Investigators hired in January following demand by Councilwoman Torres-Walker

By Allen Payton

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Torres-Walker

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

She did not respond as of publication time.

Q&A With Chief Brooks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigation Cost

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

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

CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP September 1, 2021

I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

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

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

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

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

II. FINDINGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER PRIETO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For these reasons, this allegation was not sustained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

Vida Thomas

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

Attorney-Client Privileged

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

By Allen Payton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis Responds

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

Meeting Viewing and Public Comment Information

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

Requirements for Calling Special Board Meetings

Education Code 35144 – Special Meetings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Both Antioch School Board President Householder, Councilwoman Torres-Walker post video before details were known

By Allen Payton

Following the posting of a TikTok video on Facebook of a police incident with a recent student at Antioch High School, Principal Louie Rocha sent out an email to parents providing more details. Both school board president Ellie Householder and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker posted the video on their official Facebook pages, without providing details. (WARNING: explicit language in video)

Rocha’s email to parents reads as follows:

“This weekend, a social media post circulated regarding an August 27th incident at Antioch High School.
School personnel have a duty to intervene when a student threatens harm to other students, themselves, or staff. Unfortunately, on Friday, a student threatened to do harm to an entire class, attacked another student, and became physical with staff despite repeated attempts to deescalate the student. At that time, a trained safety officer restrained the student and Antioch Police Department was called.

Unfortunately, when officers arrived, the student continued to resist instructions and was subsequently arrested.

While the situation is unfortunate, we take the safety of all students extremely seriously and cannot allow one student to threaten the safety of others. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Louie Rocha

Principal”

Householder posted the following comment with the video. “Thank you to the parents, students, and community members who reached out to bring my attention to a recent TikTok post. In it, a video appears to show an altercation between a student and safety personnel at what looks like Antioch High School. While I don’t know the details surrounding this footage, historically, we know that disciplinary practices have been unfairly applied to Black male students. That is why I take this video and the allegations of excessive force against an AUSD student very, very seriously. I will follow up with folks once I learn more information.”

With her post of the video Torres-Walker wrote, “First I would like to thank the community members who reached out to me regarding this event.

I have no idea what led up to what seems like a very traumatic event to witness for students at Antioch High school and it is unacceptable for any student to have to face this kind of unnecessary treatment after being what seems to be fully subdued by force in an academic setting. I know that the city has no power or authority over how the school district handles its business and as a mother, this short video footage deeply concerns me.

If this video is as disturbing to watch for you as it was for me I would contact the school board president and the superintendent of the Antioch Unified School District and demand some answers.

School Board President

Ellie Householder

elliehouseholder@antiochschools.net

Superintendent

Stephanie Anello

(925) 779-7500 Ext. 55100

stephanieanello@antiochschools.net

It is my understanding that the Antioch Police Department was present on the scene I am withholding judgment until I received information as to what led up to the event and the aftermath.
This is not okay!!!”

UPDATE: According to Lt. Bittner of the Antioch Police Department’s Community Policing Bureau, “On August 27, 2021 at approximately 11:21 AM, a staff member at Antioch High School called the Antioch Police Department to report a fight on campus. Antioch Police Officers arrived within several minutes and located two security guards holding a student down on the ground in the quad area of the school. Several Antioch Police Officers assisted the security guards in placing the student in handcuffs. The student was ultimately placed under arrest and transported to the Antioch Police Department for assaulting a school employee, fighting on a school campus, and resisting or delaying an arrest.”

According to an official who chose to not be identified, the student was wearing a grill on his teeth that included fangs and he was trying to bite people.

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

Show her resistance to helping stop son from promoting illegal dirt bike ride on city streets; same son who fled police during incident in December

By Allen Payton

Following a Public Records Act request on June 16 for the email communication between Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and Antioch Police Chief T Brooks regarding the planned rideout that one of her sons was promoting and possibly organizing on social media, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith finally released them last Wednesday evening, July 14. _Emails to & from TBrooks & TTorres-Walker

Smith at first claimed attorney client privilege and provided several state codes to support it. However, the Herald researched and cited those codes in a response email, pointing out to him that nothing in the codes mentions any other city staff member but refers only to an attorney. The Herald asked Smith if he was included in the emails between Brooks and Torres-Walker and any other council member regarding the rideout. He did not respond. A further email was sent to Brooks and City Manager Ron Bernal asking the same question. Rather than responding, Smith released the emails to the Herald, later that day.

Torres-Walker Less Than Fully Cooperative Frustrating Brooks

The emails show resistance from Torres-Walker to Brooks’ request that she talk to her adult son, Yomani, to get him to stop organizing and promoting the event planned for Sunday, June 20, m on his Instagram account under the name “its_kyd”. At first she agreed to talk to him about it, But later Torres-Walker claimed he was not organizing the event nor knew who was, didn’t know where it would be held and that she didn’t think she talking to him would help.

Yomani is her same son who fled police during a pursuit of him and his younger brother who were riding off-road vehicles on A Street on December 29, 2020. That incident resulted in a 9-minute online video post by the councilwoman and has been under investigation by an outside firm hired by the police department at her request. The investigators report has yet to be released. (See related article)

Brooks first email to her on June 14 with the subject line “Need Your Help Please” reads in part:

“Good afternoon Councilmember Torres-Walker,

Several people have contacted me in regards to an illegal event planned to take place in Antioch this Sunday. Please see the attached screenshot advertising the event, which I’m being told is from your son Yomani’s Instagram account. These types of events are not only dangerous but illegal as well.

Some who are aware of this event (and your son’s alleged involvement) have mentioned wanting to notify local media outlets. I have asked that this not happen, but instead, allow me to stop the event from even occurring. My primary goal is to prevent this dangerous activity from taking place in our city. But I also hope to avoid any type of negative attention this would garner from the public (on you as an elected official, and us as a city) as well.

I am asking for your help to get this event canceled. Prevention is my first and ultimate goal. However, if you are unable to help, we will assemble a special enforcement detail using officers on overtime and seeking mutual aid help from neighboring agencies to address the public safety concern this event will create. We will take a zero-tolerance approach to any/all violations, resulting in arrests and towed vehicles for those participating. I would like to avoid this if at all possible.

Please let me know if you can help. I greatly appreciate it.”

He also shared screenshots of posts by Yomani on his Instagram page, previously shared by the Herald.

Torres-Walker responded in an email to Brooks that evening, and copied Bernal, Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Public Information Officer Rolando Bonilla, with the following:

“Hello Chief Brooks,

Thank you for the email. I was not aware of this event and my son has never organized such an event. It looks like he may have shared an event that was organized by someone else on his personal social media page which is not illegal.

I have no power to stop this but I will talk to my son about not attending because I want him to be safe and I understand that once the police engage in these kinds of events people will and have been gravely injured and/or arrested.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.”

Brooks responded that same evening with another email to Torres-Walker:

“Thank you for your response.

I agree with you that these events are extremely dangerous. Injuries can be sustained by participants, spectators, innocent members of the public who are completely unattached to the event itself, and even officers who are assaulted by those who violently resist and/or use their vehicles as weapons against them.

I did not say your son was organizing the event – I said he was advertising it. I hoped that he or they could speak to the organizers and ask them not to bring this event to our community. It is not welcomed here.

Since you do not have the power to stop it, but would still like to help, I’ll ask that you please find out from your son where this event is scheduled to take place and provide me this information? His post says he knows where this is going to occur, and having this information ahead of time would greatly benefit us to secure the area and hopefully deter potential participants from stopping in the first place. Preventing the group from congregating/organizing would greatly reduce any likelihood of confrontation, making it safer for all.

Thank you in advance for helping us work to prevent this dangerous event from occurring in our city.”

Torres-Walker responded, once again, about a half-hour later, attempting to turn it around on police, with a brief reference to the incident in December, and those who had informed Brooks about her son’s social media posts for the June 20th planned rideout. She wrote:

“Hello Chief Brooks,

I get it and my son knows what it’s like to have someone use their vehicle as a weapon to harm him.

It seems like the location is never shared ahead of the day of the event so even if I wanted to help with that request I couldn’t.

Maybe the informants that are reporting activity on my son’s social media page can use their investigative skills to find out who is organizing the event and request the location.

I will talk to my son but since he is not organizing the event and has no idea who is I’m not sure that will help either.

Have a good evening,”

The following morning, Tuesday, June 15, Brooks sent an email to Bernal, Thorpe and Bonilla showing additional posts on social media by Yomani on his Instagram account with the words “Stop Snitching” and other posts warning those who might participate in the rideout to “Keep yo head ona swivel” to look out for police during the rideout.

A frustrated Brooks wrote in that email:

“All,

I have no intention on responding to Councilmember Torres-Walker’s below email. It is unfortunate that she is taking this stance and refusing to help prevent a dangerous event such as this from occurring in our city. Although she claims her son is not involved, it is clear from the original screenshot I included to start this conversation that is not true. To further evidence this, please see the below screenshots that her son posted last night. Obviously Councilmember Torres-Walker informed him of my request. But instead of helping prevent the dangerous event and negative publicity it will bring us as a city, it has appeared to embolden him and he has doubled down on his messaging to continue on with the event as planned. Not only will this cost the city taxpayers’ money in unnecessary police overtime, it is endangering the lives of those illegally riding on our streets, the innocent motorists on our roadways, and the officers tasked with trying to enforce the laws being willfully disregarded. This type of behavior is not good for our community.

T”

The following day, Wed., June 16, Thorpe and Brooks held a press conference about the rideout, asking people not to participate and warning them of a multi-agency effort, fines and $3,000 impound fees, should they be caught. During that press conference, Thorpe was asked if he had spoken to her to tell her son not to promote or participate in them. Thorpe responded, “this is about cancelling the event and let the public know we are going to hold people accountable. I’m not playing games.” (See related article)

The warnings appear to have worked, as the planned rideout did not occur that Sunday.

Challenge Obtaining Emails

By state law, government officials have 10 business days to release records requested by either the media or public. However, agencies can postpone the release by up to an additional 14 calendar days under certain circumstances. It took four weeks for Attorney Smith to release the requested emails.

On June 30th Lynn Dansie, the Police Records Supervisor, sent a letter to the Herald which read, “At the request of the City Attorney we have been asked to extend our response time…for up to 14 additional calendar days, in order to search for and collect records from a separate office/unit holding the information requested. You will be notified with a response to your request on our before, July 12, 2021.” (See              )

Asked what separate office/unit was holding the information and are all communications between city staff and council members done through their official city email accounts, neither Dansie nor Smith responded.

Then on July 1, the Herald made an additional request of all emails between Attorney Smith and council members about the rideout.

On July 8, Dansie emailed another letter that read, “Per the City Attorney, records requested are not releasable at this time. The records requests are being denied under GC (government code) 6254(k) as well as the attorney client privilege under EC 954 and attorney work product privilege under Cal. Code Civ. Pro. 2018.030(a).”

Asked if the letter applied to all emails, Dansie responsed, “The codes of GC 6254(k), EC 954 and Cal Code Civ Pro 2018.030(a) are applicable to both of the records requests involving emails.”

This reporter responded on July 13 with the following, which included citing the language from the sections of those government codes:

“Thomas,

Were you included in the emails between Chief Brooks and Councilwoman Torres-Walker or any other member of the APD staff and any council member regarding the planned rideout on June 20, 2021?

Because I researched the codes provided in Lynn’s email sent yesterday, and if not, then those codes do not apply as they mention nothing about any other person, only an attorney, and you therefore must release the emails to me…post haste. Otherwise please cite the portion of those codes that do apply.

I understand you trying to protect your clients, the council members, from any possible embarrassment over what they wrote in their communication with the chief and/or any other member of the APD or city staff. But that’s not protected under the PRA according to the codes you have provided. So, let’s stop wasting all of this city staff time…and let’s allow the public to know what’s happening with their government and communicated by their elected representatives.”

Smith responded via email the next day, providing the requested emails and included an explanation of why the emails between him and city council members could not be released.

“Dear Mr. Payton,

On June 16, 2021, the City of Antioch received a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requesting “copies of any emails/communications between yourself (Chief Brooks)/police department/Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Tamisha Torres-Walker regarding sideshows or rideout”. After further discussion, the City and was agreed that the scope of the request was to be limited to the time period of June 8, 2021 through June 22, 2021.

This letter is in response to your emails dated July 13, 2021 and July 14, 2021.  Attached please find a 10-page document responsive to the CPRA requests that the City has determined is disclosable. Please be advised that other identifiable records are exempt from disclosure because they either involve confidential communications that include the City Attorney and/or they involve confidential communications done at the direction of the City Attorney to accomplish the purpose for which the City Attorney was consulted and are exempt from disclosure.

Thomas Lloyd Smith

City Attorney”

By Martha Goralka

Because of the time, treasure, and talent donated by the Board of the Delta Learning Center, Contra Costa’s oldest nonprofit tutoring center, has survived the pandemic and is reopening for students of all ages on Monday, July 19, 2021.

The Center was founded by Julia “Bess” Combs, a retired Antioch Unified School District psychologist.  Since 1976, the Delta Learning Center has provided one on one tutoring with credentialed teachers tutoring students for the lowest cost professional tutoring service in the county.

Kimberley Ahumada has joined the Center as the Executive Director after 17 years of working with the community in adult education and directing a home daycare.   A grant from the Antioch Community Foundation has allowed the Center to invest in software; so students can sign up on-line at www.DeltaLearningCenter.org or by calling (925) 757-13410. Limited discounts and scholarships may be available.

The unique blue building at 275 W. Tregallas Road, across from the Antioch Post Office, was designed and built by the East County Community specifically for Delta Learning Center in 1989.

DLC is always looking for additional credentialed teachers to tutor local students in a variety of subjects.

“Nothing can compare to the Delta Learning Center.  Our tutors love the one-on-one teaching in this relaxed and caring atmosphere,” explained former Executive Director, Tara McKnight, who still serves on the board after relocating to Las Vegas in 2019.  “DLC tutors and staff are talented and devoted educators who truly care about the success of our students.”

In architecture and design

The City of Antioch is inviting young adults ages 18-24 to learn while you EARN this summer.

Join BUILD ANTIOCH, summer jobs program. BUILD ANTIOCH is a paid internship and unique, fun immersion in the world of architecture and design. Attend the program virtually for 15 hours a week for six weeks starting July 19 – August 27 from 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

2021 Summer Program Eligibility

• Resident of Antioch
• Ages 18-24 at the start of the program
• Able to commit to working 15 hours a week

The Internship Experience

• Learn how to sketch, model, build and more!
• Design process and presentations
• Collaborate with peers
• Meet with mentors, architects, and engineers
• Learn how to create designs to meet real-world challenges

Design your own FUTURE!

The application will remain open until Monday, June 28 at 4:00 PM. For more information, please click on the link below:

Build Antioch – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov)

By Luke Johnson & Jesus Cano

While many kids her age are excited about watching PG13 movies without their parents for the first time, Ella Nguyen is focused on graduating high school at the top of her class.

At just 13 years old, Ella is this year’s valedictorian at Antioch High School with a 4.43 GPA.

Principal Louie Rocha said he believes Ella is the youngest valedictorian in the school’s history, confirming that she is the youngest graduate during his time at the school. Rocha graduated from Antioch High in 1979 and has been an administrator on campus for over 20 years.

“Being at the top of my class was something that had never really crossed my mind,” Ella said. “I’m thankful to have gotten to where I am, but it’s more of a bonus than anything. It’s simply a part of my journey as a high schooler.”

Ella first skipped kindergarten, then third grade. By the time she finished fifth grade, she had an IQ of 147.

Ella’s parents and Mission Elementary administrators approached Rocha with the idea of Ella bypassing middle school and entering high school at nine years old.

He had concerns at first and immediately thought of worst-case scenarios.

“I asked her, ‘Are you willing to take the risk of being around older kids?’” he said.

Rocha was worried that Ella could possibly be on the receiving end of collateral damage from a scuffle in a hallway. She was around 4-foot-8 and 70 pounds at the time. He also wondered how the school would accommodate Ella in P.E. — who might risk injury by competing with bigger kids — and in health class — which covers sex education.

With Ella’s parents and Mission Elementary administrators insisting that she’s a genius and ready for a higher-level education, Rocha said he turned to Ella and asked why she wanted to attend Antioch High so badly.

“She looked me in the eye and said, ‘Mr. Rocha, I have never been challenged in school before. I hope by coming to high school that it will push and challenge me to be successful,’” Rocha said.

After enrolling at Antioch High, administration ultimately waived Ella’s health and P.E. classes. It was also agreed that then-Vice Principal Michael Flosi would walk her to class everyday.

However, by the third day of freshman year, Ella told Flosi that she was embarrassed of being escorted to class and she needed to find her own way.

Some classmates were “freaking out” when they initially discovered that a nine year old was a student on campus. However, Rocha said that quickly changed as several students wanted to befriend Ella, because they were inspired by her profound academic skills and wanted to learn from her.

Jason Ebner, a teacher at Antioch High, worked closely with Ella. Over the years, he’s seen her grow firsthand.

“The young lady speaks with such confidence and grace, Ebner said. “It’s scary to understand in four years to hear the level she was to the level where she is now — the conversations that we have had about what she thinks about education, where she thinks her life is going to go.”

Now Ella and her family are getting ready to move to Stockton while Ella gears up for college at the University of Pacific. She was accepted into the pre-dentistry program and — with some of her undergrad classes out the way from attending Los Medanos College — she could possibly become a licensed dentist at 18 years old.

Ebner and Rocha both compared Ella to Najee Harris — who graduated from Antioch High in 2017 and was recently drafted first round in the NFL — because their academic and athletic talents are in the “top one percent” of the world.

“As we honor Najee for putting Antioch on the map, we should do the same for Ella,” Rocha said.

Antioch High’s commencement ceremony for the Class of 2021 will take place Friday 8 p.m. at Eells Stadium with limited capacity. Ella will be one of the speakers.

Mayor gives organizers until Friday to cancel; enforcement will include $300 fines and $3,000 impound fees; Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s son believed to be promoting event on social media; she responds on Facebook, claims “six-month assault on her character and sons’ lives” by Antioch police.

“I’m not as respectable as you would like your nigroes in Antioch to be.” – Tamisha Torres-Walker

By Allen Payton

During a press conference Wednesday morning, June 16, 2021 Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe and Police Chief T Brooks announced the city is prepared for a “rideout” of off-road vehicles planned for this Sunday, June 20th promoted on social media.

The city has dealt with large sideshows of cars, this year. The rideout is expected to involve dirt bikes and ATV’s.

“Good morning and welcome to Antioch, a ‘No Sideshow Zone,’” Thorpe said before reading from prepared remarks in English and Spanish.

“On April 18th of this year, a large-scale sideshow consisting of 60 to 80 vehicles ascended into Eastern Contra Costa County. The sideshow including participants and spectators took over major intersections causing unnecessary disturbances, unnecessary delays and unnecessarily putting innocent lives in danger.

Since then, my colleagues and I have looked at measures to prevent these kinds of illegal and extremely dangerous events from occurring on our streets.

First, we are going to install elevated pavement markers at three intersections to reduce the smooth surface to make it difficult to perform sideshows.  James Donlon and Somerville, Sunset and Cavallo; and Bluerock and Eagleridge.

Second, we’re working to identify a property so that youth can use their off-road vehicles safely and legally. Third, the police department is authorized to initiate its proactive sideshow enforcement detail when it obtains actionable information about any such planned events.

And the Antioch Police Department did just that, the weekend of May 22nd, when it received key information about a planned large-scale sideshow. As a result, APD towed close to 30 cars and issued over 20 citations that start at $300. Please note, vehicles are impounded for 30 days, and the owner has to pay a $3,000 impound fee to get the vehicle out.

Sideshows and other similar types of unsanctioned vehicle events like ATV ride-outs, Harley-Davidson rallies, street racing, donuts, burnouts, and more are not welcome in Antioch or throughout Eastern Contra Costa County.
I do want to say that I recognize that these types of events are part of Bay Area culture particularly as an expression of resistance. But I cannot ignore the fact that these kinds of events can kill people and more importantly young people who in some instances believe they’re invincible.

On Monday, the Chief of Police briefed me on a planned largescale off-road vehicle “Summer Rideout” that is being promoted on social media and reaching far parts of the Bay Area. For those that may not know, these Rideouts, similar to sideshows, involve large numbers of people flooding city streets and sidewalks using off-road vehicles. This event is being planned for June 20th, Father’s Day. Again, this is extremely dangerous.

As mayor, I’ve had to embrace grieving moms who have lost their children to gun violence or whose children have died in police custody. Please don’t make me hug or pick up the phone to call a dad, on Father’s Day, because their child was killed as a result of an unfortunate traffic accident related to this event.

It is never my intention to involve law enforcement to prevent these events from happening in the first place. For those who are planning and orchestrating this event, you have until Friday to cancel this event. I encourage those who were planning to attend not to. Stay away.

If the Antioch Police Department has not received actionable and reliable information that this event has not been canceled, the Chief of Police will have my support in employing proactive law enforcement measures including seeking mutual aid assistance from allied agencies throughout the region, over time, and drone technology.”

“If you come to Antioch, your off-road vehicle will be impounded for 30 days costing you or your parents $3,000 and you’re going to be issued a citation starting at $300,” Thorpe continued emphatically. “I’m not messing around with anyone. This is not the place to conduct these kinds of activities. I’ve warned everyone who is organizing this. If not, you will be met with my full support for the Antioch Police Department.”

Chief Brooks spoke next saying, “as we have done in the past me will we take steps to prevent the event from occurring. If not possible, we will use available resources to ensure safe vehicle practices. I want to make three things perfectly clear. These events are dangerous. This behavior is illegal – to operate off-road vehicles on public roadways. Third, Antioch Police officers along will work with neighboring officers from agencies.”

“I would like to thank Mayor Thorpe for his strong stance on this issue,” Brooks added.

Councilwoman’s Son Promoting Rideout on Social Media

Due to claims that one of Antioch District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker’s sons promoting Sunday’s event on social media (which she later confirmed), Thorpe was asked if he had spoken to her to tell her son not to promote or participate in them. Thorpe responded, “this is about cancelling the event and let the public know we are going to hold people accountable. I’m not playing games.”

On a related matter Chief Brooks was asked when the outside investigators’ report will be released about the incident between the councilwoman’s sons and Antioch Police in December and if he could speak about the report. (See related articles here, here and here)

“I cannot,” he responded. “I’m here to talk about this event.”

Asked by another reporter what will be placed in the three intersections and when, Thorpe responded, “elevated street markers. They actually should be getting installed…in the coming week.”

Brooks then spoke of “the danger to everyone involved with the reckless driving” and “officers almost being hit by vehicles and being assaulted by those involved, as well.”

Asked by another reporter where the participants are from, Brooks responded, “in the last event…we found that the vast majority of people were not from Antioch and not even from East County.”

Asked by another reporter where it’s going to happen Brooks responded, “I don’t have that information, right now.”

These types of activities are part of Bay Area culture…and it’s part of cultural resistance. This is why we want to use these types of opportunities to share with everybody this is not safe this is not welcome.

Asked where the city is considering locating a legal and safe place for people to ride their dirt bikes, Thorpe said, “there is one property owner who is willing to work with us on a safe location.” But he was not ready to share where that is.

Brooks was then asked, about those riding their off-road vehicles on city streets, now and what is being done to enforce that. He responded, “it’s typical traffic enforcement.”

Asked if they get their vehicle impounded right then, he said, “it varies.”

UPDATE #1: Torres-Walker Responds, Claims Six-Month Assault on Her Character and Sons’ Lives

An email was sent to Torres-Walker showing her the Instagram post believed to be by her adult son and asking if she had spoken with him to tell him to stop promoting it and not participate in it. She responded simply, “He can promote what he wants.”

However, the councilwoman posted the following statement on her official Facebook page Wednesday afternoon along with photos of her son being detained by APD officers during the December 2020 incident, the same Instagram post by her son, above and an Instagram post by Thorpe about the planned rideout:

“I heard about the press conference today related to off-road vehicles and sideshows and I agree that these events can be dangerous, and with the addition of aggressive enforcement the odds of risk increase.

I am also aware that there is a certain sector of this community that is committed to furthering their hate-filled agenda against myself and my family because 2020 wasn’t your year and I’m not as respectable as you would like your nigroes [sic] in Antioch to be.

Since December 29, 2020, I and my son have been stalked and harassed by individuals in defense of APD and the APOA.

I requested an independent investigation into an officer attempting to run my son off the road that was tainted with false information, accusations, and conflicts of interest. Of which I have made it clear that I didn’t trust the process or then pending results.

Most recently Chief Brooks with the assistance of what he says were several other community members (APOA and Back the blue leaders) accused me and my son of organizing an illegal event (ride out) while demanding information about the event before going to the press or allowing a social media post advertised on my son’s private social media page to be shared with the press furthering this six-month-long assault on my character and my son’s lives. My son’s [sic] who are currently free young black men and are being dragged into court to intimidate me.

The Chief asked could myself or my son stop the event. I informed him that we had no power to stop an event we are not organizing however I can ask my son not to attend if he was planning to do so. My son then created another post to informed others that if they come the police are ready so either don’t come or be safe whatever you choose (Not his words mine).

Let’s be clear I have no control over what activities any individual especially my grown son decides to share on social media.

Lastly, I know why people are spending their precious time stalking my son’s social media trying to find anything they can to use against me it’s because you want me out in the next election. You lack legitimate evidence to prove your case against my leadership so you go after my children. I am not afraid.

I think that people who would use a person’s childhood grown or otherwise to further a hateful political agenda are disgusting and trifling.

Happy to keep serving Antioch and standing in my truth. I am also looking forward to a healthier relationship with Chief Brooks because working relationships are what this city needs to move us forward.”

A public records act request was made for any and all email communications between the APD and Torres-Walker, as well as any other council members regarding the rideout.

7-21-21 UPDATE: Emails between Torres-Walker and Chief Brooks requested on June 16 finally release. See related article.