Contra Costa Herald

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

Contra Costa DA’s Office participates in National “Wear Blue” Day to promote human trafficking awareness

By 1 Comment

Photos: CCDA

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Martinez, Calif. – Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton joined members of the DA’s Office Contra Costa Human Trafficking Taskforce on Monday to participate in the national “Wear Blue” initiative to promote Human Trafficking Awareness Month.

Images of staff members with the DA’s Office wearing blue will be shared on our office’s social media accounts with the Contra Costa County hashtag “ContraCostaWearsBlue.” Multiple agencies and individuals will be sharing images today with this hashtag to share solidarity with human trafficking victims.

A huge part of exploitation is convincing our trafficking victims that no one cares about them or what is happening to them. This helps to isolate victims and make them more reliant on an exploiter if they come to believe that the exploiter is “the only one” who cares.

“The DA’s Office wants to underscore we care about all our victims, have services and support right here in our community and will look to hold exploiters accountable,” said Becton.

If you or someone you know has information regarding any acts or suspicions of human trafficking, please call the Contra Costa County Human Trafficking tip line maintained by the Discrict Attorney’s Office: 925-957-8658.

Local resources include Community Violence Solutions 24-hour resources line (800-670-7273) and Contra Costa’s Family Justice Center (925) 521-6366). To report suspected exploitation of youth, call the CFS/Child Abuse Hotline at 1-877-881-1116.

Contra Costa County was awarded a federal grant in October 2018 to form a Human Trafficking Taskforce. The taskforce has state, federal and local law enforcement partners and prosecutors that collaborates with local community service providers to provide victims with culturally competent services and support while investigating and prosecuting cases involving sex trafficking, labor trafficking and related crimes of exploitation.

Contra Costa DA: Pittsburg Police Officers lawfully shot, killed man during 2018 standoff

By Leave a Comment

Following domestic dispute and high speed chase

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office concludes that use of deadly force in the 2018 officer involved shooting (OIS) of Salvador Morales, by Officer Kyle Baker, Sgt. Gabriel Palma, Sgt. William Hatcher, Sgt. Charles Blazer and Corporal Alex McCray was a lawful response, and was legally justified. The DA’s Office released a public report about the shooting today, Monday, Dec. 28.

That follows an April 2019 Coroner’s Inquest Jury determination that Morales died at the hands of another person, other than by accident. (See related article)

On October 22, 2018, Morales took his wife and baby son hostage. A family member attempted to intervene in the situation, but Morales drew a handgun and shot him. Morales then fled the scene and kidnapped his wife and baby son at gunpoint. Pittsburg Police officers attempted to conduct a traffic stop on his car, however, Morales refused to stop and led the officers on a 27-minute high speed chase.

Morales eventually arrived at his residence and Pittsburg Police officers negotiated with Morales for over two hours in an effort to get him to surrender. Twice he walked out of the home pointing a handgun at his head. When he refused to comply with the officer’s orders to surrender, (name the officer) fired a non-lethal, beanbag round at him in the hope of getting Morales to surrender without using deadly force. Unfortunately, the beanbag round did not stop Morales. After he was hit with the beanbag round, Morales raised his firearm and fired one bullet towards the responding officers. In turn, officers returned fire and ultimately Morales succumbed to his gunshot wounds.

The release of this report is the first under a new policy for any officer-involved shooting that results in a fatality if the DA’s Office does not file criminal charges against an officer. The DA’s Office has never consistently released reports about fatal law enforcement incidents and has never released a comprehensive report of this kind.

A criminal prosecution of the involved officers would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers were not justified in using deadly force. The DA’s Office’s conclusion that under the circumstances presented to these officers in this case, a reasonable juror would not make such a finding.

The DA’s Office and every law enforcement agency in Contra Costa County has adopted the Law Enforcement Involved Fatal Incidents Protocol (“the Protocol”) to investigate incidents when officers or civilians are shot or die during an encounter with law enforcement.

Under the Protocol, the DA’s Office investigates all officer-involved shootings in Contra Costa County for the purpose of making an independent determination of criminal liability. The sole purpose of the District Attorney investigation is to determine if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a law enforcement official committed a crime in connection with the shooting.

The OIS public report is available on our website.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Pittsburg man pleads guilty to multiple felonies including July 2020 carjacking, attempted murder

By Leave a Comment

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

On December 18, 2020, Gilberto Villegas of Pittsburg (42-years-old) pleaded no contest Attempted Murder and Carjacking related to his violent attacks on multiple victims over a two-day period in Antioch and Pittsburg during late July of 2020. Villegas also admitted to causing great bodily injury and to having a prior violent felony/ strike offense. In total, Villegas will serve 18 years in state prison for his crimes.

On the evening of July 25, 2020, Villegas approached Jane Doe 1 in a parking lot at her place of work. He pulled up his car next to the victim’s, waited until she exited the vehicle and demanded her car keys. She had attempted to leave her car and escape, Villegas brought her back to her car using physical force. The Victim then threw her car keys away in an effort to end the attempted carjacking. Villegas responded by using his own car keys to stab the victim in the neck multiple times. Fortunately, a witness came upon the attack and yelled at the defendant. He then broke off his attack and fled in his own vehicle.

The next day, Villegas approached another female victim, Jane Doe 2, in a parking lot where the victim worked. The Victim was in her car during her lunch break. He proceeded to open her car door while she was inside her vehicle and strangled her to the point where she lost consciousness. After he pushed her out the vehicle, Villegas then started the victim’s car and tried to run her over. Co-workers intervened and Villegas fled the parking lot in Jane Doe 2’s car.

As part of the criminal complaint filing against Villegas, he had a prior violent felony for a 2015 conviction for a robbery with the use of a weapon.

The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Chris Sansoe of the Victims of Violent Crimes Unit. The cases involving Villegas were investigated by the Antioch and Pittsburg Police Departments.

Case information: People v. Gilberto Villegas Docket Number 04-200031-3 and 04-200067-7.

Contra Costa DA Becton issues new policy on civil asset forfeiture cases

By Leave a Comment

Doubles minimum cash amount to $1,000; notices must be issued in multiple languages; plus more requirements

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Martinez, Calif. – Today, Dec. 15, 2020, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton formalized a new policy for civil asset forfeiture cases within the DA’s Office. In June 2019, DA Becton implemented an interim policy to address growing concerns with certain types of civil asset forfeiture cases. This interim policy is now permanent for the DA’s Office and applies to the entire county. Civil asset forfeiture cases are a civil procedure for law enforcement to seize cash and other property from suspects alleged to have ties to drug trafficking and drug sales.

The policy covers the following items:

  • A new threshold for any case, the amount seized must total at minimum $1,000 for the DA’s Office to consider using the civil asset forfeiture process. Previously, under prior administrations, the amount seized could be as low as $500 for the office to initiate civil asset forfeiture proceedings.
  • The seizing law enforcement agency must serve a Notice of Non-Judicial Forfeiture Proceedings and a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on any person who has, or may have, an interest in the seized property. Under this new policy and for the first-time, this notice is now required to be translated into multiple languages, including Spanish and Mandarin.
  • A criminal case will accompany any civil asset forfeiture proceeding. This will align the DA’s Office charging standards to mirror all criminal cases. Some exceptions include:
  • If the property is abandoned or not claimed, then our policy would not apply.
  • Where the property subject to forfeiture is claimed by a third party who does not appear to own the property or have an interest in the property.

“The community rightfully has tremendous concerns about the use of the civil asset forfeiture process by law enforcement. I have listened to the concerns and instituted this new policy on a permanent basis. We must only use civil asset forfeiture when absolutely necessary and in conjunction with a criminal case,” Becton stated.

Antioch man charged with distribution and aggravated possession of child pornography

By 1 Comment

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Shawn Jamison Prichard. Photo: CCDA

Martinez, Calif. – On Thursday, December 10, 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed felony child pornography charges against 41-year-old Antioch resident Shawn Jamison Prichard. Prichard is charged with three counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of aggravated possession of child pornography.

Aggravated possession is defined as any person who, with knowledge of its contents, possesses one hundred (100) or more separate materials depicting child pornography shall be, upon conviction, guilty of aggravated possession of child pornography.

On December 9, 2020, the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force served a search warrant in the 2400 block of Mammoth Way in Antioch. During the service of the search warrant, several items of digital evidence were reviewed which contained child pornography. As a result, Prichard was taken into custody and booked the Martinez Detention Facility. Prichard’s bail was set by the court at $1,000,000. Prichard remains in the custody of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. Prichard appeared in court for his arraignment on Friday December 11, 2020.

The Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is managed by the San Jose Police Department. In Contra Costa County, detectives and investigators from the Walnut Creek, Concord, Martinez, Brentwood and Moraga Police Departments, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Contra Costa County Probation Department and Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office participate in the task force along with Special Agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service.

Parents are encouraged to discuss online safety with their children and can visit the website www.kidsmartz.org for further information. If you believe your school or community organization would benefit from a smartphone and social media awareness presentation, please contact the District Attorney’s Office at DA-Office@contracostada.org.

Anyone with information about this investigation is encouraged to contact Senior Inspector Darryl Holcombe at 925-957-8757 or dholcombe@contracostada.org.

Case information: People v. Prichard Docket Number 04-200770-6

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Writer, private investigator questions investigation, prosecution in 15-year-old murder of Lafayette woman

By 12 Comments

She was the wife of a famous attorney; writer claims neighbor was falsely accused and wrongly convicted, case should be investigated by DA’s Conviction Integrity Unit

Dear Editor:

Fifteen years ago, Lafayette resident Pamela Vitale was repeatedly and savagely bludgeoned, and stabbed numerous times within her home by those responsible for her violent death. I believe, and am of the opinion, that it was an incomplete, flawed, inadequate, and unfortunately misdirected investigation(s), initial defenses and prosecution. In the investigations’ haste the neighborhood’s poor teenager, Scott Dyleski, was quickly and questionably focused on as being the responsible party, to the exclusion of any others, even though law enforcement’s own leads and evidence suggested someone else, perhaps even two others, was/were responsible for her brutal death.

Vitale was the wife of famed attorney David Horowitz and friend of television host and legal commentator, Nancy Grace, who ran an episode about the case during a TV show, last year. Horowitz was an early suspect in the murder.

It is my opinion and belief that this murder case, with some notoriety involved, was where much investigative evidence was ignored and/or discounted in order to quickly bring someone forward as the responsible before the numerous news media and press that had pounced on the case. Scott Dyleski unfortunately was brought before the public and prosecuted as the responsible!

Years ago, I was hired by Scott Dyleski’s two appeals attorneys for the purposes of assisting them in their representation of Scott Dyleski’s conviction appeals and defense. it was my impression then, and still is, that the killing of Pamela Vitale was a personal rage type of murder by one who closely interacted with and knew her.

This very brief summary position is of my case analysis, evidence, investigation, opinion and beliefs, concerning the then investigations, defense and prosecution of the quickly suspected, accused, and I believe wrongly convicted Scott Dyleski in the vicious murder of Pamela Vitale. Scott Dyleski has been incarcerated for 15 years for a crime that he is seriously believed to NOT have committed, with the responsible(s) having yet to be clearly identified by law enforcement, held accountable, or brought to justice.

There’s so much that the case suggests and points to as to the sequence of events that fateful day. One significant part is, I truly believe, based upon the information and evidence, that the brutal victimization of Pamela Vitale was not a single continuation of events. No, the evidence points to there having been separate phases that ultimately led to her violent and savage unwarranted death. This I say with my own 50-plus years of hands-on public safety investigative training and experiences, which includes numerous Homicide investigations. I have been a state certified Homicide Investigator since 1980.

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office reported in June 2019 that it had established the Conviction Integrity Unit to review cases where it’s suspected that someone may have been convicted of a crime that they did not commit. I quickly submitted a request in writing to the D.A.’s unit and to the Public Defender’s Office over a year ago. I haven’t heard from them since. This case definitely cries out for such reopening and renewed investigation of the case, including both the defense’s and prosecution’s involvements. I believe, and am of the opinion, that it was a serious injustice and unfortunately misdirected case investigation(s), his defense and prosecution.

It is my opinion and belief that this case cries out for a full and proper reopening and re-investigation of the case, including the activities of the police, the defense’s and the prosecution’s involvements. Not only is Scott Dyleski the loser in all of this but so is the foundation of our society wherein we all are entitled to a just and equal expectation of a fair, complete, and unbiased administration of Justice. Pamela Vitale’s death and Scott Dyleski deserve real Justice!

Your assistance in demanding such from the D.A.’s Office and Public Defender’s Office is more than warranted. Fifteen years of Scott’s young life has already been denied him and he still faces many more if this very serious matter is again just ignored by all. Her murder deserves that the whole truth is determined, not ignored! And those really responsible should be brought to justice!

Ralph A. Hernandez

Antioch

 

Contra Costa DA Becton supports one-sided bill limiting police union influence in elections

By Leave a Comment

First-in-the-nation legislation labeled “Cure the Conflict” to require prosecutors recuse themselves from investigating, prosecuting police misconduct if they’ve received campaign contributions from police unions

Does not include similar provisions for contributions from criminal defense attorneys

Becton wants to take it further and ban contributions from police unions to DA candidates; refuses to answer questions

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

By Allen Payton

In her continued effort to limit the influence of police unions in supporting and electing candidates for district attorney, Contra Costa DA offered support on Friday, Oct. 23 for the bill by California State Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) that will require elected prosecutors to recuse themselves from the investigation and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct if they accept financial contributions from law enforcement unions.  The legislation will be sponsored by the Prosecutors Alliance of California and co-sponsored by numerous District Attorneys.  It will be introduced when the new legislative session convenes in December.

“This is about trust in law enforcement, and trust in the independence of our elected prosecutors,” said Bonta.  “As people across our cities, states and our nation have come together to raise their voices and demand greater justice, we must cure the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police are not held accountable due to the proximity and political influence of law enforcement associations and unions.”

“Now, more than ever, prosecutors have the responsibility to promote equal justice and build trust with the communities we serve. In order to do that, we must eliminate the conflict of interest existing when elected prosecutors accept police union support,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.  “It is only when prosecutors are not financially beholden to law enforcement unions that the public can be confident in the decisions prosecutors make about holding police officers accountable.”

“Law enforcement unions generally finance the legal representation of an accused officer, and when prosecutors receive financial support from the entity funding the defense a conflict of interest arises for elected prosecutors,” said Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton.  “To restore trust in law enforcement we must cure this conflict.”

Recently, the Prosecutors Alliance of California called on the State Bar to create a new rule of professional responsibility to preclude prosecutors from taking police union money.  The Alliance took this step in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in an effort to increase the independence of prosecutors from police. The State Bar is scheduled to reconvene tomorrow to continue discussions on the topic.

According to a June 1st press release from Becton’s office, “The Prosecutors Alliance of California is a non-profit organization that provides public education, support and training to prosecutors and their offices. The Prosecutors Alliance of California Action Fund is a social welfare organization that advocates for criminal justice reform legislation, engages and educates the public on criminal justice ballot measures, and supports candidates for state and local office who advocate for comprehensive reforms to our justice system.” (See related article)

The bill by Bonta to be considered by the Legislature will take a different path. Rather than precluding prosecutors from soliciting or accepting law enforcement union contributions as Becton supported earlier this year, it requires a prosecutor that accepts a law enforcement union’s contribution to recuse themselves from the decision-making process if one of the organization’s members is suspected of criminal conduct. In such cases, the State Attorney General’s Office would be asked to handle the case.  This will help reassure family members, community stakeholders and the public that decisions are made based on the facts and the law, not political horse trading and back scratching.

According to Becton and Bonta, “by closing this loophole, the Legislature will reduce the presence of conflicts of interest and ensure independence on the part of elected prosecutors. This legislation also aspires to help reestablish community trust in the integrity of prosecutors at a time when national events have damaged that trust.”

A question was sent to Becton on Oct. 23 asking her if she also supports DA’s recusing themselves from cases involving prosecution of public defenders or criminal defense attorneys who have contributed to the campaigns of elected prosecutors.

That was along the same lines of the questions sent through Scott Alonso, her department’s public information officer, earlier this year to which Becton never responded. She was asked specifically, will she try to ban political campaign contributions to DA candidates from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders and not just police unions?

Following is the email message with questions sent to Alonso for Becton on June 1 regarding her press release entitled, “LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERS CALL ON STATE BAR TO CREATE NEW ETHICS RULE TO END THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND POLICE UNIONS – New Ethics Rule Would Help Restore the Independence, Integrity, and Trust of Elected Prosecutors by Preventing Them From Taking Donations From Police Unions”

“Scott,

Please ask DA Becton to clarify her comment because it’s not clear what she’s trying to say and answer my questions, below.

“The legal representation of an accused officer is generally financed by their law enforcement union,” said Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton.  “It is illogical that the rules prohibit prosecutors from soliciting and benefiting from financial and political support from an accused officer’s advocate in court, while enabling the prosecutor to benefit financially and politically from the accused’s advocate in public.”

Is she saying that currently a prosecutor cannot solicit and benefit from financial and political support from an attorney representing a police officer accused of a crime while in court or during the court case? But the police officer’s attorney can support the prosecutor financially and politically when not in court or during the court case?

Please clarify who the accused is in her comment about the “accused’s advocate”. I assume it’s the same accused officer she refers to twice before in her comment. But, not sure.

Also, are she and the rest of the DA’s willing to forgo any financial contributions from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? How about no financial support from any organization and only from individuals who live within their counties? How far should this go to ensure fairness in prosecutions? Isn’t this really one-sided? Also, if the police unions have so much influence in our county and they all backed Becton’s opponent in the last election how did she still win? Isn’t she in effect attempting to violate the free speech rights – which political campaign contributions have been defined as by the courts – of the police unions?

Alonso responded that because the questions were political, he could not respond, even though the press release was sent from the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office through his email account. Further efforts asking him to forward the questions to Becton and getting her to respond were unsuccessful.

The latest question about the proposed legislation by Bonta and the questions from June 1st were sent to Becton’s personal email address on Friday, Oct. 23

Previously, a phone call to her was made asking her about the issue, but Becton was watching a Zoom meeting and said she didn’t have time to discuss it.

To date, Becton has yet to answer any of the questions posed to her about her efforts to only limit the influence of police unions in elections for district attorneys and not also limit the influence by criminal defense attorneys.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County contributed to this report.

Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., to pay $1.49 million settlement for environmental violations

By Leave a Comment

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County 

Martinez, Calif. – On Tuesday, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton announces a $1,498,750 settlement against New Jersey-based Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (“Bed Bath & Beyond”) as part of a settlement of a civil environmental prosecution.

The judgment is the culmination of a civil enforcement lawsuit filed last month in Ventura County Superior Court claiming that more than 200 Bed Bath & Beyond stores throughout the state (including Cost Plus, buybuy BABY, Harmon, Harmon Face Values, World Market, and Cost Plus World Market stores) unlawfully handled, transported and disposed of batteries, electronic devices, ignitable liquids, aerosol products, cleaning agents, and other flammable, reactive, toxic, and corrosive materials, at local landfills that were not permitted to receive those wastes.

“The protection of our environment and public health is always a top priority. This settlement acts as a deterrent to other companies as non-compliant companies will be held accountable for violating our environmental laws,” stated DA Becton.

The investigation was initiated by the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office after a fire broke out on December 24, 2015 at the City of Oxnard’s Del Norte Transfer Facility in a load of store waste from the trash compactor of the Oxnard Bed Bath and Beyond store. The bagged store waste burst into flames when a city employee used a front-end loader to spread the freshly dumped trash pile. Investigation recovered numerous items of regulated waste, including several electronic items and hazardous waste, including lithium batteries and a small can of lighter fluid.

Following these Ventura County events, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office worked in conjunction with 30 other California District Attorneys, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, and local environmental regulatory officials to conduct a series of undercover inspections of Bed Bath & Beyond store waste around the state. These inspections, and other investigation, revealed that Bed Bath & Beyond sending regulated hazardous wastes from stores to local landfills throughout California.

When notified of the investigation, Bed Bath and Beyond took steps to cooperate and to dedicate additional resources towards environmental compliance and improving its existing regulated-waste management program, including by performing regular self-audits of its compactors and waste bins in California.

Under the final judgment, Bed Bath & Beyond must pay $1,327,500 in civil penalties and as reimbursement of investigation and prosecution costs, of which $124,000 will be paid to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, $16,400,to the Contra Costa County, Health Services Dept., Hazardous Materials Program. The company will pay an additional $171,250 to fund supplemental environmental projects furthering environmental enforcement in California. The retailer will also be bound under the terms of a permanent injunction prohibiting similar future violations of law.

Ross Farca facing hate crimes against Jewish community makes death threat against Concord Police Detective

By 1 Comment

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Suspect Ross Farca. Herald file photo.

Earlier this week, defendant Ross Farca was held to answer on multiple felony counts, including a hate crime enhancement and threat against the primary investigating officer. Due to the public safety risks posed by Farca, Hon. Judge Nancy Stark ordered Farca’s bail forfeited and that he will remain in custody at no bail. (See related article)

The Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office initially filed a criminal complaint against Farca in June 2019 for online threats he made against the Jewish on the gaming platform Steam. With notification from the FBI, the Concord Police Department executed a search warrant predicated upon Farca’s IP address. During the search of Farca’s residence, a fully automatic assault weapon was in his possession.

Two weeks ago, while the ongoing preliminary hearing was in recess, Farca allegedly threatened to kill a Concord Police Department detective during a federal probation search of Farca’s new residence. Predicated upon that threat, additional charges were subsequently filed and presented when the preliminary hearing resumed.

Overall, during the preliminary hearing, evidence presented demonstrated Farca was targeting the Jewish community with his threats, and that Farca had a strong affinity and connection to mass shootings targeting places of worship. Such evidence sufficiently established that the conduct warranted a hate crime enhancement.

Farca will be arraigned on November 10.

Case information: People v. Ross Anthony Farca, Docket Number 01-190-284-0

In addition, Farca was charged in November 2019 by the U.S. Attorney with making false statements to gain admittance into the military. (See related article)

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

DA’s Office: anonymous political website gives false information on Corruption Unit investigation of Moraga town manager

By 2 Comments

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Cynthia Battenberg Moraga Town Manager. From Town of Moraga website.

Recently, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office became aware of a website allegedly run by “Citizens for a Fair East Bay” with false and misleading information regarding town officials in the Town of Moraga and our Office’s involvement with these officials.

Moreover, this anonymous website proclaims a complaint was filed regarding the Town Manager of Moraga. This statement is misleading – our Office has not filed any criminal or civil actions against the Town Manager. Further, the use of our Office logo and website was not authorized by our Office in this manner.

In September, our Office’s public corruption unit received a confidential request to investigative a potential crime. A thorough investigation was conducted, and no further enforcement action was deemed warranted. The matter was closed – no action is being taken by our Office regarding the Town Manager of Moraga.

Asked who handled the investigation and what it entailed, Alonso responded, “DDA Steve Bolen is the attorney who handles these types of cases. We do not comment about the specifics of an investigation like this.”

Further questions were sent to Alonso asking if after an investigation has been completed the DA’s office can’t share how they determined that the claims are baseless and if the evidence isn’t public. He responded, “it will depend on the investigation but generally for these types of investigations we do not comment. Given the website contained false information we felt we had to issue some sort of public statement.”

Allen Payton contributed to this report.