Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Bay Point, Antioch men convicted of drug trafficking

By Leave a Comment

Following wiretap investigation into East Bay drug suppliers and significant seizures of fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine and cash

Third man illegal alien from Mexico; among 13 defendants indicted in 2019

Each face maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted

Attempt to use FBI investigation of APD officers as a defense denied

By U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal jury has convicted three defendants—Luis Torres Garcia, Evan Martinez Diaz of Bay Point, and Timothy Peoples of Antioch—of multiple drug trafficking offenses following an eight-day trial, announced United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), San Francisco Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Brian M. Clark. The jury convicted the defendants on all counts, rendering its verdict on February 14, 2024, after deliberating for two hours. The verdict followed a trial before the Hon. Richard Seeborg, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California.

The three were among 13 defendants, including seven from Eastern Contra Costa County, indicted in May 2019 “on narcotics trafficking charges, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in Charge Chris D. Nielsen.  The indictment follows the arrest of five of the defendants on April 30, 2019, and the execution of search warrants at thirteen locations, including nine residences in Contra Costa County, Humboldt County, Fairfield, Suisun City and Modesto.” (See related article)

The evidence at trial included calls intercepted between April 2018 and February 2019 as part of a federal wiretap investigation into two drug suppliers in the East Bay. The intercepted calls established, among other things, that both suppliers received drugs from sources in Mexico. At trial, the government also presented evidence of several significant drug seizures including: 8.8 pounds of fentanyl and heroin in May 2018, valued at as much as $1.1 million, according to uncontested evidence at trial; 18 pounds of methamphetamine in August 2018; and 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine in February 2019. The evidence at trial also established that law enforcement seized more than $300,000 in drug-related cash over the course of the investigation.

Martinez Diaz, 31, of Bay Point, California, was charged with three counts—conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The evidence at trial established, among other things, that on February 9, 2019, Martinez Diaz was transporting about 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine through a residential neighborhood in Antioch, California, when he realized he was being followed by law enforcement—which knew about the drugs through intercepted calls. Martinez Diaz began driving erratically, briefly evading law enforcement and directing a co-conspirator to discard the drugs he was carrying in the bushes on a residential street. A short time later law enforcement located the drugs, which evidence at trial established had street retail values of $177,860 (methamphetamine) and $40,000 (cocaine). After Martinez Diaz was stopped by police and released with a traffic citation, he was intercepted on a call telling his supplier that he had seen law enforcement and discarded the drugs to avoid arrest. (See judge’s opinion)

Peoples, 44, of Antioch, California, was arrested after law enforcement officers found cocaine in his home, and charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)–(C). Evidence presented at trial showed that Peoples was a regular customer of an Antioch-based cocaine wholesaler from whom he bought some 10.5 pounds of cocaine for more than $120,000 in a 90-day period. Peoples used the codeword “babies” to refer to ounce quantities of cocaine. The evidence at trial established that Peoples then sold cocaine to his own customers in smaller quantities and used his proceeds to buy expensive cars.

Attempt to Use FBI Investigation of Antioch Police Officers to Defend Himself Denied

According to the judge’s opinion, “In the course of the federal law enforcement investigation in this case, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) were assisted by officers from the Antioch Police Department in executing search warrants and evidence collection, the bulk of which occurred in 2018 and 2019. Since then, several Antioch police officers have been accused of, and indicted for various crimes, including civil rights violations and wire fraud.” (See related articles here and here)

During the court case, “Peoples insisted that the federal case against the Antioch officers was relevant because two members of the Antioch Police Department accused of misconduct were present at the search of Peoples’ home on April 30, 2019.”

The opinion continued, “The defendants previously filed a discovery motion to compel production of impeachment material related to Antioch police officers who assisted with the DEA and ATF investigation of the defendants in the instant case. That motion was denied.”

“An evidentiary hearing was set to determine threshold matters in relation to the motion. Having  considered the parties’ briefs, witness testimony, and admitted exhibits from the hearing, the government’s motion is granted, and the defendants are prohibited from referencing the federal investigation of any Antioch police officers.”

The opinion provided background to Peoples’ claim and the judge’s denial.

“Anticipating the issue would reappear at trial, the government filed MIL No. 12 to prevent the defendants from referencing Antioch police misconduct in the presence of the jury without first establishing relevance for fear that this would result in undue prejudice to the government. Dkt. (Docket) 489. In response, Peoples suggested that witnesses and the DEA-6 report regarding the search of Peoples’ home, authored by DEA Agent Mikhail Job, identified Antioch officers accused of misconduct as having participated in the April 30, 2019, search of Peoples’ residence.

Shortly before the pretrial conference, Peoples submitted a supplemental opposition to MIL No. 12 with information he and the government had just learned. Dkt. 521. In that supplemental opposition, Peoples contended that Agent Job had identified Antioch Officer Morteza Amiri, who has since been indicted on wire fraud charges and civil rights violations, as having entered Peoples’ residence alone for five to ten minutes along with his police dog after the occupants had been cleared out and before the official search began. Peoples also suggested that Antioch Officer Kyle Smith, who allegedly exchanged racist texts with other Antioch officers, joined the search of Peoples’ home. The government filed a supplemental response contending that Agent Job received erroneous information from the DEA case agents and had mistakenly named the wrong Antioch officers on his DEA-6 report. Dkt. 528. According to the government, Officers Amiri and Smith were not present at the search of Peoples’ home but were participating in the contemporaneous search of Defendant Lorenzo Lee’s residence. At the pretrial conference, the threshold question of whether Amiri was present at the search of Peoples’ home remained unresolved. The only potential relevance of the Antioch officers’ misconduct turned on whether  Amiri and/or Smith were present at Peoples’ residence such that Peoples could infer the police planted evidence.”

Furthermore, “Peoples failed to establish that a jury could reasonably find that Amiri was present at Peoples residence on April 30, 2019 by a preponderance of evidence. At the evidentiary hearing, both sides admitted several witnesses and exhibits, and the government’s evidence was considerably more persuasive. The government’s witnesses included several law enforcement agents who corroborated their version of the events on the day in question. The testimony of two Antioch officers, Kevin Tjahjadi and Brayton Milner, who participated in the search of Peoples’ residence, was particularly persuasive. Both stated unequivocally that neither Amiri nor Smith joined in that search. The Antioch Police Department CAD reports regarding the search of Peoples’ residence further supported this version of events, identifying only Tjahjadi and Milner as the participating officers.”

Torres Garcia, 38, an illegal alien from Mexico, residing in Rio Dell, California, was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The evidence at trial showed that Torres Garcia was a Humboldt County drug trafficker, who used the nickname “Guero.” Torres Garcia received methamphetamine shipments on credit from a Fairfield, California-based drug supplier. On August 8, 2018, the Fairfield supplier attempted to send about 18 pounds of methamphetamine—valued at $158,000—to Torres Garcia in Humboldt County. DEA agents and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office intercepted the drug courier and seized the drugs during a vehicle stop on Highway 101 near Healdsburg, California. In February 2019, the DEA tracked Torres Garcia to a meeting in Windsor, California, where Torres Garcia delivered about $13,800 in cash to a courier for his drug supplier. Although he was present throughout the trial and listened to closing arguments, Torres Garcia absconded before the jury handed down its verdict; he is now a fugitive. (See judge’s opinion)

According to the judge’s opinion, “Luis Garcia-Torres, defendant, an alien who had previously been deported or removed from the United States  to Mexico on or about May 19, 2016, was found in the Eastern District of Texas, said defendant not having received the express consent of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the successor, pursuant to United States Code, Title 6, for re-application for admission to the United States, all in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).”

Sentencing Hearing June 11, 2024

Judge Seeborg scheduled a sentencing hearing for June 11, 2024. Torres Garcia faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Martinez Diaz and Peoples each face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted. However, the defendants’ sentences will be imposed only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Pastor and Joseph Tartakovsky prosecuted the case with the assistance of Erick Machado. This prosecution is the result of an investigation led by the DEA Oakland Resident Office, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the police departments in Fairfield, Antioch, Concord, and Oakland; the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; and the California Highway Patrol.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Federal court upholds Glazer’s Truth in Lending law

By 3 Comments

Benefiting 4 million small businesses

SACRAMENTO – A federal district court last week upheld Senator Steve Glazer’s Truth in Lending law in a summary judgment that declined to hear a lawsuit filed by a lender organization that argued the law did not apply to them.

Under legislation that Senator Glazer, D-Contra Costa, authored in 2018 (Senate Bill 1235), California became the first state in the nation to give small business owners the same protections that Truth in Lending laws have given consumer borrowers for more than half a century. The law became permanent this year when Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senator Glazer’s follow-up bill, SB 33.

The lawsuit, brought by online financers called the Small Business Finance Association, sought to invalidate regulations that the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovations (DFPI) adopted to implement Senate Bill 1235, which requires lenders and other finance companies to provide clear and consistent disclosures to small business owners when they offer them financing and when they close a deal.

CORRECTION: The court ruled in favor of the DFPI’s motion for preliminary injunction. The summary judgment (Motion for Summary Judgment) concluded that the disclosures required under the Department’s regulations were lawful under the First Amendment and were not preempted by federal law. 

In his 14-page order, the judge, R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California, dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments and praised state regulations implementing the law for protecting small business owners.

“The disclosures will help small businesses understand the cost of SBFs (Subscription Based Financing) and OECs (Original Equipment Costs) and do comparison shopping … Small businesses have asked for standardized disclosures that uncloak the true cost of financing and highlight useful information like “APR (Annual Percentage Rate), repayment amount, frequency of payments and prepayment penalties. The Regulations mandate such disclosures, thereby helping small businesses make informed credit decisions.”

DFPI Commissioner Clothilde Hewlett called Judge Klausner’s decision a “significant victory for small business owners and consumer protection in the State of California. SB 1235, and the accompanying DFPI regulations, ensure that more than four million California small businesses have protections like those enjoyed by consumers under the Truth in Lending Act for more than 50 years.

Hewlett continued: “These regulations empower small businesses to make informed credit decisions and better understand the cost of small business financing products, including merchant cash advances. The DFPI is committed to advancing opportunities for small business owners to achieve the California dream by ensuring a fair financial marketplace.”

The law is aimed at providing small business owners stronger footing in the rapidly evolving small business finance market, where fast-moving online lenders were replacing traditional banks in a largely unregulated world of loans and more innovative financing options.

“The federal district court agreed with the premise of my law, and that is that small businesses should be protected from abuses that were trapping them in a spiral of debt as the online lending industry evolved,” Senator Glazer said. “This law offers a modest measure – disclosure — to help level the playing field for small business owners. It is making California a leader in protecting the interests of small business owners as they seek the capital they need to grow.”

Previously, state and federal Truth in Lending laws applied only to consumer finance. Even the owners of the smallest companies were left to fend for themselves on the theory that they were sophisticated merchants who understood the world of finance. Increasingly, however, that is no longer true. Today’s small business owners are often immigrant entrepreneurs struggling to get their enterprises off the ground with little knowledge of the finance industry. Others are young people or early retirees with no background in finance.

Under the law, the financer must disclose the following at the time they offer financing of less than $500,000 to a business owner:

  • Total amount of financing
  • Total cost of financing
  • Term length
  • Frequency and amount of payments
  • Pre-payment policies
  • Annualized rate

Editor’s Note:  The Herald previously reported in this article based on incorrect information in a press release from Glazer’s office, that Judge Klausner had granted a preliminary injunction against Opportunity Financial LLC (OppFi).  That was in error.  Judge Klausner’s summary judgment order contained no such order and no motion against OppFi was before the court.

 

Richmond, Antioch men convicted of robbery in series of organized SF retail thefts

By Leave a Comment

By San Francisco District Attorney’s Office

On Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced that Sean Raquel Jevonce Simon, Jr. (24) of Richmond, and Delandro Belvine-Brown (22) of Antioch were each sentenced to three years imprisonment after pleading guilty in San Francisco Superior Court to committing robbery in violation of Penal Code Section 211, in relation to a series of retail thefts occurring in San Francisco.

“Retail theft continues to have a major impact on San Francisco’s business community and the city’s economic livelihood. These crimes demand accountability and we need to send the message to others involved in this criminal enterprise that, with the support of our local law enforcement partners, our office will continue to pursue and prosecute those involved,” said District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “With San Francisco Police Department receiving $15.3 million dollars and our office receiving $2 million from the Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program, law enforcement agencies in San Francisco will continue to identify, investigate, and prosecute all levels of this criminal enterprise.”

In this case, the People alleged that Mr. Belvine-Brown and Mr. Simon were a part of an organized group which committed a series of snatch-and-grab thefts and robberies from Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and Veo Optics stores in San Francisco from November 1, 2021, through July 1, 2022. By employing a consistent brazen theft strategy, Mr. Belvine-Brown, Mr. Simon, and others entered the store as a group, rapidly grabbed numerous expensive sunglasses from display shelves, and quickly exited the store and got in an awaiting car. Investigators from SFPD and Brentwood Police Department conducted a joint investigation as there were similar thefts that occurred in Contra Costa County. Investigators from both agencies examined evidence from multiple sources, including store surveillance videos, social media posts, and mobile phone records to identify the Defendants and their criminal activities.

The case against Mr. Belvine-Brown and Mr. Simon was successfully prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Conrad Del Rosario with support and assistance from District Attorney Inspector Lessa Vivian and Paralegal Chloe Mosqueda. This case was investigated by the San Francisco Police Department’s Burglary Unit and the Brentwood Police Department’s Investigation Division.

“Individuals who openly commit egregious and brazen retail crimes impact not only the store’s viability to stay open for their community, but also have long lasting effects on store employees and customers who are subjected to this blatant disregard for the law,” said Assistant District Attorney del Rosario. “These cases should serve as notice to those would-be thieves that law enforcement will aggressively investigate and prosecute their criminal activity in San Francisco.”

Belvine-Brown and Simon are currently in custody and will be transported to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s custody to begin serving their state prison sentences.

Court Number: Belvine-Brown, 22011459, Simon, 23003591

Federal lawsuit filed against six Antioch Police officers in racist text scandal, three chiefs, City

By 1 Comment

The parties to the lawsuit from pages 1 and 2.

Seeks damages, department practice and policy changes, court monitoring; labels officers’ actions a “conspiracy”

By Allen D. Payton

Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris and associates filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Northern California on Wednesday, April 19, 2023, against five current Antioch Police officers and one former officer, for their racist and other offensive texts and mistreatment of citizens, plus, three current and past police chiefs, the City of Antioch and Does 1-100. (See related articles here and here)

The texts sent and received by multiple officers on their personal cell phones mentioned at least one Antioch resident, as well as suspects in crimes being investigated by some of the officers.

The suit includes defendants Sgt. Josh Evans, Officers Eric Rombough, Morteza Amiri, Scott Duggar, John Ramirez and Timothy Manly Williams, who left the department in 2021. The lawsuit also includes former Police Chief Tammany Brooks who left in October 2021, former Interim Police Chief and current Captain Tony Morefield, and current Chief Steve Ford, in spite of the fact he didn’t start as interim chief until late April 2022, at the end of the timeframe of the texts between December 2019 and April 2022. Ford was given his permanent position on October 23, 2022. Morefield served as interim chief from Oct. 10, 2021 through April 2022.

The plaintiffs include Antioch resident Shagoofa Khan, the 2017 Youth of the Year who was one of the lead protesters in the city in 2020, was arrested a few times including once for felony arson in January 2021 and at Brooks’ farewell party later that year, and was the subject of one of the vile texts; Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Trent Allen, who is one of the suspects in the murder case that resulted in the release of the texts; plus, Diego Zavala, the son of Guadalupe Zavala, who was unarmed when he was shot and killed by police in 2021 after a seven-hour stand-off with police. (Their last name is listed as Savala in the lawsuit).

The suit describes what occurred between the named Antioch Police officers and the plaintiffs as a “conspiracy and/or conspiracies” and claims they were “the failure and/or refusal of Defendants Brooks, Morefield, Ford and Evans…to prevent or aid in preventing” them from occurring. The suit further claims the four department leaders “maintained customs, policies, and/or practices which encouraged, authorized, condoned, ratified, failed to prevent, and/or failed to aid in the prevention of wrongs conspired to be done by” the named officers.

The suit seeks multiple forms of damages including “past, present and/or future wage loss, income and support, medical expenses”; special damages, any and all permissible statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit, Case #4:23-cv-01895-TSH, from the firm of Burris, Nissenbaum, Curry and Lacy also seeks department policy and practice changes and Court Monitoring. Burris previously represented the family of Angelo Quinto who died in 2021 in the hospital while not in police custody, three days after an interaction with Antioch Police who were called to their home to stop him from attacking them.

According to Antioch Police Officers’ Association attorney Mike Raines the officers don’t have to obtain their own legal counsel as they are entitled to representation by the City Attorney or a designated, outside law firm.

Second DA report leaked, posted on social media shows texts by Antioch Police officers about two suspects in murder case

By 5 Comments

Focuses on Officer Eric Rombough, involves seven others including sergeant, detective, plus, U.S. Postal Inspector

“Nice babe, another one for the mantle.” – from an unidentified person in response to Rombough bragging about beating and shooting one of the suspects with a non-lethal weapon

WARNING: Contains offensive language

By Allen D. Payton

Another report by Larry J. Wallace, Senior Inspector with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office was leaked and posted on social media on Saturday, April 15, 2023 about the two suspects and the eight Antioch Police Officers involved in a murder case, plus, a U.S. Postal Inspector, and their racist and other offensive texts. Some of the texts were included in the previously released 21-page report dated March 27, 2023. (See related article)

The 14-page report, dated March 28, 2023, focuses on the “text messages derived from the personal cellular telephone belonging to Antioch Police Department (APD) Officer Eric Rombough” and include “conversations between APD Officer Rombough and the following APD Officers regarding an investigation into Teryon Deshon Pugh and Trent Allen in March of 2021: APD Sergeant (Sgt) Josh Evans, Detective Robert Gerber, Johnathan Adams, Scott Duggar, Timothy Manly Willams, Tom Smith, and Brock Marcote.” The report also shows offensive texts between Rombough and U.S. Postal Inspector Francisco Garcia. Many of the texts reveal mistreatment of the two suspects. Redacted APD Officer texts investigation report 32823

Examples of Text Messages

On March 20, 2021, the report shows text message exchange between Rombough and Gerber:

At 9:16 p.m., APD Officer Rombough responded, “Bro I can’t wait to forty all of them (“forty” or “40” are references to the deployment of the 40mm less-lethal launcher)”

At 9:16 p.m., APD Detective Gerber text, “Hell yeah.”

The report shows more racist texts sent on March 25, 2021:

At 7:36 p.m., APD Officer Rombough texted, “Well we knew they wouldn’t be by the pool.”

At 7:39 p.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “Look at all the Infiniti’s.”

At 7:40 p.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “And cuz they’re dark black.” APD Officer Adams responded with “(laughing emoji).”

At 7:41 p.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “Gotta get them to smile.”

At 8:02 p.m., APD Officer Rombough continued, “Definitely can’t see them.”

The report reads: On 3/30/202 at 8:22 p.m., APD Officer Rombough text APD Detective Gerber, “This looks like dudes car from his ig.” – a reference to Instagram.

At 8:23 p.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “And he’s chilling at ruth Chris steakhouse”. I hate all of them.”

At 8:24 p.m., APD Detective Gerber text, “Turds… all turds”, a comment that APD Officer Rombough “liked”.

The texts on the final day of the report’s time period included exchanges with an unidentified person who praised Rombough for mistreating suspects and claim by Marcotte that a nurse laughed about a suspect being in pain:

On 03/31/2021, at 8:29 a[sic].m., APD Officer Rombough text “Yeah 40 deployment” and “F-g–t got his ass whooped.”

At 9:09 a.m., (An unidentified person) text, “Nice babe, another one for the mantle.”

At 9:1 0a.m., APD Officer Rombough texted, “Murder suspect. In custody and that a–hole made me run.” (An unidentified person) text, “Good thing you fast honey.”

At 9:12 a.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “We managed to setup a perimeter and he ‘got his ass whooped in the back yard and I field goal kicked his head. (An unidentified person) responded, “I thought that was a no no.”

At 9:13 a.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “No we can do that just no chokes” and “I tried to knock him unconscious. And he got muzzle thumped 6 times before he gave us his hands.”

At 9:12 a.m., APD Officer Marcotte responded, “The nurse saw me smiling when he was ‘making noises in pain and she started laughing (laughing emoji).”

At 9:13 a.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “Lmao.”

At 9:15 a.m., APD Officer Rombough added, “What a b–ch.”

At 9:24 a.m., (An unidentified person) texted, “Glad you’re havin fun babe.”

At 9:25 a.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “It was nice after a very boring swat op.”

During this same time, APD Officer Rombough also group text his co-workers, APD Officers Brock Marcos, Timothy Manly Williams, (An unidentified person) and Scott Duggar, (An unidentified person)

At 8:45 a.m., APD Officer Rombough texted the group, “Lol I 40d him right next to his throat.”

At 8:46 a.m., APD Officer Marcotte responded, “Oh f–k” and “Cuz he ducked so fast.”

Later that day the report reads, At 4:43 p.m., APD Officer Rombough replied, “Yup and another f–g-ot in the butt” and “2 for the day.”

At 4:49 p.m. (An unidentified person) responded, “Nice babe.”

Only One Reference to Officers Being Corrected by Department Leader

During an exchange with Rombough on March 31, 2021 the report reads, At 3:11 p.m., APD Officer Adams texted, and “…I forgot that Koch wanted us to stop sending dumb sh-t. Oops.” He was referring to Sgt. Matthew Koch. This is the only text in the report that references any department leader correcting officers for their offensive texts.

Text Exchange Between Rombough & Postal Inspector Garcia

The text message exchange with Postal Inspector Garcia in the report reads: On 03/31/2021, a 3:10 p.m. APD Officer Rombough text United States Postal Inspector Francisco Garcia, “I 40d and field goal kicked one that fled from us on foot today.”

At 3:11 p.m., United States Postal Inspector Garcia responded, “(laughing emoji)”.

At 3:12 p.m., APD Officer Rombough text, “Bro but my foot f—ing hurts.”

At 3:16 p.m., APD Officer Rombough sent the following GIF:

At 5:13 p.m., United States Postal Inspector Garcia asked, “Did you find any guns on any of them?”

At 5:21 p.m., APD Officer Rombough replied, “Sorry we were taking down a second ‘murder suspect and he got 40d too.”

At 5:58 p.m., United States Postal Inspector Garcia texted, “(laughing emoji)….That 40 flag is coming along!! Murica!!”

Questions for DA’s Office

Questions were sent to DA’s Office PIO Ted Asregadoo Saturday afternoon asking to whom the report was sent, why it was prepared separately from the 21-page report, why it wasn’t sent to the media and was it intended to be shared with the media. He was also asked how the East Bay Times obtained it earlier this week, was it leaked by someone in the DA’s Office and if so, who. Finally, Asregadoo was asked if there is an investigation in the DA’s Office to determine who leaked the 21-page report and this other, 14-page report.

4/17/23 UPDATE: Asregadoo responded Monday morning, “Our inspectors have investigated the matter and determined someone outside of our organization disclosed the reports to the public and press.”

He was then asked again, to whom were the redacted reports sent from the DA’s Office and who in the DA’s Office sent them out. Asregadoo later sent out a press release about the matter with a further redacted copy of the 14-page report.

 

 

Judge rules Antioch Police officers’ racist texts will be disclosed to defense in felony court case

By 1 Comment

“contain unambiguously and historically racist speech directed toward the suspects the officers were investigating.” – DA Diana Becton

By Allen D. Payton

Following a Friday, April 7th ruling by Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Clare M. Maier during a felony court case involving Antioch Police officers, racist texts exchanged by the officers and directed toward the suspects will be disclosed to the defense, District Attorney Diana Becton announced. Several Antioch officers are currently on paid leave and under investigation for alleged racist and other offensive texts, in addition to the remaining seven out of eight officers that have been under investigation by the FBI and DA’s Office since March 2022. One Antioch officer resigned, recently. (See related articles here and here)

According to Contra Costa DA’s Office PIO Ted Asregadoo, Judge Maier “oversaw the court procedure to balance the integrity of the Antioch Police Department and Pittsburg Police Department criminal investigation with the constitutional requirement of the disclosure of exculpatory information (i.e., info that is beneficial to a defendant) in criminally charged cases.”

Judge David E. Goldstein is the presiding judge in the felony case against Terryonn Pugh, 20; Eric Windom, 21; Keyshawn McGee, 22, Trent Allen, 20, et al, #01oo1976380.

Statement By DA Diana Becton on Disclosure of Racist Texts in Felony Case

“Today, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Clare Maier ruled on the disclosure of information that centers on racist text messages exchanged by Antioch Police officers.

For over a year, the FBI and the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office have engaged in a joint federal and state criminal investigation of 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.

Due to the sensitivity and scope of the investigation, a court procedure was established to balance the integrity of the criminal investigation with the disclosure of exculpatory information (i.e., evidence that is beneficial to a defendant).

In accordance with legal precedent, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office has been scrupulous in maintaining the balance as the court constructed.

Recently, additional information has come to light in which police misconduct directly overlaps and impacts a charged felony case.

The joint investigation with the FBI has revealed that Antioch Police officers exchanged text messages which contain unambiguously and historically racist speech directed toward the suspects the officers were investigating.

The racial animus expressed by officers in the recovered text messages trigger additional statutory concerns under the Racial Justice Act.

In seeking further direction from the court, the DA’s Office and the defense appeared in front of Judge Maier on April 4th to present information detailing the overlap of the officers’ misconduct and a charged felony case.

In her ruling today, Judge Maier said that the offensive texts in the two investigative reports shall be disclosed to the defense in the charged felony case. She added, the reports will be redacted to shield cell phone numbers and urged caution in the distribution of the language and images contained in the texts as they can spark more hatred toward Blacks and Latinos.

The integrity of the joint investigation and legal requirements for the disclosure of exculpatory evidence is of paramount importance to the District Attorney’s Office. Our office will continue to work tirelessly to ensure public trust and public safety for the residents of Contra Costa County.

Diana Becton

District Attorney, Contra Costa County”

Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury application deadline is tomorrow Friday, March 24

By 1 Comment

 

The Contra Costa County Superior Court is accepting applications for jurors to serve on our 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury. The application deadline is March 24, 2023. Application for Grand Jury

Contra Costa County’s Grand Jury consists of 19 citizens. A new Grand Jury is impaneled each year. Grand Jurors are officers of the court, and function as an independent body under the guidance of a Superior Court judge.

Every year, in each of California’s 58 counties, a group of ordinary citizens takes an oath to serve as grand jurors. Its function is to investigate the operations of the various officers, departments and agencies of local government. Each Civil Grand Jury determines which officers, departments and agencies it will investigate during its term of office.

Apart from the investigations mandated by the California Penal Code, each county’s Grand Jury decides what it will investigate. Investigations may be initiated in response to letters from citizens, newspaper articles and personal knowledge.

For more information about the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury visit Civil Grand Jury: Contra Costa Superior Court (cc-courts.org) and Civil Grand Jury – jury_service (ca.gov).

CA Supreme Court allows City of Lafayette’s approval of Terraces apartment project

By Leave a Comment

The planned Terraces of Lafayette apartment project. Source: O’Brien Homes

Denies request to review lower court’s decision, ends litigation, leaving in place earlier rulings that the City acted properly in approving the development

“This decision is a win for housing, but the fact that this project has taken so long is exactly why we have such a catastrophic housing shortage” – Sonja Trauss, President and Founder of YIMBY Law

By Suzanne Iarla, Communications Analyst/Public Information Officer

After more than two years, litigation against the City of Lafayette and developer O’Brien Land Company (O’Brien) regarding the City’s approval of the 315-unit Terraces of Lafayette development project has ended and is in favor of the City and O’Brien.

In 2020, Save Lafayette, a citizens group, sued the City and O’Brien to overturn the City’s approval of the Terraces of Lafayette. In November 2021, the Contra Costa County Superior Court rejected Save Lafayette’s claims and upheld the City’s approval of the Terraces of Lafayette. Save Lafayette appealed the Superior Court’s decision.

In November 2022, the Court of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion holding that the City’s environmental review complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the City properly followed the Housing Accountability Act in approving the project. Save Lafayette requested that the California Supreme Court exercise its discretion and review the Court of Appeal’s decision.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, the California Supreme Court denied Save Lafayette’s request for review, making the Court of Appeal opinion in favor of the City the final word in the long-running dispute.

“The Courts have once again affirmed that the City complied with the Housing Accountability Act and the California Environmental Quality Act in its environmental review and approval of this 20%-affordable housing project. The litigation is over, and we should now focus on welcoming new residents to our community,” said Lafayette Mayor Carl Anduri.

Now that litigation has ended, O’Brien will be able to proceed with the development of 315 for-rent apartments, including 63 below-market-rate units on a vacant a 22-acre site at the southwest corner of Pleasant Hill and Deer Hill Roads, adjacent to Highway 24 in Lafayette.

Terraces of Lafayette rendering. Source: O’Brien Homes

In response O’Brien Land Company issued the following press release regarding the court decision:

In a landmark victory for housing rights and state housing law, the California Supreme Court denied review of the unanimous California Court of Appeal ruling in favor of the Terraces of Lafayette

As the last step to finally end the litigation over the Terraces of Lafayette apartment community, the Supreme Court of California denied Save Lafayette’s request to review the First District Court of Appeal’s unanimous ruling that upheld the City of Lafayette’s project approvals. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal rejected in full Save Lafayette’s lawsuit challenging the Terraces of Lafayette, a 315-unit apartment community by O’Brien Land Company. After nearly 10 years of processing and 120 public hearings, the Lafayette City Council had finally approved the project by a 4-1 vote in August 2020.

The Court’s decision can be found here. Project information can be found at https://www.terracesoflafayette.com.
The project site is in an urbanized area adjacent to Highway 24 and located one mile from the Lafayette BART station. With 20%, or 63, of its dwelling units set aside for lower income households, the Terraces is considered an affordable housing project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). This will substantially assist Lafayette in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the lower income categories assigned to it by long-standing state law.
Despite the project’s robust legal protections under controlling state law, Save Lafayette has actively opposed the project and all development on the project site for years. The anti-development group also opposed a 44 single-family home compromise project the City approved in 2015 after the City and O’Brien contractually paused processing of the apartment project to consider an alternative the group might accept. Save Lafayette responded by filing litigation and a ballot referendum that overturned the smaller project. Once the voters rejected the smaller project, O’Brien and the City resumed processing the apartments.

“Despite the fact that the project, located on a former quarry site, is supported by the Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance, and provides critically-needed, affordable housing, it took 12 years to get to this point after finally getting the project approved and through this and other wasteful litigation,” said Dennis O’Brien, President and Founder of O’Brien Land Company. “It’s been disheartening the last few years to have to tell local residents and workers that we weren’t yet able to build the apartments the City approved. People have long been in need of housing like this for themselves, family members, and local workers, and all we could do was add their name to an interest list and ask them to be patient while we saw the project through an incredibly difficult and time-consuming process. We are elated that we can now move forward.”

Although the apartment project included a full environmental impact report, Save Lafayette’s lawsuit claimed the City’s approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act, a law frequently employed by anti-development NIMBY groups to challenge new housing. The lawsuit also claimed the project was not entitled to the protection of the HAA, which protects housing developments from changes in local land use laws after an application is deemed complete by, among other things, substantially curtailing the circumstances under which a housing project may lawfully be disapproved. As the Superior Court did in 2021, the Court of Appeal rejected Save Lafayette’s arguments and agreed that the City complied with the law in approving the project.

Matt Regan, Senior Vice President of Public Policy for the Bay Area Council added his voice in support of the Supreme Court’s decision saying, “When anyone asks why we have a housing affordability crisis in California, I just show them the history of the Terraces in Lafayette. This is a site where the City said they wanted housing, a developer offered a proposal that met their requirements, and here we are 12 years later after multiple plan changes, referendums, lawsuits, delay after delay after delay, needless costs piled on top of needless costs, and still no homes,” he added.

“The team at O’Brien Homes should be given every credit for refusing to be bullied and sticking with this project.”

The Court of Appeal recognized the HAA’s statutory mandate to interpret and implement the HAA to “afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing” and accordingly held that the trial court “rightly refused to disturb the City’s approval of the project.”

About the decision, Sonja Trauss, President and Founder of YIMBY Law, stated, “This decision is a win for housing, but the fact that this project has taken so long is exactly why we have such a catastrophic housing shortage. The people involved with Save Lafayette should be ashamed of themselves. They have denied housing for more than 700 middle income people for the last 10 years while they fought this project. Imagine if Save Lafayette had spent their time and money actually helping people.”

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

 

Contra Costa Superior Court announces escheatment of unclaimed funds

By Leave a Comment

By Matt J. Malone, Public Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa

Per Government Code Section 68084.1, the Court intends to escheat the sum of $201,665.09 in the Court’s Operations Fund that has remained unclaimed for a period exceeding three years. For more information on the unclaimed funds, please visit the Court’s website at:

https://www.cc-courts.org/fees/unclaimedfunds.aspx

The Court has published a legal notice in the East Bay Times and has sent letters to potential owners of these funds. If you believe that you are entitled to any of the funds, you must complete and submit a Claim Affirmation Form and Claim for Reimbursement. These forms and instructions are available at the above hyperlink. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than March 24, 2023.

COVID spike causes jury selection in Contra Costa Superior Courts suspended until Jan. 14

By Leave a Comment

Cases in which a jury has already been empaneled and the trial underway, will proceed as previously scheduled.

By Allen Payton

In response to concerns of juries being cancelled as of Monday, Dec. 27, a spokesperson for the Contra Costa Superior Court provided the following explanation:

“The Court remains open and fully operational with one exception. The Court has suspended jury selection/panels out of an abundance of caution with the increased infection rate in the County having risen 165%.  This will only impact any case in which voir dire is currently underway or in cases set to begin between now and January 14th. Cases in which a jury has already been empaneled and the trial underway, shall proceed as previously scheduled.

This is a very disappointing development as the Court was making good progress in addressing the backlog of cases.

That said, the risk of exposure and infection for court employees and court users (including defendants detained in county jail) is too great for the time being in light of the new COVID-19 variant and significant rise in infection rates in Contra Costa County.

All other services remain open to the public and are functioning.”