawfully and peacefully cruise. You should keep option 1 to include spectators.”

These are not really spectators. They’re encouraging bad conduct In law, that’s aiding and abetting,” he continued. “I think the police are smart enough…to make differentiation who is a spectator. How do those people claim they’re merely parked there?” he asked. “Come on you have to sell that to someone else.”

“The 200-feet limit, it’s appropriate because these sideshows take up a lot of space,” Hernandez continued. “Is that car culture? They’re violators of the law…by those actively participating, drivers, blockers. If they don’t want to be considered a violator they should not go there.”

“Their cell phones should also be confiscated,” he added. “It’s dangerous. It’s not a football game.”

Teshina Garrett, ACCE Antioch asked, “Who or what is considered a spectator?” and then spoke of her experience being stuck due to a sideshow. “We took photos…of people doing stupid stuff in the middle of the street. Does that make us a spectator?”

“Use these drones, Take their license plates, confiscate their vehicles,” she added.

Resident Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch, spoke next about her own experience of getting stuck in traffic due to a sideshow. “Therefore, I don’t understand how you can tell a spectator and someone who is stuck. I just encourage you to consider the definition of a spectator if that’s the route the council is going.”

Andrew Becker also shared about “a sideshow that popped up. Within two minutes there were 200 people there. They were jumping on my car. I understand there’s a subjective component there. I also understand you have to have these tools. It’s the individuals…who are driving these things. I’m wondering if…an individual who is cited, they can have it reviewed by the Oversight committee. I think that would be monumental. It might alleviate some of the concerns here.”

Gavin Payton asked, “Some of the sideshows are actually dangerous for cars and for pets, the next day because they’re throwing bottles and the glass is breaking on the curbs and the bushes. Is there going to be some kind of action for that, as well?”

A resident named Devin said, “We really need to determine what a spectator is. We all know that the definition that some will use is not fair to everyone. People can determine who’s participating in these things, who’s taking videos and advertising these things. This is a problematic issue we are having in this city. But the language…people being accused of being a spectator, but they weren’t. Two hundred feet…that’s not fair.”

A woman named Laura said, “I am not an expert on car culture but I’m an excellent driver…and I am a parent. I think it’s dangerous to include spectators …because…systemic racism is a thing. So, I don’t think spectators should be included in this.”

Louise Green spoke last saying, “Using the simple word spectator is scary to everyone. I think this is more targeted to spectator participants. It’s a game they play. They were throwing T-shirts over their license plates. They’re actually throwing their bodies into the cars. You’ll have to put the spectator clause in there. Unless you can get real specific on the language, they are spectators, but a participant spectator. They have racing guns that they signal when the police are coming. There were maybe five people on the sidewalk. But the 200 were spectator participants. They get out of their vehicles. If I’m trapped in my car, they’re going to know, they’re not part of it. We do have to include them because they’re part of the problem.”

Council Discussion

Barbanica spoke first saying, “We’re talking, here about active participants. Not someone sitting in their cars. There’s also a big difference with someone videoing, when an officer rolls up. They say, officer, ‘here’s my phone.’”

“They leapfrog ahead to the next sideshow. It’s very detrimental to the community,” he stated. “This has terrorized the community long enough.”

“These are roving sideshows that are very organized. We have to go after people who are active participants,”

“These sideshows are getting more and more frequent and they’re roving around the city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would ask the city attorney’s office if we can increase the penalties not just $1,000.”

“A San Joaquin Sheriff would not release the cars from a sideshow until the participants’ court dates,” she shared. “These cars are part of evidence.”

“I think we should also look at reimbursement for the use of our resources,” Ogorchock continued. “As we as community members, these are our dollars. These people, the majority of them are coming from outside the community.”

“This is a quality-of-life issue,” she stated. “If we can’t add these to the ordinance toight

Wilson said, “I’m going to steal the term spectator participant. These spectator participants…they’re filming and livestreaming it to let their friends know where they are. We need to hold those participants accountable along with the organizers and advertisers.’

“I betcha there are people from inside our community,” she added.

“We need to start talking about why is this happening. What’s the root cause?” Wilson asked. “We definitely need to include something about the spectators.”

Hernandez-Thorpe spoke last saying, “this doesn’t necessarily stop sideshows. These are tools that once sideshows are happening they can be used. These aren’t preventative. What actually prevents sideshows is determining who is starting them. But unfortunately, our traffic division has been decimated.”

“I’m all for all of them, spectators, organizers and those who advertise,” he stated. “If we pass something tonight it will come back late July and will go into effect 30 days later, at the end of the summer months. If we need to make changes, we do it in the fall.”

“The technology in the police department in my opinion allows them to differentiate between a spectator,” the mayor shared. “Let’s pass something now, tonight and build on it and not let perfection be the enemy of progress.”

Ogorchock then made a motion saying, “I’m going to add” then read the ordinance that included banning spectators, “including not releasing vehicles until court dates and reimburse costs of resource.”

The Assistant City Attorney said, “I think there are some concerns…that we can’t address tonight” in response to a question from Barbanica.

No one seconded the motion.

Barbanica then moved approval of the ordinance including spectators as written. It passed 4-0.

Ogorchock then asked, “that we come back with the two proposals.” But both Barbanica and Wilson had already left the dais, so the mayor said, “Uh, no. There’s no consensus. Everybody left.” They then took a two-minute recess.

She tried again following the break but none of the other council members supported her proposals.

Ordinance Details

The ordinance adopted includes the following:

City Council introduced the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 4 to Title 4 (Public Safety) to the Antioch Municipal Code, which prohibits organizing, advertising, and being a spectator at street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving exhibitions;

Organizing or Advertising Street Races, Sideshows, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited

It is unlawful for any person to knowingly organize a street race, sideshow, reckless driving exhibition, or exhibition of speed conducted within the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

B. It is unlawful for any person to advertise, within the City, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

C. It is unlawful for any person to advertise online, including on social media, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

Spectators at Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited

It is unlawful for any individual who to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.

B. It is unlawful for any individual to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.

C. Local law enforcement shall have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this Chapter with an administrative citation.

D. An individual is present at the illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition if that individual is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the event, or within two hundred (200) feet of the location where preparations are being made for the event.

Enforcement

A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a maximum of six (6) months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both, unless at the discretion of the district attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction, the violation is reduced to an infraction.

Read complete Antioch Sideshow Ordinance.

The ordinance requires a second reading which will occur at the July 23rd meeting and if passed, will go into effect 30 days later.

Resolution claims Antonio Hernandez committed 12 violations of board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and Brown Act open meeting law cited

By Allen D. Payton

During the Antioch School Board meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2024, Board President Antonio Hernandez faces a vote to censure him proposed by fellow Trustee and Board Vice President Mary Rocha for publicly divulging personnel and closed session matters and to the media, among other reasons. It occurred while he spoke with an NBC Bay Area TV about the accusations by district employees of bullying by a supervisor and called for Superintendent Stephanie Anello’s resignation for not handling the situation they way he would have preferred.

At the end of the May 22nd board meeting, Rocha read a statement calling for the censure to be placed on the next board meeting agenda. However, Hernandez pointed out that Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis would be absent for that meeting, so the item was placed on Wednesday night’s meeting agenda. (See 3:10:00 mark of the meeting video)

Under Resolutions for Immediate Action, agenda Item 15F reads, Resolution No. 2023-24-57 Censure of Board President Antonio Hernandez. It outlines 12 times he violated board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and the state’s Brown Act open meeting law which includes:

• Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding personnel matters with members of the media;
• Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding closed session matters with members of the media;
• Board President Hernandez violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPPA) Act by divulging confidential health-related information of a District employee to the media;
• Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by speaking out of turn, in public, regarding private and confidential personnel matters, appearing to take on an administrative role;
• Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by acting in an administrative capacity to resolve complaints;
• Board President Hernandez, sought to evaluate the Superintendent in a public forum, outside of the closed session arena in violation of Board Policy 2140;
• Board President Hernandez, used his public Facebook account to post confidential correspondence from a District paid for legal counsel, breaking the confidentiality of the document posted, and posting confidential correspondence to the Board of trustees, which was directed to a closed session item in violation of Board Bylaw 9012;
• Board President Hernandez attempted to schedule two Special Board Meetings, while also being told that there would not be a quorum for the meeting;
• Board President actually commandeered the Board Room to hold an unsanctioned meeting with members of the public, placing members of the administration in potential jeopardy of violating California’s Open Meeting Law (the “Brown Act”);
• Board President Hernandez usurped the authority of the Board by appearing to speak on behalf of the Board or Trustees in media news reports, via his Facebook posts, and in public meetings in violation of Board Bylaws 9010 and 9012;
• Board President Hernandez, failed to implement Board Bylaw 9121, when a local media reporter verbally attacked the Superintendent during a Governing Board Meeting;
• the Governing Board hereby finds and determines that Board President Hernandez’s conduct is unacceptable, unprofessional, and a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws cited above.

The proposed resolution concludes with four resolutions and orders including:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and ORDERED that the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

…that based on these recitals, the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby formally censures Board President Hernandez and proclaims publicly that this Board disapproves of the aforementioned conduct and finds it to be a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws and constitutes unacceptable behavior that shall not be tolerated.

…that Board President Hernandez shall treat fellow Board members and all District staff with dignity and respect at all times and in all forums, and that he refrains from any further violation of Board Policies and Bylaws.

…that any further violations of Board Policies and Bylaws by Board President Hernandez may result in his removal as Board President.”

See Resolution.

See Meeting Agenda.

The school board meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the board room at the Antioch Unified School District office building at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed live on the District’s YouTube channel.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, his appointment of 15 Superior Court Judges, which include one in Contra Costa County; two in Los Angeles County; one in Marin County; one in Napa County; one in Riverside County; one in Sacramento County; three in San Diego County; one in San Francisco County; two in San Joaquin County; one in San Mateo County; and one in Santa Clara County.

Michael Nieto, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Nieto has served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office since 2022 and has been a Deputy District Attorney there since 1997.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Nieto worked in private practice as an associate attorney for McCutcheon Doyle Brown & Enersen from June 1994 to Dec. 1996 and earned a Bachelors of Arts in Government from Harvard University.

He has served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco since 2013. Nieto earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California College of the Law (formerly Hastings), San Francisco. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Clare Maier. Nieto is a Democrat.

The annual compensation for each of the judicial positions is $238,479.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – CA Supreme Court

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

By Allen D. Payton

In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed to continue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize

According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election

In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”

Proponents

Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative.  The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”

Supporters included the California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The campaign had received $17.8 million in contributions.

According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats.  They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”

View materials on the proposed ballot measure.

Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts

In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians. 

We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.

Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results. 

This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future. 

In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher. 

We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.” 

———–

Opponents

The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, FSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”

Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”

In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.

Court’s Decision

According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”

The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”

“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.

The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.

See Court ruling, here.

For more information about the ballot measure and the coalition that supported it visit www.taxpayerprotection.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

6 face possible permanent decertification as peace officers

There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date according to City staff

“Virtually all will get their jobs back.” – APOA & defense attorney Mike Rains. May call mayor, councilwoman to testify.

“…we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.” – APOA VP Sgt. Loren Bledsoe

By Allen D. Payton

A report in the East Bay Times on Monday, June 17, 2024, provided information that’s been sought for months by local media about the number of Antioch Police Officers who have been terminated as a result of both the FBI and text scandal investigations over the past two years. According to the report, 10 officers have been fired and the information was based on “recently obtained emails department commanders sent to city officials.”

In the report he cited three more officers who had quit because they, “knew that harsh discipline was imminent, city documents say.” The Times also reported, “six officers were given unpaid suspensions…one received a written reprimand” and “One officer was cleared of wrongdoing.” That doesn’t include former Officer Matthew Nutt who was acquitted by a jury last Thursday of assault against a man he arrested two years ago.

That information was confirmed by Antioch District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica on Monday which he had just confirmed that with City staff and was given authorization to share it with the media. He said, “10 officers were terminated, three resigned prior to any discipline being implemented, two were demoted, six were suspended and one was cleared of all charges from an independent investigation, not including Matthew Nut.”

The Times’ report claimed, “city officials attempted to fire or discipline several more officers who ultimately won arbitration hearings and got the decisions reversed or reduced, according to multiple officials with firsthand knowledge.”

However, asked about the arbitrations Barbanica said, “I am not aware of any arbitrations that have yet occurred. It doesn’t mean they haven’t.”

After a call to City staff, during a brief, follow up conversation Barbanica clarified saying firmly, “There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date.”

Of the 10 officers who were terminated, six also face decertification as peace officers.

APOA Attorney Confident Officers “Will Get Their Jobs Back”

When asked about the 10 terminations, defense attorney Mike Rains, who also represents the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA), said, “I am confident they will get their jobs back. There were terminations who were charged criminally and those who sent the text messages. We (his law firm) conflicted out of the criminal cases.”

“Nutt wasn’t involved at all in the text case,” he added.

“Virtually all will get their jobs back,” Rains stated. “Six cases are pending right now for the texting that were terminated that we represent, that I’m confident they’ll get their jobs back.”

“This is a way overreaction for the text messages on their personal cell phones,” the attorney continued. “The guys who just received them or sent the message back that the City thought was not a condemnation, the City claimed Biased-Based Policing. They threw that out in most of these cases, which is ridiculous. That’s based on officers targeting individuals in the community, that they’re going to get them because of their race and wouldn’t consider targeting people of other races.”

Bias-Based Policing is also known as profiling. According to civilrightspolicing.org, is “Profiling is presuming that someone is involved in criminal activity based on who they are rather than what they have done.”

“The City said, ‘you used a bad word we don’t like, that we think is a racist term and we’re going to fire you for them,’” Rains continued. “Amiri and Rombough had texts that were really offensive. But many of them they were sending they were putting out on chains including 15 people. Some of the officers said they weren’t even reading them.”

As previously reported, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe called for the firing of all the officers investigated for the text scandal in May 2023 and again the following month. In May 2023, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Waker also called for the immediate firing of “officers involved in the racist texting scandal.”.

Asked if that tcould affect the officers’ efforts to regain their jobs Rains said, “I’ll probably subpoena Thorpe to testify. I may call her, too.”

“The mayor’s comments about the entire department are completely misleading,” he added.

APOA Responds

In response to the information released about the 10 terminated officers, APOA Vice President Sgt. Loren Bledsoe wrote, “We acknowledge the recent developments regarding the disciplinary actions taken against several Antioch officers. As a union, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity within our ranks.

It is important to note that the APOA cannot comment on ongoing personnel matters. However, we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.

Moving forward, our focus will be on rebuilding relationships with the community and restoring public trust. We understand the significance of fostering positive connections between law enforcement and the people we serve. We are dedicated to working collaboratively with community leaders, organizations, and residents to ensure public safety and promote a sense of security for all.

We remain committed to continuous improvement, education, and training within our department. We will strive to create an inclusive and equitable environment that reflects the values and expectations of the diverse Antioch community.”

6 Face Possible Permanent Decertification

Beyond being terminated from their positions, six former Antioch Police officers face possible permanent decertification. According to the California Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) police officers can face decertification for Serious Misconduct. That is defined by the Commission as follows:

1. Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer.
2. Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
3. Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.
4. Sexual assault as described in subdivision (b) of Penal Code §832.7, and shall extend to acts committed amongst members of any law enforcement agency.
5. Demonstrating bias on the basis of actual or perceived race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
6. Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public.
7. Participation in a law enforcement gang.
8. Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct.
9. Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances.

Five Types of Decertification

The commission publishes the names of any peace officer whose certification is suspended or revoked and the basis for the suspension or revocation. There are five types of decertification:

Ineligible – An individual has been disqualified from eligibility to be a peace officer based on a disqualifying event as set forth in Government Code section 1029.

Revoked – The peace officer has been decertified and may not exercise the duties and powers of a peace officer. A revocation is permanent, and the certification shall not be reactivated.

Voluntary Surrender or Surrender – A person who holds a certificate issued by the commission, knowingly and willingly, returns the certificate to the commission, forfeiting all rights and privileges associated with that certificate. A “surrender” has the same effect of a revocation in that it cannot be reactivated.

Immediate Temporary Suspension or Temporary Suspension – The immediate suspension of a peace officer’s certification, pending the outcome of an investigation related to allegations of serious misconduct, pursuant to Penal Code section 13510.8(d). The “temporary suspension” may be issued under the following circumstances:

• When a peace officer is arrested or indicted for a felony or other crime listed in GC§ 1029,
• When a peace officer is discharged from a law enforcement agency for serious misconduct, or
• When a peace officer has separated from employment as a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct.

The temporary suspension remains in effect until either a final determination is made by the Commission or the Executive Director withdraws the “temporary suspension” if a withdrawal is deemed to be warranted

Suspension – a disciplinary action of the Commission wherein a peace officer certification has been suspended for a specified period of time, not to exceed three years. A peace officer whose certification has been suspended may not be assigned duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers.

The six officers have all been fired from their positions with the Antioch Police Department but each of their certifications as police officers are currently under Temporary Suspension as of Monday, June 17, 2024. The list is updated weekly on Monday mornings.

Current APD Sworn Staffing

Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington reported earlier this month to the Police Oversight Commission the names of all the sworn officers currently on the force, including 17 currently on paid leave. As of Monday, June 17, 2024, there are now 76 sworn officers in the department out of 115 in the budget approved by the city council and additional officers will be sworn in next week.

Took jury an hour to find Matthew Nutt not guilty

“Officer Nutt did exactly what he was trained to do and what the law allows him to do in order to control a man wanted for a serious and violent crime,” defense attorney Nicole Pifari

“All the glory to God” – Matthew Nutt

Appealing his termination, City agrees to arbitration

By Allen D. Payton

A year after being terminated then charged with misdemeanor assault during a 2022 traffic stop incident, former Antioch Police officer Matthew Nutt was acquitted by a jury on Thursday, June 13, 2024.

As previously reported, in May 2023, Nutt was terminated from his employment as the result of an internal investigation into his use of force against an individual during a traffic stop on July 1, 2022. During the incident, Mr. Nutt learned the driver of a vehicle stopped for not displaying license plates had an outstanding felony warrant for shooting at an inhabited dwelling or occupied vehicle and conspiracy. Upon placing the individual under arrest, he refused to sit in the back of a police vehicle and displayed physical resistance. Mr. Nutt used force against the arrestee, consisting of a series of punches and kicks, along with knee and elbow strikes.

Nutt was represented by attorney Nicole Pifari, a partner in the Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC Legal Defense Group, whose lead partner,  Mike Rains, represents the Antioch Police Officers Association. According to her bio, “She has successfully defended police officers from criminal prosecutions in both state and federal court, and also represents officers around the state facing administrative investigation, disciplinary appeal, or the trauma of involvement in critical incidents.”

Pifari issued the following statement about the acquittal: “Antioch Police Officer Matthew Nutt Found Not Guilty

Today, after one hour of deliberation, a Contra Costa County Jury acquitted former Antioch Police Officer Matthew Nutt at the conclusion of a one-week trial. Nutt was charged with misdemeanor assault after using force while arresting a man for a felony warrant. He was represented at trial by Nicole Pifari of Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC.

The call originated with a traffic stop where the passenger in the car had a warrant for two felonies related to a drive by shooting. After being handcuffed, the suspect tried to run, then began to resist, leading to a physical struggle at the door of the patrol car with two officers. At well over 300 pounds, the suspect was overpowering the officers when Nutt used a series of body strikes to gain his compliance. 

“First and foremost, we are incredibly grateful to the jury for their work. I remain perplexed by this criminal filing. In my opinion it was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the video. The prosecution failed to call a single percipient witness with the most glaring omission being their failure to call the shooting suspect. Basically, the prosecution tried to ruin a decorated police officer and veteran’s life without any evidence,” said Pifari. 

“Officer Nutt did exactly what he was trained to do and what the law allows him to do in order to control a man wanted for a serious and violent crime,” Pifari added. 

“All the glory to God,” Nutt added. 

When reached for comment about the acquittal Rains said, “I knew the case. I was talking with Nicole about it, the motions before trial and the way the case was going to be prosecuted by (Chief Contra Costa Assistant District Attorney) Simon O’Connell. I had seen the video and we discussed it.

“I couldn’t believe that Simon thought he could ever get a conviction on this case without even offering up a use of force expert who said the use of force was unreasonable,” Rains continued. “He apparently thought he was going to put the video up there. He called a video guy (to testify) who said he was asked to look at the punches that Nutt delivered to the victim.”

“Nicole appropriately asked the video expert, ‘Were you asked to look at what the alleged victim was doing to prompt the officer to do what he did?’ He said, ‘no, I wasn’t asked to do that’,” Rains stated. “To freeze the frame showing what Officer Nutt did and not freeze a frame showing this guy kicking at the officer and refusing to get into the car was entirely misleading. This is a prosecutor who doesn’t care about showing the truth to the jury and they saw it very clearly.”

“The trial only took a few days. It didn’t take the jury long, only an hour to reach a verdict,” Rains shared. “Thats because Simon O’Connell is such a poor prosecutor.”

“Nicole put Nutt on the witness stand. He’s an honest man. The jury believed what he said, and they came back with a unanimous not guilty verdict” Rains continued. “It was a slam dunk win for the defense and what amounted to a condemnation by the jury of Simon O’Connell, (DA) Diana Becton and the District Attorney’s Office for bringing this case.”

Termination Based on Department Policy, Not the Law

According to the Antioch Police Department, Mr. Nutt’s application of force triggered an automatic review of his body-worn camera footage. The reviewing supervisor had concerns about what was depicted in the video and believed Mr. Nutt may have violated Antioch Police policies governing use of force. The supervisor communicated his concerns through official channels, and an internal review was initiated. Mr. Nutt was placed into an assignment with no direct public contact.

After a thorough investigation, Mr. Nutt was sustained on four (4) use of force policy violations, including using unreasonable force, failure to de-escalate, and failure to use alternative tactics. Chief Steven Ford reviewed the findings of the investigation and terminated Mr. Nutt from his employment with the Antioch Police Department on April 21, 2023.

Asked if Nutt’s termination by the department was included in his prosecution, Rains said, “I don’t believe that came in. The administrative side of the case is not usually brought into a criminal case.”

“It’s not based on a violation of the law but only looks at the department policy,” he continued. “The department standard for discipline would be the mere preponderance of the evidence. Understand, a jury can only convict on a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it’s a different standard.”

“The only reason Matthew Nutt was terminated is because it was in the heyday of the text scandal and I know there was immense pressure on Chief Ford,” Rains stated. “I don’t think he wanted to terminate this young man.”

Termination Appealed Will Go to Arbitration With City

“We’ve appealed his termination and have agreed to go to arbitration,” he added.

Asked when that will occur, Rains said, “We don’t have it scheduled yet. We were waiting for the criminal case to end.”

UPDATE: DA’s Office Responds

In response the DA’s Office PIO, Asregadoo wrote, “Though the verdict was not in our favor, we acknowledge the importance of a jury trial in ensuring a fair and impartial legal process.”

June is Elder Abuse Awareness Month; June 15th is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

Deadline to register: June 13 at 8:30 AM

By Susan Kim, Executive Director, Family Justice Center

Did you know…One in ten Americans aged 60 or older experiences some form of elder abuse? Elders who have been abused are 300% more likely to die than their peers.

Emily Milstein, Staff Attorney for Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, will provide training on Elder Abuse Signs and Legal Remedies during a virtual workshop training on Friday, June 14, 2024, from 10:00-11:30 AM.

The Contra Costa Elder Abuse Prevention Project (EAPP) prevents and combats elder abuse through an active community network that raises awareness and coordinates services. 

Visit cocoelderjustice.org for more information about EAPP.

To register for the training click, here.

Guadalupe Zavala caused 6-hour stand-off ending in his death while unarmed

CA DOJ “commends APD” for manner in which they handled situation

Son later sued City of Antioch

CA Attorney General issues “policy and practices recommendations”

By California Department of Justice

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), today, Friday, May 24, 2024, released a report on Guadalupe Zavala’s death from an officer-involved shooting involving the Antioch Police Department in Antioch, California on December 10, 2021. The report is part of the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ongoing efforts to provide transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. The report provides a detailed analysis of the incident and outlines DOJ’s findings. After a thorough investigation, DOJ concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate in this case. However, DOJ recognizes the important lessons to be learned from this incident. As required by AB 1506, the Attorney General has issued specific policy and practice recommendations related to the incident. 

“Loss of life is always a tragedy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “AB 1506 is a critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope for this report is to provide some understanding and aid in advancing towards a safer California for all. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to working together with all law enforcement partners to ensure an unbiased, transparent, and accountable legal system for every resident of California.”

On December 10, 2021, Antioch Police Department responded to multiple calls regarding a man who was barricaded in his home with a rifle after shooting at neighboring homes and vehicles. A standoff lasting more than six hours ensued, during which Mr. Zavala fired multiple rounds from various locations towards law enforcement personnel, vehicles, and nearby residences. De-escalation measures, communications from the crisis negotiations team, and attempts to coerce Mr. Zavala from his residence were unsuccessful. At one point, Mr. Zavala exited his front door carrying what appeared to be a “full AR-15 style rifle.” Two snipers with the Antioch Police Department each fired one round hitting Mr. Zavala, causing him to fall back. However, because Mr. Zavala was wearing body armor, he was able to regain his footing and moved back inside the residence. Later, a fire started in Mr. Zavala’s home, and he ran out and took cover in his backyard. When law enforcement knocked down the fence of Mr. Zavala’s yard with an armored vehicle, Mr. Zavala ran towards the armored vehicle and was fatally shot.

Zavala’s son, Diego Zavala, joined in a 2023 federal lawsuit against the City of Antioch and six Antioch Police officers. (See related articles here, here and here)

Under AB 1506, which requires DOJ to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state. DOJ conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that the evidence does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers. As such, no further action will be taken in this case.

CA DOJ “Commends APD” for How They Handled Situation

In addition, the report shows the California DOJ Police Practices Section conducted a supplemental review of the information and “PPS commends APD for the manner in which they handled this volatile, dangerous situation, coordinating with neighboring agencies, exploring less-lethal options, and rapidly deploying the SWAT and CNT teams to the incident to attempt to achieve a peaceful surrender.”

CA DOJ Recommendations

As part of its investigation, DOJ has identified several policy recommendations that it believes will help prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. These recommendations include:

COMMUNICATION

Antioch Police Department should ensure that officers are equipped with effective communications devices that can operate in the hilly areas covered by their department. Antioch Police Department can seek additional coverage or upgrades through their department-issued cell phone or radio carriers or, if that is impracticable or not feasible, examine whether there are other cell phone carriers or radio channels that would work in all areas they serve. 

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

Antioch Police Department should ensure that their officers can effectively and efficiently communicate with officers from other agencies in future incidents by setting up regional radio channel systems for interagency communication.

See CA DOJ Antioch Police Policy and Practice Recommendations.

Emails were sent early Friday afternoon to Acting Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington, Antioch Police Officers Association leaders and their attorney, Mike Rains for comment on the report, as well as City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Addington and Rains with questions regarding the 2023 lawsuit that included Zavala’s son. The efforts were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

UPDATE: Rains responded early Friday evening saying, “That was good news from the DOJ. I think the findings were appropriate. The DOJ does a very good job, in my opinion, in these 1506 cases analyzing the facts and clearing the officers of any wrongdoing. I also see the PPS commends the department for de-escalation.”

About the lawsuit he said, “I don’t know on the civil side if the lawsuit is settled or not,” as Rains’ firm does not represent former officer Eric Rombough.

“We represented the officers in the 1506 case, including Duggar and Chang, who were the two primary officers who fired their weapons and were part of the DOJ investigation,” Rains added.

A copy of the complete CA Attorney General’s report can be found here.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.