New Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Michael Nieto. Photo source: Office of the Governor of California
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.
“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 tocontinue 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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
Information as of Monday, June 17, 2024. Source: POST
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:
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.
Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.
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.
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.
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.
Participation in a law enforcement gang.
Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct.
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.
Former Antioch Police Officer Matthew Nutt was prosecuted by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office but found not guilty and acquitted on Thursday, June 13, 2024.
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.
Cover of CA DOJ Policy and Practice Recommendations for APD and Figure 1. photograph from Brentwood Police Department drone footage showing Guadalupe Zavala taking aim and shooting at a police drone. Source: CA DOJ
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.
Figure 2: Distance between Mr. Zavala’s house and the location where Officer Duggar and Sergeant Chang were when they fired their shots. Figure 6: This image shows that the distance between Officer Rombough and Detective McDonald (both positioned on the Antioch armored vehicle) and were about 103 feet from Mr. Zavala when they fired. Source: CA DOJ
“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.”
Figure 11: Bullet holes photographed in residence neighboring Mr. Zavala’s home where neighbors reported shots fired by Mr. Zavala. Figures 11A&B: Bullets holes in neighbor’s vehicles outside Mr. Zavala’s residence. Source: CA DOJ
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)
Figure 25: Still frame from armored vehicle video of Mr. Zavala getting up halfway after the first round of shots were fired by officers. Figure 4: Mr. Zavala lying prone outside the North side of his home, under a barbecue, with what the helicopter reported to possibly be a handgun in his hands (circled). Figure 9: Cellphone image from Mr. Zavala’s phone from the day of the incident. Source: CA DOJ
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.
Figure 19. Assault rifle found in the hallway of a bedroom in Mr. Zavala’s residence. Figure 21. Ballistic vest recovered from the backyard. Figure 23: A box of unfired .40 caliber S&W ammunition found in the safe of the master bedroom of Mr. Zavala’s residence. Source: DOJ
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.”
Source: CA DOJ
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.
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.
Angelo Quinto and with an Antioch Police officer during the incident on Dec. 23, 2020. (Herald file photos) The Antioch City Council settled the lawsuit with Quinto’s family for $7.5 million during their meeting on May 14, 2024. Photo by Allen D. Payton
5-0 vote costs City $50,000 including attorney’s fees
Mock trial held, court wouldn’t grant officers qualified immunity which contributed to decision
Officers responded to home in Dec. 2020 where he was strangling his mother
Died in the hospital 3 days later while not in police custody
Coroner’s autopsy determined Quinto died of drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest
Independent toxicology report found presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.
DA reported, “an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea” and “accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.”
By Allen D. Payton
During a Closed Session meeting Tuesday night, May 14, 2024, after receiving information from a representative of the County’s insurance pool the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to settle the lawsuit by the family of Angelo Quinto who died in December 2020 following an interaction with Antioch Police Officers, while attacking his family during a mental health crisis. The council agreed to settle with the family for $7.5 million.
The Closed Session agenda item #1 read, “CONFERENCE INVOLVING JOINT POWERS AGENCY – Municipal Pooling Authority and California Affiliated Risk Management Authority (CARMA). Discussion will concern EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9 MARIA QUINTO-COLLINS, et al., v. CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California CASE NO.: 3:21-cv-06094-AMO; Name of local agency representative on joint powers agency board: Thomas Lloyd Smith, City of Antioch; Appearing on behalf of joint powers board: Linda Cox, Municipal Pooling Authority and Amanda Griffith, ERMA (Employment Risk Management Authority).”
The Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) is the County’s insurance pool and along with ERMA and CARMA determined the maximum amount of a settlement they would approve. Had the council not settled and continued fighting the lawsuit, the three authorities would not have paid for attorney’s fees and any settlement or amount determined by the judge or jury. Instead, it all would have had to be paid from the City’s General Fund, most of which pays for the police department. By settling the lawsuit, the City only has to pay its $50,000 deductible including attorney’s fees.
Background
On Dec. 23, 2020, Officers responded to the home of Quinto’s parents after dispatch received a call that the young 30-year-old Filipino-American Navy veteran was attacking them. As previously reported, Quinto’s sister placed the call telling police Angelo was strangling their mom, and the mother was not breathing. The sister told police Angelo took drugs. The sister had a hammer in her hands, which her brother had taken from her at one point, but she was able to get it back. Upon arrival, officers found Quinto being actively restrained by his mother on a bedroom floor of the home.
Although claims were made by his family that officers restrained Quinto by using a knee to his neck for five minutes, that was proven false, as police claimed they had only placed a knee on his back. According to then-Chief Tammany Brooks, “At one point, during the handcuffing, for a few seconds an officer did have his knee across Angelo’s shoulder blade…taught at police academies for prone handcuffing.” Quinto died in the hospital three days later while not in police custody. (See related articles here and here)
During Brooks’ report of the incident he said, “I have been in contact with the Coroner’s Office and the following four points have been jointly approved by multiple pathologists related to their findings thus far:
Although the decedent had injuries consistent with a struggle with his family and law enforcement, none of the injuries appeared to be fatal.
There were no fractures of the skull, torso, or extremities.
A full examination of the neck revealed there was no evidence of strangulation or crushed airway.
They are currently expanding toxicology testing because they were aware of reported past drug use.”
An autopsy was performed on December 28th by the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office which ruled Quinto succumbed to excited delirium and prescription drugs during the physical altercation with officers. Further, the cause of death was determined to be Excited Delirium Syndrome due to drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest. (Excited Delirium being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death has since been outlawed in California with the passage of a bill, AB-360, last October. It prohibits coroners, medical examiners, physicians or physician assistants from listing excited delirium on a person’s death certificate or in an autopsy report).
On Friday, August 20, 2021, Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner David Livingston announced that a coroner’s jury reached a finding that Quinto’s death was an accident, not at the hands of another.
Then, in September 2022, Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton determined, Antioch Police officers engaged with Quinto in a manner that was lawful and objectively reasonable under the circumstances and an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea.
According to the DA’s Office, “A toxicology report by the Coroner’s Office showed that Quinto had the presence of caffeine, Levetriacetam (a therapeutic for adults and children with epilepsy), and Modafinil – a drug to stimulate wakefulness – in his system. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner reviewed the autopsy findings and agreed with its conclusions.
“The Quinto family commissioned an independent autopsy, and its findings note the cause of death was restraint asphyxiation. The private autopsy lists petechial hemorrhaging as the basis for such conclusion. An independent toxicology report also found the presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.
“However, of critical importance to the investigation, an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea. While there are conflicting medical opinions as to the cause of death, the accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.
“After reviewing the evidence, the method of restraining Angelo Quinto by Antioch Police officers on December 23rd was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, when applying the applicable law and the California District Attorney’s Uniform Crime Charging Standards, there is no evidence of a criminal offense committed by the Antioch Police officers involved in restraining Angelo Quinto.”
Yet, according to a March 16, 2023, report by the San Francisco Chronicle, “During a deposition, the county contract doctor acknowledged the possibility that Quinto died of asphyxiation from restraint, according to a court filing by attorneys for Quinto’s family.”
Antioch Mayor Lamar-Hernandez Thorpe and Councilwoman Monica Wilson wear T-shirts in support of Angelo Quinto during the Antioch Council meeting on Oct. 25, 2022. Video screenshot
Councilmembers’ Actions, Comments Prior to Settlement
The settlement vote by three of the council members was to be expected as they’ve been sympathetic and apologetic to Quinto’s family. During the council meeting on Oct. 25, 2022, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson wore T-shirts in support of Angelo Quinto, Wilson proposed naming the City’s emergency response team after the young man, which was supported by the entire council, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker said, “I want to say to the Quinto family, you lost your son, that’s how we got here. Your loss has spurred some change, but it didn’t have to happen.” (See related article and the 2:35:42 mark of the council meeting video) In addition, Torres-Walker wore the same shirt at a later time and event. Plus, the mayor has repeatedly, falsely claimed Quinto died while in police custody.
But the unanimous vote in favor of an out-of-court settlement was not expected.
Barbanica Explains Reason for Settlement
About his vote for the settlement, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “these are extremely difficult cases. I’ve been very clear in open session that the DA’s office and Coroner’s inquest did not find that he died at the hands of the officers. I let those investigations speak for themselves. There was no criminal wrongdoing by any of the police officers.”
“But when the insurance pool is paying for the City’s legal defense, if the council declines a settlement offer presented to them, and decides to continue to fight it, then the City will pay potential attorneys’ fees and any judgement that holds the City responsible,” Barbanica explained. “The City is paying $50,000 which includes attorney’s fees, and the insurance pool is paying up to the balance of $1 million, which is common in any settlement, limiting the exposure to the City’s General Fund.”
“Once you get to $1 million, it kicks over to secondary insurance which paid the remaining $6.5 million balance,” he added.
“In addition, the court did not grant the officers in the case qualified immunity. If we had continued in this case, we don’t know what it would have meant for the officers,” he stated. “The city attorney also made a very wise decision to hold what is called a mock trial in this case and is done in secrecy.”
“That was all done during the course of the lawsuit with an actual jury because he wanted to know any potential outcome. Those were factors that went into the decision-making on the settlement,” Barbanica explained. “This was not a haphazard decision. There was a lot of research, and all of this was done prior to them coming to us with a proposed settlement.”
Ogorchock Offers Her Reasons for Settling
When reached for comment explaining her reason for supporting the settlement, Ogorchock said, “As with any lawsuit, if they would have found even one percent liability by the City, it could have opened up the General Fund to pay more than what was paid.”
Asked if the insurance authorities said why they felt a jury would have been sympathetic to the family instead of the City, Ogorchock would not get into the details from the Closed Session discussion.
Asked about who represented the City, Ogorchock said, “the city attorney (Thomas L. Smith) chose the attorney to represent the City in the case.”
“We settled the case based on the city attorney’s and the insurance carrier’s advice. If we hadn’t, it would have opened up the City to the liability,” she added, reiterating the information shared by Barbanica. “In litigation cases, MPA will give us their advice and if we even have a small percentage of liability they will recommend a settlement amount. We as council, can choose to either accept or reject MPA’s recommendation. If we reject it, then we as the City take on the full, potential liability costs.”
However, Barbanica later said, “The city attorney chose from a list of attorneys provided by the pooling authority.”
Questions for City Attorney, Acting City Manager, Interim Police ChiefGo Unanswered
The background information shared above, and the following questions were sent Tuesday night to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Acting City Manager Kwame Reed and Interim Police Chief Brian Addington:
“Who represented the City in court against the lawsuit by Angelo Quinto’s family including the names of the law firm and attorneys?
If the case had not yet been presented to a jury, were there any preliminary rulings by a judge in favor of Quinto’s family?
Why settle if all the facts were in favor of the Antioch Police officers?
What were the determining factors by the Municipal Pooling Authority, CARMA and ERMA which caused them to recommend settlement instead of defending the City and why that amount?
Were any of the officers who responded to the Quinto home subjects of either the FBI investigation into ‘crimes of moral turpitude’ or the racist text scandal? If so, was that the reason for the settlement, the fear a jury would side against those officers and in favor of Quinto’s family?
What language is included in the settlement? Does it claim culpability by the officers?
According to then-Police Chief Tammany Brooks, Quinto was not in custody at the time he died in the hospital on Dec. 26, 2020. Is that correct? If not, when did that information get changed?”
They were also asked for copies of both the lawsuit and any and all settlement documents.
They did not respond prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Supervisors suspend all-electric requirements following U.S. Court of Appeals ruling
(Martinez, CA) – The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Tuesday suspended enforcement of its requirement that most new buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings. The County’s all-electric building requirement, as part of the County’s building code, had prohibited the installation of natural gas infrastructure in most new buildings and required developers to use electricity as the sole source of energy in the building. With Tuesday’s action, the County’s all-electric building requirement will not be enforced.
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated a City of Berkeley ordinance that prohibited natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The court held that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act precludes cities and counties from adopting building codes that prohibit the installation of gas plumbing in buildings.
Contra Costa County’s all-electric building requirement, like the invalidated City of Berkeley ordinance, prohibits the installation of gas plumbing in new buildings. The County is therefore suspending this requirement in response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
At the same time, the Board of Supervisors remains committed to the goals that prompted it to adopt the all-electric requirement: improving public health and fighting what they believe contributes to climate change. The Board referred the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings to its Sustainability Committee and directed staff to report on alternatives for advancing this objective at the Committee’s next meeting.
“Contra Costa County remains committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels in buildings and continues to support the construction of new buildings using all-electric technologies,” said Board Chair Federal D. Glover, District 5 Supervisor. “We are eager to identify new and innovative ways to continue to pursue our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.”
The County encourages residents and businesses to continue to install all-electric building systems and appliances. There are many benefits of all-electric construction, some of which include:
Cleaner air and better health outcomes from eliminating the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, particularly indoors.
Not having to pay to install gas pipes in new buildings.
Taking advantage of financial incentives and rebates for all-electric appliances.
Resilience against power outages, particularly when electric technologies are paired with battery storage.
Hedging against high electricity costs by being able to schedule electric appliances to operate at times of day when electricity costs are lowest.
Preparing for the potential discontinuation of gas appliances in the future that could occur from possible regulatory actions by regional, state, or federal agencies.
There are many good resources on the benefits of all-electric buildings, including:
The County’s sustainability web site has information on state and federal incentives, rebates, and other ways to fund all-electric upgrades.
MCE, the community choice energy provider for most of Contra Costa County, offers rebates and incentives.
The Switch Is On, sponsored by the Building Decarbonization Coalition, is a collaborative campaign to support all-electric home conversion by providing tools, support, and resources to Californians.
Rewiring America provides information about the benefits of all-electric technologies, and helps generate a personalized plan for individuals, including costs and savings.
PG&E also has resources on all-electric buildings, including rebates, incentives, rate plans, and design guides.
