From Contra Costa Health Services
The State of California this week granted Contra Costa County a variance that allows more local control over when some activities restricted by the COVID-19 pandemic may resume.
The variance allows Contra Costa to move ahead with its road map for reopening at a pace that is appropriate for local conditions, which includes hair salons, indoor dining, gyms and schools in coming weeks.
“We are able to reopen more businesses and activities because the people of Contra Costa have diligently followed the health orders restricting our activities for many months,” said Candace Andersen, chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. “We remain committed to a safe and careful reopening for our county.”
In an attestation filed to the state this week, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) outlined the progress at managing the spread of COVID-19 locally and how the local healthcare system is preparing in the event of a new surge in cases.
If safe to do so, hair salons and barber shops can reopen for business on June 17, according to a timeline released by CCHS. Indoor dining, bars, gyms and fitness centers, hotels and some indoor entertainment venues may follow July 1.
The county’s timeline could change if community health indicators worsen, such as an increase in the number of new cases or patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Contra Costa is the first of six counties in the lower Bay Area to seek or receive a variance from the state COVID-19 health order, joining the North Bay counties of Napa, Solano and Sonoma.
Visit cchealth.org/coronavirus for more information about Contra Costa’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read More
By Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020, at about 4:05 pm, Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs from Bay Station were dispatched to a suspicious circumstance at an apartment building on the 4800 block of Appian Way in El Sobrante.
Deputies arrived at the location and discovered a body that was decomposed. The Homicide Unit of the Investigation Division responded along with the Crime Lab.
The autopsy of the body took place this morning. The person is identified as 64-year-old John Birdseye Sussdorff of El Sobrante. The cause of death is listed as blunt force chest injury and sharp force head injury.
Detectives identified a suspect in the case. 48-year-old Anthony Mark Rodriguez of El Sobrante was arrested and later booked into the Martinez Detention Facility for murder. He is being held in lieu of $1 million bail. Detectives say the two knew each other and had lived in the same residence.
Anyone with any information on this case is asked to contact the Investigation Division at (925) 313-2600. For any tips, email: tips@so.cccounty.us or call (866) 846-3592 to leave an anonymous voice message.
Read MoreClaims “Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection”
“…the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship.”
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 a formal legal letter was by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty, to members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, to ensure county health services staff follows through with their commitment to change the requirement to a recommendation that places of worship gather names and contact information of those who attend services and provide it to the county upon request. (See related articles, here, here and here). In addition, the letter points out that the county’s health order limiting indoor services to 12 people also violates the Constitution. – 2020.06.10_HDhillon CAL Letter to Contra Costa County
June 10, 2020
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Unconstitutional Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17, Specifically Regarding “Additional Businesses” (section 3 of Appendix C-1, Updated June 5, 2020)
Dear Board of Supervisors:
We write today, on behalf of clients in Contra Costa County, to demand the immediate rescission of Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 (the “Order”). The Order is concerning for two reasons: (1) Its requirement that houses of worship—and only houses of worship—keep and upon request disclose “a record of attendance” to Contra Costa Health Services violates both state and federally protected rights of associational privacy; (2) Restricting religious gatherings to no more than 12 participants violates First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. And while we appreciate the County’s recent announcement that it plans to revise its requirement that houses of worship keep and disclose attendance lists, until such plans manifest, we reiterate our objection over its current text.
- Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates First Amendment Rights
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government actors from enforcing any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U. S. Const. amend. I; see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment). Under strict scrutiny, the government cannot burden religious activity unless it first establishes (1) a compelling interest for imposing such burdens, and (2) that the burdens are the “least restrictive means” necessary to further that compelling interest. Federal courts routinely enjoin the enforcement of laws and policies under this standard. See e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520, 524 (1993).
The County’s Order severely burdens religious expression. The Order’s restriction on indoor religious services—limiting the number of participants to 12 persons or 25% of the building’s capacity, whichever is less—does not survive exacting scrutiny in that it is not the least restrictive means to accomplish the County’s interest in public health. Simply put, there are better ways for the County to accomplish its interest in public health that do not burden religious expression as much. For example, restricting participation on a percentage basis only—with respect to facility seating capacity—is a better solution. Twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one thousand looks very different from twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one hundred people.
In other words, percentage-based restrictions accommodate larger houses of worship while satisfying the County’s interest in public health and social distancing.
- Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Equal protection requires the state to govern impartially—not draw arbitrary distinctions between
individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objection. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985).
Here, the County’s 12-person limit on religious gatherings is nothing if not arbitrary. This is more restrictive than statewide health guidelines, according to the California Department of Health for places of worship, which currently limits attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is less; it is unclear where Contra Costa County’s “12 person” idea originates.
Additionally, no other establishment in Contra Costa County is subject to these more restrictive and draconian requirements. Costco, laundromats, marijuana dispensaries, and countless other purely secular entities are not burdened by this arbitrary, 12-person limitation.
On April 14, 2020, the United States Attorney General, William Barr, issued a statement addressing the disparate treatment being afforded to houses of worship.
As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest. While we believe that during this period there is a sufficient basis for the social distancing rules that have been put in place, the scope and justification of restrictions beyond that will have to be assessed based on the circumstances as they evolve.
Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true more so than ever during this difficult time. The pandemic has changed the ways Americans live their lives. Religious communities have rallied to the critical need to protect the community from the spread of this disease by making services available online and in ways that otherwise comply with social distancing guidelines.
The County may not treat houses of worship as second class entities; at a minimum, it must treat them equitably with respect to secular counterpart. Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 does the opposite—it targets houses of worship with more burdensome restrictions.
III. The Order Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Right to Privacy Under State Law
The right to privacy is an inalienable right under California law.3 This privacy interest irrefutably extends to participation in religious gatherings.
In Church of Hakeem, Inc. v. Superior Court, Alameda County, 110 Cal. App. 3d 384 (Ct. App. 1980), the court expressly declined to mandate disclosure of member names and addresses, even after allegations of criminal activity or wrongdoing by the church. In City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 2 Cal. 3d 259 (Ct. App. 1970), the court affirmed a list of freedoms afforded constitutional protections, such as the freedom of association and privacy in one’s associations, encompassing privacy of the membership lists of a constitutionally valid organization. In Pacific Union Club v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. App 3d 60 (Ct. App. 1991), the court provided a robust analysis of associational rights and ultimately upheld a private club’s right not to disclose member lists.
Applied here, Contra Costa County’s Order requiring houses of worship to create and preserve the names and contact information of those in attendance at a worship service or ceremony, and then disclose such information “immediately upon request” unconstitutionally violates privacy rights while chilling religious expression. Whether gathering for political, social, or religious reasons, the right of association is sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the County’s Order deprives Californians their right to pray, worship, repent, and seek spiritual guidance privately. Rather, the Order subjects their most intimate religious activities to potential publication.
3 “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1
- The Order Violates Right to Privacy Protected by Federal Law
The “Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Ala. Ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). Citing American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O., v Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402 (1950), the Court explained,
‘A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature.’ Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particular where a group espouses dissident beliefs.
Here, Contra Costa County’s Order tramples Californians’ right to privacy and in doing so, violates the Due Process Clause. Similar to the state of Alabama in NAACP v. Alabama, Contra County is requiring houses of worship to disclose the identities of congregants gathering to worship. And similar to the state of Alabama, this mandatory disclosure of religious expression “curtails the freedom to associate,” “denying “the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and is “subject to the closest scrutiny.” Id. at 460-61.
- Attendance Recordation Requirement Violates Equal Protection Protected by Federal Law.
By the Order’s express terms, the Order discriminates against places of worship by requiring places of worship to create and maintain attendee lists, yet the Order places no other such burdens on any other non-religious establishment whatsoever. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “a law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993). Further, “A law is not generally applicable if its prohibitions substantially under include non-religiously motivated conduct that might endanger the same governmental interest that the law is designed to protect.” Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542–46). So, “In other words, if a law pursues the government’s interest ‘only against conduct motivated by religious belief,’ but fails to include in its prohibitions substantial, comparable secular conduct that would similarly threaten the government’s interest, then the law is not generally applicable.” Id.
The County fails this standard. Houses of worship are uniquely burdened by this public disclosure requirement. And again, no other entity appears to be subjected to this standard.
In conclusion, we believe the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship. For these reasons, the Center for American Liberty respectfully requests that Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17, requiring houses of worship to record and disclosure attendance at religious services, be either rescinded or amended to cure its constitutional defects. We look forward to hearing your response.
Regards,
Harmeet K. Dhillon
cc: John Gioia, Candace Anderson, Diane Burgis, Karen Mitchoff, Federal D. Glover
Read More“Denounce and decry…tone deaf, irresponsible and unreasonable actions.”
Car caravan protest to be held Tuesday in downtown Richmond.
By Chris Flink, Communications Specialist, SEIU Local 1021
During the Tuesday, June 9 2020 meeting of the Richmond City Council, Mayor Tom Butt facetiously introduced a motion to “defund the police department and save seventy million dollars”. (See https://youtu.be/hZ5RTBtwxu8?t=16934; at the 4 hours, 42 minutes, 14 seconds mark) Richmond is facing budget shortfalls, and has been investigating ways to close gaps between income and expenditures. During that process five unions worked to identify creative and common-sense ways to close those gaps without layoffs and service cuts, which would deny Richmond residents important services and take good jobs away from the city.
After Mayor Butt’s announcement, the unions and Contra Costa Labor Council wrote the Mayor and all City Council members the letter below.
A car caravan protest will be held Tuesday, June 16, at 4:30 p.m., starting at Richmond’s Main Library located at 325 Civic Center Plaza.
June 11, 2020
Richmond City Council
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Mayor Butt & Councilmembers,
The Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO and Richmond City Employee Unions copied herein (Fire Fighters Local 188, IFPTE Local 21, RPOA, RPMA and SEIU Local 1021) denounce and decry the Mayor’s tone deaf, irresponsible and unreasonable actions at the Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 9. When the community stands up, proclaims Black Lives Matter, and demands change, that community deserves better than a Mayor sarcastically making a motion to do away with Richmond’s police force. The Mayor’s comments were intended to be divisive and trivialized the serious work Richmond City Employee Unions have done to find needed solutions to the City’s budget shortfall.
Richmond City Employee Unions and their membership come to the bargaining table in good faith, intending to serve the community and make Richmond a fair, equitable place that works for all of its residents. It is clear and disappointing that the Mayor is not engaging in these conversations in good faith. In this time of global pandemic and a looming economic crisis, Richmond’s residents and workforce deserve leadership from the Mayor’s office, not trolling and tantrums.
On Tuesday, June 16, at 4:30 p.m., community and labor groups will join together for a car caravan in Richmond to continue the serious dialogue in the need for city services.
Signed,
Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Fire Fighters Local 188
IFPTE Local 21
Richmond Police Officers Association
Richmond Police Managers Association
SEIU Local 1021
The motion by Butt was tabled on a 4-3 vote led by Councilmember Nathaniel Bates to “table the entire discussion”, with Council Members Eduardo Martinez and Melvin Williams joining the mayor in opposing it, wanting further discuss ion of the idea.
Allen Payton contributed to this report.
Read More![](http://contracostaherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/RV-Arson-Fire-Hwy-4-PCH-suspect-6-8-20.jpg)
Emergency crews extinguish RV fire on Port Chicago Highway under the Hwy 242 overpass. Suspect Jade McCoy, a Concord transient was arrested. Photos courtesy of ConFire.
By Steve Hill, Public Information Officer, Con Fire
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) announced today the arrest of a suspect in the recreational vehicle (RV) fire that burned under Highway 4 in Concord earlier this week.
The fire in question took place June 8, 2020 with the first call coming in at 3:27 p.m. An investigation was immediately conducted by the District’s Fire Investigations Unit, and Concord Police with a suspect identified and arrest made without incident on June 8 just after 5 p.m.
Arrested was Jade McCoy, a Concord-area transient, date of birth April 22, 1993. McCoy, who was on probation from a previous arson conviction for setting an exterior fire in 2019, was arrested after investigation by FIU and Concord PD revealed she intentionally set the fire in the RV. McCoy and her boyfriend had been living in the RV parked on Port Chicago Highway under Highway 4. The arson occurred after a verbal altercation between the two parties. Her possible involvement in other recent fires in the area is currently under investigation.
McCoy is in custody in the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Detention Center in Martinez. Concord Police filed the case with the District Attorney on June 9 and action is pending.
Investigation revealed a woman seen at the scene around the time of the fire to be the likely responsible party. A short while later, around 5 p.m., Concord Police located the suspect in the vicinity near Olivera Road and Esperanza Drive. Con Fire FIU investigators responded to that scene, interviewed the suspect and determined she was responsible for the blaze, placing her under arrest. She was handcuffed and transported to the Martinez Detention Facility by Concord Police where she was again interviewed by FIU.
The RV fire was initially reported by several parties beginning just before 3:30 p.m. on June 8. Arriving on scene moments later at 3:41, Con Fire’s Battalion Chief 2 reported a fully involved RV on fire under the highway.
In all, 21 fire personnel from Con Fire and the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord’s Federal Fire Department responded to the fire with two Type 1 fire engines, three Type 3 fire engines, two ambulances, a medical supervisor and a fire investigator. Concord Police and the California Highway Patrol also responded to the scene. At 3:42 p.m., the incident commander reported the fire under control.
There were no injuries to responding personnel or civilians.
Read MoreBy Steve Aubert, Fire Marshal/Public Information Officer, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Brentwood, CA — East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD), the local fire agency serving Brentwood and Oakley Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory announced Wednesday, that due to severe under-funding, it has been forced to take new, urgent measures to maintain its extremely limited operations and keep firefighters safe.
Starting July 1, the Fire District will only send firefighters inside a burning building if human life is at risk. Due to the extreme conditions resulting from a 3-station deficit, ECCFPD firefighters are being forced to spread themselves across 3 stations not 6, covering 250 square miles. This is pushing our firefighters to their limits as they respond to twice as many calls for help. Furthermore, the added strain of unbalanced “automatic aid” agreements with other county fire departments are becoming unsustainable. ECCFPD must now focus on containing the fire to the structure involved. Unfortunately, this defensive first operation strategy raises the safety risk factors for families, businesses, and for property within our communities just as the 2020 fire season is getting underway. Also announced by ECCFPD on Wednesday: all public outreach events and station visits will be eliminated indefinitely.
The safety risk of being under-funded and short 3 fire stations is real and growing, according to ECCFPD Fire Chief Brian Helmick. “In fire emergencies, every second counts. When a fire or emergency strikes, you need help fast. Response times matter. Delayed response times can allow a fire to double in size every 30 seconds. But our reality is that East Contra Costa communities, your homes, businesses, and your families will, on average, face slower responses than national standards recommend, when you call 911.”
“Due to severe under-funding, our firefighters are continually overrun responding to calls, maintaining required training and trying to be active in public education. We must take necessary steps to save lives and provide the safest environment for our workforce, so firefighters are ready and able to answer the call when it comes,” Chief Helmick added.
“These are not steps we want to take – and candidly, they may not be the last. We may have to consider other, even more drastic measures” said Chief Helmick, adding, “The reality is, we have to live within our means and keep our firefighters safe. We are working tirelessly to address our severe funding shortfall, including correcting past oversights and renegotiating developer fees and other fees that should have been put into place decades ago. We are also practicing full transparency, asking our community for input, and continuously LISTENING in every direction. Our goal is to find common ground that helps shape a local ballot measure that our community can support, authorizing a new, stable and reliable (i.e. guaranteed, sustainable and sufficient) local funding source that secures adequate ECCFPD fire protection in the future and that doesn’t take resources away from our public service partners.”
Learn more at www.eccfpd.org.
ABOUT THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT:
The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) is a rural-funded fire district that currently operates 3 fire stations and has a 3-station deficit. The District protects a population of more than 128,000 across its 249 square-mile service area. ECCFPD provides firefighting personnel, emergency medical services (basic life support) and fire prevention to the residents and businesses of the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated communities of Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory. Learn more at www.eccfpd.org or social media via Facebook (East Contra Costa Fire Protection District), Instagram(@east_contra_costa_
Read MoreMay also challenge 12-person or 25% capacity limit for indoor services
Following is the statement from the Center for American Liberty’s Founder Harmeet K. Dhillon concerning the Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17. (See related article)
“The Center for American Liberty was contacted recently regarding the June 5, 2020 Order issued from Contra Costa Health Services (Order No. HO-COVID19-17). This Order was concerning for several reasons and we intend to formally reach out to Contra Costa County with an analysis of our concerns.
The June 5, 2020 Order, as presently written, specifically singles out places of worship by requiring that places of worship in Contra Costa County create and preserve a list of persons in attendance, and then disclose such attendance list upon request to the government – a burden that is notably not placed on other establishments in Contra Costa County. Such burden is unconstitutional and is discriminatory on its face.
The California Constitution provides certain inalienable rights, including the right to privacy, to freely assemble, and to enjoy one’s religion – Californians deserve to freely worship and assemble without fear that his or her name and address will end up in a government database. The Center for American Liberty welcomes any official change to this June 5, 2020 Order and will continue to be vigilant about any attempts to discriminate against houses of worship or people of faith in California.
Additionally, the June 5, 2020 Order currently limits houses of worship to a 12 person or 25% limit (whichever is fewer), which is arbitrary, and we will also be monitoring, and potentially challenging, this disparate burden on places of worship and people of faith in Contra Costa County.”
Read MoreBy Allen Payton
Contra Costa County health officials are backing down on their requirement in the latest order issued June 5 that places of worship gather names and information of all attendees, keep it for 14 days and provide it to the county immediately upon request. According to a statement issued Tuesday morning, “health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement.”
The action comes following a series of email exchanges between the Herald and county supervisors and staff over the past several days about the requirement, an article on the matter and public outrage on social media challenging the constitutionality of the requirement, the inconsistent and unfair application to only places of worship, and no other organization or business, including protesters or restaurants offering outdoor dining in which people sit for extended periods of time with their masks off in order to it.
A legal effort was in the works as of Monday, with several residents agreeing to sign on to a legal demand letter to be sent to the county. But that now appears to be unnecessary.
Following is the Statement Regarding Requirements for Religious Gatherings
“In the health order issued June 5 by Contra Costa Health Services, religious organizations were required to maintain a list of attendees at religious services and cultural ceremonies in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. The intention was to facilitate quick, complete contact tracing if a participant at the event tests positive.
Health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement. If a participant tests positive for COVID-19, the host will be asked to assist CCHS with contact tracing associated with the gathering.
To mitigate the risk of transmission to the greatest extent possible, CCHS encourages participants to wear face coverings at all times, maintain social distance when possible, practice good hand hygiene, and stay home if sick.”
According to Kim McCarl, Assistant to the Director of Contra Costa Health Services for Communications, “As we revise the language, the recommendation will apply to any allowed gatherings.”
Read MoreBy CHP – Contra Costa
Early yesterday morning, Sunday, June 7, 2020, at about 3:45am, Contra Costa CHP was advised of a wrong way driver traveling southbound in the northbound lanes of I-680 near El Pintado road, in the Danville area. The wrong way vehicle then collided head on into a vehicle traveling in the northbound lanes of I-680. Upon emergency personnel and CHP arrival, the solo female driver of the wrong way vehicle was located and detained and had suffered non-life-threatening injuries. Tragically the female driver and male passenger of the victim vehicle that was hit by the wrong way driver, were both declared deceased at the scene. A secondary non-injury collision occurred with the victim fatality vehicle shortly after the original wrong way collision. The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Coroner’s Office will be handling the release of identity of the deceased female driver and deceased male passenger.
In our initial investigation, it appears the female driver of the wrong way vehicle (Camille Veraanne Kimball, 27 years old from Concord, driving a 2020 Ford Fusion) was driving southbound in the northbound lanes of I-680, north of El Pintado road. The victim vehicle (2012 Honda Civic) driven by a 46-year-old female from Antioch with her 26-year-old male front passenger also from Antioch, was traveling in the northbound lanes of I-680 at El Pintado road. Kimball continued to drive her Ford wrong way on I-680 and crashed head on into the victim’s Honda, just north of El Pintado. Tragically the driver and the passenger of the Honda did not survive and were both pronounced deceased at the scene.
Kimball suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was transported to John Muir hospital. Kimball was also suspected of driving under the influence/impaired. While at the hospital, Kimball was investigated and arrested for felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter. Due to her injuries, she was admitted to the hospital and will remain there until discharged into police custody for booking into the county jail.
This incident is still under investigation. If anyone witnessed this collision, the wrong way Ford Fusion vehicle prior to the collision, or the events leading up to the collision, please contact Contra Costa CHP in Martinez at (925) 646-4980. Thank you.
Read MoreAccording to Kim McCarl, the county health services communications assistant, the “guidelines will be the same as the state’s”. No word on if the requirement to create lists of the names and contact information of all attendees to be given to the county upon demand will still be included. (See related article)
Read More