By Eddie Willis, Planner, East Bay Regional Park District

Greetings Regional Park supporters!

I am very excited to announce that the East Bay Regional Park District and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, in partnership with Restoration Design Group, have developed a preferred design concept for the former Roddy Ranch Golf course. The preferred design concept is based on feedback received from the public, project staff, US Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife and other stakeholders, and shows the projected trail alignments, staging area set-up, and restoration features that will be best suited for the future park.

Notable features of the preferred design concept include:

• Approximately 4 miles of new trails, including a 1.6-mile accessible loop
• Dedicated equestrian and bus parking
• An interpretive pavilion and shade structure
• An upper and lower picnic area
• Two acres of enhanced seasonal wetlands and vernal pools
• 7 miles of channel restoration/creation/enhancement

These design documents can be directly viewed on the project webpage, and here is a brief summary of each:

• Preferred Concept – Video Overview: a short video explaining the main elements of the preferred design concept.
• Preferred Concept – Map: The preferred concept focuses on maximizing wetland habitat and drainage channels by directing water to existing wetlands and by creating new vernal pool and pond features. Runoff at the top of the watershed will strategically flow along the surface and underground toward the wetlands at the base of the hills. Recreational improvements are concentrated toward the east and allow the open landscape to be experienced toward the west. A short accessible loop welcomes users at the entrance and is paved with concrete, reminiscent of the former golf course cart paths. The trail network also includes an additional accessible trail, as well as overlooks and longer earthen trails that lead visitors through a variety of experiences.
• Preferred Concept – Bird’s Eye View: This is a perspective view of the preferred trail alignments and restoration features of the future park at the former golf course. The view is looking northwest toward Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve in the distance. The future staging area is at the bottom center of the image.
• East Overlook – Rendering: This image shows the reuse of a former golf tee box as an informal overlook. Mt. Diablo is not visible from all locations onsite, but it is from this overlook. Informal multi-use trails are shown meandering across the hillside in the background.
• Staging Area – Rendering: This image shows the new multi-use accessible trail and the shade pavilion in the background with the new parking lot/staging area marked by the grove of trees to the far right.

If you have any comments or questions on the preferred design concept, the project team would be happy to receive them through the project page’s Comment Box here.

Thank you for supporting the Park District and Habitat Conservancy’s efforts to develop this 230-acre former golf course into Antioch’s newest Regional Park, and please feel free to reach out to me directly at ewillis@ebparks.org or 510-544-2621.

 

While DA’s office investigating incident; city attorney or interim city manager may have been present; topic of discussion not revealed

By Allen D. Payton

Three days after Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe was arrested for DUI and while the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office was investigating the incident, on Tuesday, March 22, 2022, he held a private meeting with D.A. Diana Becton in her office in Martinez, according to reports of what was seen on her visitor sign-in log. Neither Becton, her staff nor Thorpe will say what the meeting was about or if anyone else, such as the city attorney or interim city manager, was in the room with them. Becton is running for re-election in the June Primary and Thorpe is facing possible recall. (See related article)

A Public Records Act request for a copy of the visitor sign-in log for Becton’s office for that day was emailed on Friday, March 25 at 3:55 p.m. to Assistant D.A. Simon O’Connell and Becton’s Executive Assistant Bobbi Mauler.

Questions for Becton About Meeting Go Unanswered

In addition, questions for Becton about the meeting were included in that email asking, “What was the purpose of that meeting? What was discussed? Did it have anything to do with Thorpe’s arrest for DUI by the CHP last Saturday morning? Was anyone else in the meeting with you two?”

It was then shared with Becton and her staff, “according to the CHP PIO you will not allow that department to release Thorpe’s complete arrest report showing the reason the officer pulled him over or what his blood alcohol content was when he was tested at the CHP office in Martinez.”

She was then asked, “was it appropriate for you to have such a meeting – even if his arrest was not a topic of conversation – when his arrest is under investigation by your department?”

At 4:09 p.m., that day O’Connell issued a press release about the investigation of the Antioch and Pittsburg Police Departments for possible “crimes of moral turpitude”. (See related article)

Questions for Thorpe Go Unanswered

In an email on Friday, March 25, Thorpe was asked, “What was the purpose of that meeting? When did you first schedule the meeting with the DA? What was discussed?  Did it have anything to do with your arrest for DUI by the CHP last Saturday morning? Was anyone else in the meeting with you two?”

He was then told, “according to the CHP PIO the DA’s office will not allow the CHP to release your complete arrest report showing the reason the officer pulled you over or what your blood alcohol content was when you were tested at the CHP office in Martinez.”

Thorpe was also asked, “was it appropriate for you to have such a meeting – even if your arrest was not a topic of conversation – while your arrest is under investigation by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office? Were you seeking favorable treatment from the DA in dealing with your arrest? Might it give the appearance that you were seeking a favor from the DA who is up for election, this year and while you are facing possible recall?”

He was then asked if instead, was the meeting in regard to the press release issued by the DA’s office received, that day and if he had filed a complaint about that the allegations against the Antioch Police officers with the DA’s office during that meeting.

Thorpe did not respond as of Wednesday, March 30 at 5:00 p.m.

DA Refuses to Confirm Meeting, Claims Privilege in Not Releasing Visitor Log, Won’t Reveal Topic of Discussion or If Anyone else Present

In response to the PRA request to the D.A.’s office for a copy of the visitor log, Assistant D.A. Simon O’Connell wrote in a letter on Tuesday, March 29, “Records that contain information protected by the deliberative process privilege and the official information privilege, are exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code, section 6254(a), (k); Evid Code, section 1040; Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469.) In accordance case precedent, the release of visitor logs would inihibit the free and candid exchange of ideas necessary to the decision-making process. (Times Mirror Co (1988) 53 Cal.3. 1325.) There is a compelling public interest in enabling public agencies to evaluate and candidly communicate in confidence. Public disclosure of such information interferes with the District Attorney’s Office ability to meaningfully deliberate and perform core functions. For these reasons, the public interest in nondisclosure of this information clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

In response, additional questions were sent Tuesday afternoon to both O’Connell and Mauler, including, “Confirming that a meeting was held by the DA in her office with an elected official who is currently under investigation for a DUI arrest just three days prior is not of public interest? Is the visitor log a public document? If not, what’s the purpose of having one? Can you please at least confirm if a meeting was held by DA Becton in her office with Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe and if anyone else was in the meeting with them, and if so, who that was?”

No response was received as of Wednesday, March 30 at 5:00 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Barbanica Says He Should Have Been in Meeting Instead of Thorpe

When reached for comment about the meeting, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica said, “I don’t know anything about the meeting. But if there was one and if it was regarding the investigation of the Antioch Police Department and the mayor had asked for me to go in his place, I would have and I should have been there instead. I did not receive any calls about it.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

McDonnell issues statement about investigation, wants to conduct own review of cases; Becton hasn’t responded

By Allen D. Payton

In a letter to Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton on Monday, Contra Costa Public Defender Ellen McDonnell asked for the names of the Antioch and Pittsburg Police officers who are the subjects of an investigation into possible crimes of moral turpitude. The DA’s office announced last Friday the investigation which began last Wednesday and “a review of both active and closed cases involving these officers…to evaluate whether those cases are now compromised.” (See related article)

McDonnell is also asking for all the current, pending cases the involving the officers so her office can conduct a separate review. As of 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, McDonnell said she had not received a response from Becton.

“To date, I have not been provided with any information about what this investigation of the officers is about,” McDonnell later shared.

Following is the letter:

“March 28, 2022

Diana Becton

Office of the District Attorney

900 Ward Street

Martinez, CA 94553

Dear Diana,

In light of the recent media disclosures regarding conduct involving moral turpitude on the part of officers from Pittsburg and Antioch Police Departments, I am requesting that you identify all officers from those departments currently under investigation by your office. We believe that such a disclosure is mandated by the United States Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 & progeny, and California case law.

I am also asking that you identify all cases currently pending that include any of the involved officers, as well as all previous cases involving those officers. Please provide us with a list of such cases in which the client is or was represented by the Office of the Public Defender or the Office of the Alternate Defender.

While we understand from your press release that you intend to conduct an internal review of affected cases, we respectfully request that you identify those officers so that we can conduct our own review according to our own practices.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation with this matter. If you have any questions about this request, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Ellen McDonnell

Public Defender Contra Costa County”

————————–

According to supreme.justia.com, in the case McDonnell cited, the court found, “The government’s withholding of evidence that is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant violates the defendant’s constitutional right to due process.”

McDonnell Issues Statement About Investigation

The Public Defender issued the following statement Tuesday evening:

“I am deeply concerned about these revelations.  Our office first heard about this investigation when the District Attorney’s Office issued a press release on March 25th.  We immediately requested that the names of any involved officers be released to our office so that we could begin the process of reviewing impacted cases and determining what role these officers played in any arrests or convictions.  Timely transparency is necessary to ensure due process of law and the fair administration of justice for our community and for those impacted by our criminal legal system, some of whom may be currently incarcerated based on the word of these officers.

This investigation into the conduct of officers from both the Pittsburg and Antioch Police Departments will potentially impact many hundreds of cases.  This includes not only current cases where these officers are witnesses, but also previous arrests and convictions involving these officers.  It is important to determine whether these officers were under investigation and suspected of committing crimes of moral turpitude while they continued to remain on the force and continued to arrest individuals, to author police reports, and to testify as witnesses in criminal court.”

DA won’t allow CHP to release arrest report showing Blood Alcohol Concentration level, probable cause for stop; Thorpe refuses to answer questions about incident, prior activity on Friday

By Allen D. Payton

A Public Records Act (PRA) request to the CHP was submitted Monday afternoon March 21, for the report of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe’s arrest for DUI, early Saturday morning, March 19, showing his Blood Alcohol Concentration level at the time, and for the probable cause the officer had for pulling him over. CHP Golden Gate Division Public Information Officer Andrew Barclay was also asked if Thorpe was swerving, driving too fast or too slow. In response Barclay wrote, “I believe he was stopped for weaving.” In addition, copies of the officer’s car dash and body cam videos were requested. (See related article)

However, Barclay said the Contra Costa District Attorney won’t allow the CHP to release any additional information on Thorpe’s arrest because the incident was under investigation by the DA’s office.

In a formal response letter to the PRA request on Tuesday, March 29, CHP Golden Gate Division Chief C.C. Costigan wrote, “these records are being withheld pursuant to Government Code section 6254(f).” That section does not require the disclosure of records of investigations conducted by state or local law enforcement agencies. In addition, regarding release of audio and video recordings of an incident Section 6254(f)(4)(A)(ii) reads, “up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.”  CHP PRA Response Letter 032922

Barclay suggested the Herald “resubmit a subsequent PRA for both the report and dash cam footage once the DA’s office has concluded their investigation.”

Questions for Thorpe Go Unanswered

Because people are questioning his claim in the video apology in which he said “the drink” meaning he had only one alcoholic beverage that night, he was asked the following additional questions Monday, March 21: “Did you have more than one drink that night? With whom did you have dinner and a drink Friday night/Saturday morning? Is that friend willing to corroborate your claim of you only having one alcoholic beverage?

Where did you eat dinner and have a drink? Will the server or bartender corroborate your story?

How long were you at the establishment? Did you go to more than one restaurant or bar that night? Did you or the person you had dinner with pay with cash or by credit/debit card? Did either one of you keep the receipt(s) from your dinner and drink?

Are you willing to provide copies of the receipt(s) for the public to see to support your claim of only having one drink? At what time do you remember having the drink and finishing it?”

Additional questions were sent to Thorpe Tuesday morning, March 29 asking, “Did you consume any alcoholic beverages at those or any restaurants or bars, either in Antioch or anywhere else on Friday, prior to leaving Antioch and East County and arriving at the location where you claim you had dinner with a friend and ‘the drink’?

What was your Blood Alcohol Content that the CHP measured in your chemical test they administered? Who drove you home from the CHP office in Martinez? Were you still inebriated at that time? Have you ever been stopped before for driving under the influence? Have you ever claimed to be inebriated at the time you were accused of another crime? Have you ever sought drug or alcohol abuse counseling?”

Thorpe did not respond as of Tuesday, March 29 at 4:30 PM.

Please check back later for his answers and any other updates to this report.

RSVP before 12:00 p.m. Wednesday by clicking here.

Supports cutting gas taxes, opposes facemask mandates for school children, announces endorsements; district includes all of Antioch

Erik Elness, a 25-year Brentwood resident and business owner, filed paperwork with the Contra Costa County Elections Department on Friday, March 18, 2022, and was certified as an official ‘Write-In Candidate’ for the April 5, 2022 Assembly District 11 Special Election. The AD-11 seat was vacated when former Assemblyman Jim Frazier resigned on December 31st.

“I decided to run as a write-in candidate, because I wanted to give the hard-working voters of our Contra Costa and Solano district a choice of who they want to vote for in this special election,” Elness stated. “Government has grown bigger and more controlling, and individual liberty has been gradually taken from us.”

A Republican, he is challenging Democrat Suisun City Mayor Lori Wilson who is the only candidate to file in the race. While her name will appear on the ballot, voters must write in Elness’ name to vote for him.  The winner will serve out the remainder of the term through the end of the year, in the current district which includes Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Byron, Knightsen and portions of Pittsburg in the Contra Costa County part of the district.

Within several days of announcing his candidacy, Elness was unanimously endorsed by the Solano County Republican Central Committee and endorsed by CD-8 Congressional Candidate, Major Rudy Recile (U.S. Army, retired), former CD-9 Congressional candidate Antonio Amador, and former AD-11 Assembly candidate Dave Miller. In addition, former AD-11 candidate Lisa Romero has endorsed him, as well.

Elness said he was shocked to learn the Assembly Democrats recently voted against temporarily suspending 50 cents per gallon off the state gasoline taxes. He agreed with the bill to cut state gas prices, adding, “the people of California need relief, now from increasing gas prices, impacting their budgets and our economy. That bill was one simple way to help accomplish that.”

Elness also stated, “I’m ‘pro-choice’ when it comes to COVID vaccines and masks. I don’t believe our children should be forced to wear masks at school.”

“Sacramento politicians are out of touch with the needs of the people who live and work in our neighborhoods. I worked corporate jobs for 23 years and I’ve been a small business owner for nearly 13 years, running a successful family business with my wife,” Elness shared. “We deserve a representative in Sacramento in tune with the issues, concerns, and challenges facing families in our community.”

“I support equal opportunity in education, with every child in every neighborhood receiving a quality education,” he stated. “I applaud successful public schools (my kids had a lot of great teachers in public schools.) But I believe families should have choices when it comes to home school, private or charter schools.’

“I strongly support the U.S. Constitution and I will strongly oppose any new State laws that infringe on our Civil Rights, including our Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Elness continued. “I support our firefighters, local law enforcement officers and deputy district attorneys who work tirelessly to protect our Constitutional liberty and keep our neighborhoods safe.”

To learn more follow his campaign on Facebook at Erik Elness for CA Assembly, District 11 and Instagram at erikelnessforassembly.

To vote for Elness in the April 5 Special Election, simply fill in the ‘bubble’ in the write in section and neatly print his name, “Erik Elness” on the write in line.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Before new chief on staff leaving city without a police chief during that time; violated Morefield’s rights as a city employee and police officer; still police chief as of Friday, March 25

By Allen D. Payton

It was reported earlier this month by multiple sources who all chose to not be identified, and now confirmed with copies received anonymously on Thursday, March 24, 2022, that on Thursday, February 24, 2022, at 8:49 AM, Interim Antioch City Manager Con Johnson sent a letter by email to current Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield, that Morefield had been terminated. Johnson copied all five city council members, plus City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, the president of the Antioch Police Officers Association Corporal Steve Aiello and Dr. Steve Ford.

It was the day after Mayor Lamar Thorpe announced the hiring of Ford as the city’s new interim police chief, but who was not on city staff at the time, as he had not yet passed his background check. That left the city without a police chief for a little more than an hour and possibly longer as it’s been reported that Johnson met with Morefield earlier that morning to inform him of the decision. (See related article)

According to the reports, immediately after receiving the email, Smith went to Johnson’s office and told him he needed to retract it. That is assumed what Johnson did in a following email at 10:05 AM the same day. But it is unclear because in that second email the interim city manager wrote he was “tracking” the letter of termination, not retracting it.

Because Johnson included Ford in the emails, they no longer have protection as a personnel matter according to an outside attorney consulted by the Herald. Yet, Smith has refused to release them to the media, even after multiple Public Records Act requests were submitted.

Also, according to the reports, the announcement of Morefield’s termination quickly spread throughout the Antioch Police Department and had also been previously announced to other department heads by Johnson.

Questions for Johnson Go Unanswered

An email was sent on Monday, March 7, 2022, to Johnson, copying the city council members, City Attorney, Morefield, Assistant City Manager Roseanna Bayon Moore and city Public Information Officer Rolando Bonilla with the following: “I’ve been informed that an email was sent out by you, as the interim city manager to council members and city staff in which you announced you had fired Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield and a follow up email in which you wrote that you were tracking those emails. Please provide copies of those emails.

Did that mean you’re tracking where those emails are sent and to whom by those who received it? Or did you intend to write that you’re ‘retracting’ the previous email? If the latter, was your action retracted? If not, what day did you fire the interim chief? (That last question has been answered as Morefield continued in his position as of Thursday, March 24).

Why did you believe it was necessary to send out such an email? Had Dr. Ford already passed his background check by then? Or were your emails sent out prior to Lamar making the announcement of Dr. Ford’s hiring at the press conference, to which at least three of the other four council members weren’t invited and who also knew nothing about the appointment? (It wasn’t clear at the time if Johnson’s emails were sent on Feb. 23 or 24).

Is that the normal procedure and standard practice for how things were handled in the City of San Francisco and/or in the SFPD while you worked there? Send out an email blast announcing an interim department head has been fired?

Why did you retract it, assuming that’s what you intended to write in your second email? Was it because it wasn’t true? Or because you had changed your mind? Did someone ask or tell you to do that?

If Dr. Ford hadn’t yet passed his background check by then, has he passed it, yet? If so, when is his start date? Also, won’t Interim Chief Morefield simply return to his role and title as a captain within the department once Dr. Ford starts?

If one of you doesn’t provide copies of the emails to me by Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at noon, please consider this is a formal Public Records Act request for copies of the two emails.

Then once I receive them, I’m sure I will have more questions.

Thomas, did Con violate personnel protections for Tony by sending out that email to others on city staff and Dr. Ford who was not yet on staff at that time?  Are you the one who directed Con to retract his first email?

How could Tony be fired without due process? Isn’t he protected by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights and as a city employee? AB301

Con, shouldn’t you have known that as a former police manager? When did you inform Tony of your decision to terminate him? Was it before you sent out the email? At what time was his termination effective? Was it announced to anyone else prior to the first email being sent out? Was another leader in the APD given the position of interim police chief between the time of the first email and the second one retracting the first? If so, when did that occur? Who was assigned that role? Was it Captain Trevor Schnitzius?”

No responses were received as of Friday, March 25 at 5:00 p.m.

Outside Attorney Says Emails Are Not Privileged

The Herald sought legal advice on the matter from an attorney who wrote the following, which was also shared via email with City Attorney Smith, Johnson, the city council members, Morefield, Bayon Moore and Bonilla shortly after 5:00 p.m. Thursday, March 17:

“In a case entitled City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Ccal.th 608, the California Supreme Court said that emails sent by City Officials (in that case, they were emails generated by City Council members) which relate in any way to ‘the conduct of public business’ are required to be disclosed under the Public Records Act (specifically, Government Code Section 6252(e)) even if they are sent from the public official’s personal cell phone.  There is no doubt that the email to Acting Chief Morefield from the Interim City Manager Con Johnson concerned ‘the conduct of public business.’  Moreover, there cannot possibly be a privilege attached to the email, as it was not sent to seek advice from the City Attorney, but was essentially ‘blasted’ to a bunch of people, including the person who was supposedly replacing Morefield, who was not even a City employee at the time, and others, who had no legal right to know about this ‘personnel matter’ which should have been confidential under penal code section 832.7.  Since Johnson sent it to people with whom he shared no legal privilege of confidentiality, and who otherwise had no legal right to know what was happening to Morefield, any claim that the email was ‘privileged’ is total nonsense.”

The Herald wrote smith that the emails were expected to be received on Friday, March 18. They were not.

City Attorney Fails to Respond to PRA Request Within 10-Day Legal Limit

Government agencies are required to respond to Public Records Act requests within 10 business days. The city attorney was required to respond to the Herald’s PRA request dated March 8 by Tuesday, March 23. But no response was received from Smith even as of Friday afternoon at close of business.

Councilmembers Refuse to Share Letter, Email

Mayor Pro Tem Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock each said they would not release the emails to the Herald. However, earlier this week, Barbanica posted a video about Johnson’s letter and email. But that has since been removed.

Copies of Letter and Email Received by Herald March 24

On Thursday afternoon, March 24 copies of Johnson’s letter and his follow up email were received by the Herald from someone who chose to remain anonymous. The letter reads as follows:

“To: Tony Morefield

Captain of Police

FR: Cornelius H. Johnson

Interim City Manager

Date: February 24, 2022

Subject: Letter of Termination

Confidential

Captain Morefield,

Effective immediately, your employment with the Antioch Police Department as the Interim Chief of Police has been terminated. Please cease and desists [sic] with any further duties or responsibilities that are associated with the Interim Chief of Police position.

I want to thank you for your service while serving as the City of Antioch Interim Chief of Police. I wish you the best in your future professional endeavors.”

Johnson’s Follow-Up Email “Tracking” Termination Letter

In an email to Morefield, copying the same individuals, received at 10:05 a.m. the same day Johnson wrote:

“Subject: Letter of Termination

To All concern [sic]

Due to the personnel sensitivity, I am immediately tracking the letter of termination to Captain Tony Morefield.

Cornelius H. Johnson

Interim City Manager

Morefield Still Interim Chief

Asked Friday, March 25 if he was still Antioch’s interim police chief, Morefield said, “I am still the interim chief of police until such time as the city manager hires a new one.”

“conduct that shocks the public conscience, or which does not fall within the moral standards held by the community” – LegalDictionary.com

Will evaluate whether cases involving officers are now compromised

UPDATE: Pittsburg PD issues statement, 3 officers placed on paid leave

By Allen D. Payton

Late Friday afternoon, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office announced that on Wednesday, March 23, 2022, the FBI and the DA’s Office conducted court-authorized law enforcement activity at multiple locations. The criminal investigation pertains to sworn law enforcement officers from the Antioch Police Department and Pittsburg Police Department.

The broad range of offenses under investigation involve crimes of moral turpitude. A review of both active and closed cases involving these officers will be necessary to evaluate whether those cases are now compromised. Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, no additional details will be released at this time.

The involved police departments and cities have cooperated with the investigation to ensure minimal disruption to their respective communities. The District Attorney’s Office will continue to work in conjunction with federal authorities along with the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg to ensure public trust and public safety.

According to LegalDictionary.com moral turpitude means, “Conduct that is believed to be contrary to community standards of honesty, good morals, or justice.” In addition, that website reads, “Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to any conduct that is believed to be contrary to the community standards of honesty, justice, or good moral values. While there is no one exact definition of acts that are considered under moral turpitude, they are typically described as any acts of vileness or depravity, or of sexual immorality, whether in a private or social context.  The word turpitude is defined as a shameful, vile, or corrupt character or acts. Moral turpitude refers to conduct that shocks the public conscience, or which does not fall within the moral standards held by the community. The law concerning moral turpitude is constantly changing and evolving, as the moral standards of society in general change.”

UPDATE: Pittsburg PD Places 3 Officers on Paid Leave

The Pittsburg PD issued the following statement on their social media accounts early Friday evening:

“The Pittsburg Police Department is aware of a joint criminal investigation being conducted by the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office along with the FBI. The investigation involves several local police officers, including three current Pittsburg Police Officers. Anytime there is any allegation of criminal misconduct, that is something our organization takes extremely seriously.

In September of 2021, the department received information that a Pittsburg Officer was involved in illegal activity. The tip also indicated that other law enforcement officers were involved, but did not go into further details. When we learned of the allegations, we immediately contacted the District Attorney’s Office and asked them to conduct an independent criminal investigation.

This past Wednesday, the FBI and the District Attorney’s Office met with three current Pittsburg Police Officers as part of this investigation. After the meetings, all three Pittsburg Police Officers were placed on paid administrative leave. This is still an active criminal investigation being conducted by two outside law enforcement agencies, so we do not have further details into the alleged misconduct. The Pittsburg Police Department will continue to cooperate with the DA’s Office and the FBI. We will also be conducting our own internal investigation that will be completed by an independent, outside investigator.

Please know that the women and men at our Department remain committed to serving our community. Any officer who has violated their oath of office by engaging in illegal or unethical conduct will be held accountable.”

No Response from City of Antioch, Yet

A copy of the DA’s release was sent, Friday at 4:36 p.m., to Interim Antioch Police Chief Tony Morefield, copying Captain Trevor Schnitzius asking if they can provide any information about the investigation. Morefield said any inquiries about the matter must be made to the City of Antioch public information officer (PIO).

An email was then sent to Antioch’s PIO Rolando Bonilla after business hours on Friday asking for the response from the city.

A question was also sent to Assistant DA Simon O’Connell after hours Friday asking for his office’s legal definition of “crimes of moral turpitude”.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.