Contra Costa Herald

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

Golden State Killer arrested for attacks in late 1970’s in Contra Costa to plead guilty Monday to multiple murders, kidnappings, admit to rapes, more

By 3 Comments

By Allen Payton

Golden State Killer suspect Joseph DeAngelo in his arrest photo from August 2018. Photo courtesy of Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office.

A court hearing in the case of the People vs. Joseph James DeAngelo, known as the East Area Rapist and Golden State Killer, will be held in Sacramento on Monday, June 29, 2020. He is expected to plead guilty “to 13 murder and 13 kidnap for robbery counts, as well as admit responsibility for 62 other rapes and crimes that prosecutors say were committed in 11 California counties from 1974 through 1986,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Those include felonies from his alleged attacks of kidnapping during the course of a robbery in Contra Costa County from 1978 to 1979. It is reported DeAngelo’s plea will spare him from the death penalty.

The 74-year-old former Auburn Police Officer was arrested at his Citrus Heights home in August 2018 and the Contra Costa DA’s Office announced that he had been charged with his alleged crimes in this county, that same week. For thos crimes in Contra Costa County DeAngelo could have faced four life sentences plus ten years, if he was convicted. (See related Herald article)

The cases were prosecuted jointly by the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office and Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office in Sacramento County. The joint prosecution also included cases from Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Tulare Counties. An amended complaint, charging crimes from all six counties was also filed in August 2018.

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton will participate in a multi-agency press conference immediately following the hearing, at approximately 3:00 p.m., that day. She will be joined by Orange County D.A. Todd Spitzer, Sacramento County D.A. Anne Marie Schubert, Santa Barbara County D.A. Joyce Dudley, Tulare County D.A. Tim Ward and Ventura County D.A. Gregory Totten.

The court hearing is expected to begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be livestreamed on Sacramento Superior Court’s YouTube for Department 24 linked here. The press conference will be livestreamed on the Sacramento County District Attorney’s YouTube channel linked here. Both the court hearing and the press conference will be held in the Sacramento State Ballroom, large enough to accommodate the over 150 victims, their families and the media and due to the concerns of the coronavirus and need for social distancing.

DA charges former Contra Costa County Clerk Canciamilla with 34 felonies for perjury & grand theft related to campaign accounts

By 2 Comments

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Joe Canciamilla

Martinez, Calif. — Today, Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint of 34 felonies against defendant Joseph Canciamilla of Pittsburg. Canciamilla is the former Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder and a former county supervisor and assemblymember. He also created a campaign account for Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge. Canciamilla is also a licensed member of the California State Bar. Canciamilla’s first court appearance will be on July 27 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31.

Canciamilla is accused of 30 felony counts of perjury for his alleged misstatements on 30 separate campaign disclosure statements (Form 460s). Canciamilla signed these campaign finance statements under the penalty of perjury. The additional four felony counts relate to personal grand theft of campaign funds for his personal use, totaling $261,800.68. The allegations span conduct from 2010 to 2016.

The personal expenditures made by Canciamilla’s campaign committees for the defendant’s own use were for various purposes, such as:

  • Personal vacation to Asia
  • Restaurants
  • Airfare via Southwest Airlines and American Airlines
  • Repayment of a Personal Loan
  • Transfers from his Campaign Bank Accounts to his Personal Accounts

All of these campaign statements started initially in 2010 with Canciamilla not reporting investment gains in a campaign bank account. While this practice is permissible, using the proceeds of any stock gains for personal use is prohibited. Canciamilla concealed from his Form 460s the gains and losses associated with this investment account. Ultimately, Canciamilla spent more on personal expenses than the unreported investment gains. He therefore had to then transfer personal funds into this campaign bank account to make up the difference.

“In total, the false statements signed by Canciamilla omitted critical information from the campaign finance disclosures. The information left off these forms left the public in the dark about how a candidate and then county-wide elected official spent campaign funds. Given the recent history of misconduct by various elected officials in Contra Costa County, Canciamilla’s behavior is troubling and he must be held accountable,” stated Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton.

The DA’s Office was notified of possible criminal activity associated with Canciamilla’s campaign accounts in early 2017 by the Franchise Tax Board. The criminal investigation by the DA’s Office included hundreds of hours examining seven different bank accounts held by the defendant. The two primary financial institutions Canciamilla used were Contra Costa Federal Credit Union and Charles Schwab.

Ultimately, Canciamilla was fined $150,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission in a civil stipulation for the multiple errors in his campaign finance statements, which concealed the personal use of campaign funds for his own benefit.

The statements signed by Canciamilla included various campaign accounts, such as his campaign account for judge (“Friends of Joe Canciamilla for Judge 2012” and campaign account for clerk-recorder (“Joe Canciamilla Canciamilla for Contra Costa County Clerk/Recorder”). See related articles on this matter, here and here.

 

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton issues statement on murder of George Floyd

By 4 Comments

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

Today, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton issued a statement regarding the murder of George Floyd:

“I am heartbroken and horrified by the murder of George Floyd and the other unjust deaths of Black men and women in this country. As the chief law enforcement official of Contra Costa, I took an oath to ensure justice for everyone under the law. The fight for justice does not end at the borders of our County or in our communities. We all have a responsibility to speak out against and eradicate injustices wherever we find them. The officers responsible for the murder of George Floyd must be held accountable.

The right to peacefully assemble and protest are a vital part of the fabric of this nation, and the majority of participants have been peaceful and even inspiring. I am disappointed that the righteous marches and gatherings are being infiltrated and hijacked by a small minority of people with other agendas. The individuals who are exploiting the pain, and the cause of so many in our community by committing acts of violence and destruction will be held accountable. We must not let the acts of the detractors deter us from the issue at hand. We must never stop working to eradicate racism and bring about systematic change throughout all systems, especially in our criminal justice system. I will continue to fight for criminal justice reform not only just in Contra Costa but throughout this nation.”

Contra Costa District Attorney, others want to prevent police unions from contributing to DA candidates during elections

By 2 Comments

Call on state bar to create a new ethics rule claiming it “would help restore the independence, integrity, and trust of elected prosecutors by preventing them from taking donations from police unions.”

“They’re trying to hamper pro-law enforcement candidates who will run against them” – law enforcement official (who chose to remain anonymous)

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

SAN FRANCISCO – Today, Monday, June 1, 2020, in the wake of mass protests following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, a coalition of current and former elected prosecutors representing millions of Californians in diverse counties banded together to call on the California State Bar to cure the conflict of interest created by police unions’ outsized influence in local elections.  The new rule would explicitly preclude elected prosecutors – or prosecutors seeking election – from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions. (Read letter, here).

“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.”

“District Attorneys will undoubtedly review use of force incidents involving police officers,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. “When they do, the financial and political support of these unions should not be allowed to influence that decision making.”

“When videos emerge like the one depicting the killing of George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery, the damage it does to the entire criminal justice system cannot be overstated,” said former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón. “That damage, however, is further compounded by delays in the condemnation, arrest, and charging of the involved law enforcement officers. These feelings, these protests, and the pain we’re seeing, would not be as raw and widespread if we had seen police held accountable by local prosecutors quickly and with regularity.  An important step in curing this pain is curing the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police do not face consequences swiftly – or at all – due to the proximity and political influence of their union.”

“We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us to restore trust in our profession, but trust must be earned, it cannot be demanded,” said San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar.  “The first step to earning that trust back is ensuring the independence of county prosecutors is beyond reproach.”

Prosecutors are in a unique position of having to work closely with law enforcement and simultaneously evaluate whether crimes have been committed by these same officers.  Recent events involving police misconduct in which prosecutors either delayed or failed to file charges have shined a light on the importance of prosecutors making decisions regarding law enforcement officers’ conduct without any undue influence or bias.  Yet when prosecutors initiate an investigation or prosecution of an officer, the law enforcement unions often finance the legal representation of the accused officer. Prosecutors who have received an endorsement from the entity that is funding the defense of the officers being investigated or prosecuted creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest for elected prosecutors.

By precluding elected prosecutors—or prosecutors seeking election—from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions, the State Bar will reduce the presence of conflicts of interest and ensure independence on the part of elected prosecutors.  This proposal also aspires to help reestablish community trust in the integrity of prosecutors at a time when national events have damaged that trust.

For more information, follow #CureTheConflict.

In response, the following questions were sent to Becton’s public information officer, Scott Alonso:

“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?

June 2 UPDATE: Alonso responded with, “Any questions about political contributions I cannot answer as a public employee. You would need to direct those to DA Becton’s campaign.”

This reporter then emailed him, “Please pass on my questions to DA Becton. I’m not asking you to answer them. I’m asking for her to.”

Alonso responded, “Her statement speaks for itself. Not sure what else to provide. Her reference to the advocate is the law enforcement union.”

A further email was sent to him with, “Her statement and the effort is clearly one sided and doesn’t answer my questions that I emailed you. Did you pass on my questions to her?  If not can you, please? I really don’t want to have to write that she’s refusing to answer them. Surely neither you nor she expects the media to just run press releases on controversial matters unchallenged and without question.

Thanks for the partial answer to my one question. But it still doesn’t clarify what she’s saying in that quote. How would a prosecutor solicit and benefit from financial and political support of a law enforcement union in court? I seriously don’t understand that.

I really need to hear back from her on the questions I sent. I don’t want to just write she refused to respond.”

Alonso responded with, “With all respect we do answer your questions. Your comment that this ‘effort is one side’ is odd. Not sure what you mean by that. There are standards in place for prosecutors in terms of receiving or benefitting from opposing defense counsel. This is outlined in the letter that you were provided. In terms of any questions on donations I cannot answer that as I have said.”

This reporter further responded by email with, “Yes, in the past you’ve answered my questions and I appreciate that. But I’m talking about this press release on a very controversial, political issue, which is rare if not the only one I recall ever receiving from you.

About the effort being one sided, that’s because all the DA’s and former DA quoted in the press release are attempting to silence one side in the political battle for who should be elected DA. Diana wasn’t backed by any of the police unions in the county, if I recall. They backed her opponent, DDA Paul Graves. Now she’s trying to prevent police unions from contributing to her potential opponents in future elections in effectively silencing their voice during a political campaign. Yet, I don’t see anything in the press release in which she or the other DA’s call for limiting the contributions to candidates from those on the criminal defense side.

Again, I’m not asking you to answer my questions. I’m asking you to pass along my questions to DA Becton, who as an elected official can answer them and should. You sent out on official CCDA letterhead a press release about a political matter. Frankly, that should have gone out on her campaign letterhead if you or she aren’t going to answer questions about it.

Now, please quit being a gatekeeper for her and pass on my questions to her. Another day has passed since you sent me the press release and I still don’t have but one question answered.

I’m trying not to go around you. I do have her cell phone number and have called her before when it was after hours. But I am avoiding calling her. I guess I’ll have to if I can’t get you to simply forward my questions to her.

So, let’s please stop the back and forth. I’m not asking you any questions about a political matter. I’m asking her.”

No response to that email was received.

When reached for comment, Becton said she was in a meeting and to “send questions to Scott.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report and responses from the DA.

Clayton resident charged with arranging to meet a minor girl for sex

By 1 Comment

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Suspect Daniel Steven Paul arrest photo. Courtesy of CCDA.

On Thursday May 21, 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office charged 40-year-old Clayton resident Daniel Steven Paul with multiple violations including attempted lewd acts with a minor, unlawful communications with a minor and arranging to meet a minor for sex.

In early May, investigators from the County’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force learned Paul had been the subject of an investigation in a foreign country, in which Paul distributed harmful material to a person he believed to be a minor. The investigation led agents to begin talking with Paul via text message and soon after making contact with him, Paul began to attempt to entice what he believed to be a 14-year-old girl into meeting with him for sex.

On May 20, 2020, Paul went to Hidden Lakes Park in Martinez with the intention of engaging in sex acts with a minor. He was taken into custody and booked at the Martinez Detention Facility. A search of his vehicle revealed he brought condoms and alcohol to the meeting.

Paul remains in the custody of the Contra Costa County Sheriff. His bail is currently set at $250,000. Paul will make his first court appearance in Superior Court on May 22, 2020.

This investigation was conducted by the multi-agency Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which is managed by the San Jose Police Department. In Contra Costa County, detectives and investigators from the Walnut Creek, Martinez, San Ramon, Danville, Pleasant Hill, Concord and Moraga Police Departments, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, United States Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, the Contra Costa County Probation Department, and Inspectors from the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office participate in the task force.

Since the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order went into effect, law enforcement from around the United States have noted a significant increase in the number on online child exploitation reports. Many of these cases involve adult suspects grooming minors into taking explicit images of themselves. Parents are encouraged to be on heightened alert for this behavior and take steps to both monitor their child’s online activity and having candid conversations with their children about the dangers of smartphone use.

Parents seeking additional resources can visit www.kidsmartz.org or the website for the Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children task Force at www.svicac.org. Reports of illegal activity involving minor victims on the internet should be reported at once to your local police department.

Case information: People v. Paul, Docket Number 01-193687-1

DA: Enough evidence against Danville karate coach for sex crimes against children to go to trial

By Leave a Comment

Will remain in custody while awaiting trial

Ramon Pruitt. Photo by Danville PD.

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Martinez, Calif. – On April 21, 2020, the Honorable Patricia Scanlon found there to be enough evidence against defendant Ramon Pruitt (63-years-old) during his preliminary hearing for his case to proceed to trial. In total, Pruitt is facing eight felonies counts for sex crimes against children. Judge Scanlon agreed with our Office’s request to keep Pruitt in custody as he awaits trial. He is in custody on $500,000 bail. (See related article)

Pruitt of San Geronimo, California is a local karate instructor and operated Danville Karate International. The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office is working closely with the Danville Police Department on the case.

The criminal investigation into Pruitt’s activities associated with Danville Karate International is ongoing. There may be additional victims in addition to the two victims associated with the criminal charges in this case. Anyone with information should contact the Danville Police Department Detective Daniel Lynch at 925-314-3711.

Pruitt’s alleged offenses occurred as far back as 2013 and as recently as January of this year. The preliminary hearing conveyed evidence involving two male victims, both minors at the time of the allegations.

Case information: People v. Ramon Pruitt, Docket Number 01-193129-4.

Sheriff, DA asked to make exception for jailing, prosecuting man with machete arrested by Brentwood Police Saturday morning

By 5 Comments

Security camera video screenshot of Adam Scott Ortega with what appears to be a machete on Saturday morning, April 11, 2020. Posted on Facebook by resident and victim Voltaire Apse.

Cited for misdemeanors and released, after menacing family twice in the same night; “We’ll get it submitted to the DA” – Brentwood Police Chief Tom Hansen 

By Allen Payton

In an effort to get the man put in jail, who Brentwood Police arrested early Saturday morning for vandalism after menacing a family outside their front door, twice and once with a machete at 4:00 a.m., and stealing their security cameras, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office said they will consider the case once the police send it to them.

“We are still filing cases but only if they are serious or violent felonies and certain misdemeanors, like domestic violence,” wrote Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer for the Contra Costa District Attorney on Thursday, “Brentwood PD can bring the case over to us for a filing decision. They have a year to do so if it is a misdemeanor and three years for a felony. For this instance, they did not bring the case over for our review given the ongoing crisis and impacts on the court. Since March 30 we have been able to file only the most serious cases.”

“We are working well with our justice partners to reduce the threat of COVID-19 among our jails,” he continued. “We are doing the following with our partners (Sheriff, Public Defender, Probation and Courts): Delayed the prosecution of non-violent crimes and other crimes which do not impact Public Safety; Identified and released elderly and vulnerable inmates whose release does not impact Public Safety; and Arranged the early release of inmates with less than 60 days left to serve in their sentences.”

Later Saturday morning, the homeowner, Voltaire Apse, posted a comment to the Brentwood Police Facebook page along with a screenshot of the surveillance video of the man, showing a scene that appeared to be straight out of a horror movie, which was shared on social media and with the Herald late Tuesday night. Apse explained the frightening ordeal he and his family experienced.

A KTVU Fox 2 news report on Wednesday showed the surveillance video of the man approaching the residents’ front door with a machete in hand and stealing the surveillance cameras. The report claimed the man wasn’t taken to county jail due to COVID-19 concerns and was merely cited for misdemeanors and released.

Then according to a KPIX CBS 5 news report on Thursday, the Brentwood Police explained why they had only charged the man with misdemeanors of vandalism, for stealing the family’s security cameras and slashing one of the tires on their car, citing and then releasing him. That’s because they weren’t aware the man had a machete, since the homeowner hadn’t shared that information.

Screenshots of security camera video of suspect Adam Scott Ortega on the porch of Voltaire Apse’ home, early Saturday morning, April 11, 2020 without a machete visible in his hand. Photos posted by BPD on their Facebook page Thursday, April 16.

“We didn’t know about the machete until later,” said Brentwood Police Chief Tom Hansen Thursday evening.

The suspect’s name is Adam Scott Ortega.

“We know this guy. He’s a regular,” the chief stated. “That was a poor Channel 2 news report that people weren’t going to jail (because of COVID-19). The picture was scary. We arrested him.”

“Even if it wasn’t COVID-19, possession of a machete isn’t a crime,” Hansen explained. “You have to brandish or assault someone with it. It was a misleading story that got everyone worked up. That’s why I got on it, this morning. I got messages out to the city council. We put it out on our Facebook page.”

“The county chiefs talked to the sheriff, today and we talked about these kinds of cases,” he shared. “The sheriff is very supportive of the chiefs, as is the DA. We’ll get it sent to the DA. We have to meet certain elements of crime in order to arrest and charge someone. We didn’t recover a machete. We don’t know if he wasn’t using it to pry off something. He stole some stuff. It looks like a machete. He didn’t threaten anyone. He did scare some people. I would have been scared, too if he came to my house.”

Asked if the case was sent over to the DA’s office, Hansen replied, “not today, but it will go over with the misdemeanors. I’m hoping with the information that I released, today that it didn’t take 15 minutes to get there, it took five minutes, then it took a minute and 30 seconds to get there (the second time), it will help alleviate some concern in the community.”

The post on the Brentwood Police Department’s Facebook page reads as follows:

“We are receiving a lot of feedback about a story on social media and the local news that has raised concerns with some in the community. And, that response is understandable given the partial information that has been reported.

The story involved a suspect, holding a machete, who was on the front porch of a Brentwood home, who vandalized the property, and ultimately was arrested and cited by our officers for a misdemeanor and not taken to county jail.

But, there is a key element missing from this story.

As far as our officers were concerned when they responded that morning, there was no machete. Nor was there any reason to think a machete was part of this incident. The homeowner did not report that the man had a machete. The photos from the video surveillance the homeowner provided did not show the suspect holding a machete. When officers found the suspect, he wasn’t holding a machete.

The photos attached to this post are the images the officers saw that morning.

It was only on the NEXT DAY that we were provided a new portion of the video by the homeowner showing the suspect holding a machete.

It was clearly a traumatic night for the homeowner and his family. Often times, in situations like this, important information does not come out immediately and, given the dramatic nature of these events, that’s not unreasonable.

At the time, what our officers were confronted with was a suspect that had knocked on the homeowner’s door shortly after 2 AM, was seen on-camera wearing a mask and looking into cars, he slashed a car tire, and had damaged and removed two security cameras.

Officers responded within five minutes but the suspect was not there. He did return to the home at around 4 AM, and this time our officers, responded in one minute and found the suspect near the home.

All of the stolen items, which were returned to the homeowner, were valued at $300. Under state law this is petty theft, a misdemeanor. He was arrested but released with a notice to appear in court. This is how petty theft and vandalism investigations are currently handled.

If the officers had information at the time about a machete, it could have altered the outcome of the investigation and arrest. This new evidence will be delivered to the District Attorney’s Office for further consideration of additional charges.

In addition, we are working under this new directive provided by Sheriff Livingston to all Contra Costa Police Agencies:

‘The highest risk of exposure and spread of the virus will come from arrestees brought into the facility. Therefore, the Office of the Sheriff will only be accepting arrestees charged with felony on-view crimes and warrants, domestic violence related misdemeanors, and restraining order violations. We ask all arresting agencies make reasonable efforts to limit the number of transports to the Martinez Detention Facility by exercising authority to cite release in the field in lieu of transporting and booking. If exceptions to this policy become necessary, please have your on-duty supervisor or watch commander contact the jail supervisor or sheriff’s office watch commander to discuss.’

We have received several questions as to how we would allow an armed person with a machete get away.

We hope this provides an understanding of what we did, and why, given the information we had at the time.

Sometimes the law can be very frustrating and confusing, but know that we will always do our utmost to provide our community with the best service possible.”

Apse responded to the post by the Brentwood Police in a post on his own Facebook page, Thursday evening, writing:

“After the officers left (that would be approximately between 4:30-5am) I took time to review my video footage. That was when I saw the suspect holding the machete and was attempting to get inside the house. (Banging on the door). Right after this, I downloaded the video footage, and sent it via text message right away to the responding officer. I sent the message exactly at 6:48 am. She did not respond to me. This is not the NEXT DAY.

This was just a couple of hours after the incident. I even called her once around 10am, she did not respond. So, I called BPD exactly at 10:15am. I was told that the only person who can help was the responding officer herself. So, whoever answered the phone transfered [sic] me to the responding officers voice mail. Around 6:45pm, she was calling me and left a voice message stating that she received the video I sent earlier that day.

So, that means, she acknowledged that I informed her about the machete, on the same day. Eventually, late that evening, I was able to talk on the phone with the responding officer and she said she will add the machete incident to the case.”

Reached for comment about the incident on Wednesday night, Brentwood Mayor Bob Taylor said he would call the police chief Thursday morning, and Councilwoman Claudette Staton said she would call District Attorney Diana Becton on Thursday, as well.

“The Chief of Police got right on it,” Taylor said on Thursday. “He heard from the city manager. He covered every detail of what we were upset about. He did a recap of what happened, and he took action where it was appropriate” and now the case is going to be sent to the DA’s office.

“There’s even more to the story. The Sheriff’s Office wouldn’t take him,” Taylor added. “And they’re letting out the criminals. I don’t want them to catch the virus. But, meanwhile I’m in an 8 by 12 cell, myself.”

“I put a call into District Attorney Diana Becton, today,” said Councilwoman Staton. “DA Becton told me she’s aware of the incident but that it will have to be brought to her for her to consider it. It hasn’t been brought to the DA’s office, yet.”

Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs for the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff was asked Wednesday night if Sheriff David Livingston would make an exception in this case and put the man in jail.

He responded Thursday evening, “I have not heard back from him, yet.”

However, Livingston can’t make a decision until the case has been sent to the DA’s office and they decide to file charges against Ortega. Then the sheriff can decide if he will make an exception to the COVID-19 situation and put the suspect in jail.

Contra Costa DA: price gouging is illegal during state of emergency

By Leave a Comment

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

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office wants to remind all residents that price gouging is illegal while our community is under a State of Emergency from the emergence of the novel coronavirus/COVID-19.

Price gouging is when a retailer or seller is attempting to take unfair advantage of the public during an emergency by increasing prices in an unreasonable manner for essential consumer goods and services. California’s anti-price gouging statute, Penal Code Section 396, prohibits raising the price of many consumer goods and services by more than 10 percent after an emergency has been declared.

Members of the public are encouraged to report any instances of gouging to our Consumer Protection Unit by email at DA-ReportFraud@contracostada.org. Individuals may also fill out a consumer complaint form on our website. Violators of the price gouging statute are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in a one-year imprisonment in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. The DA’s Office is charged with enforcing this statute. Additional civil enforcement action may also be taken by our Office to protect consumers. The California Attorney General’s Office also issued information on price gouging during this emergency.

DA seeks help identifying person in human trafficking investigation

By Leave a Comment

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

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation, Human Trafficking Unit, is seeking the identity of the pictured subject related to an ongoing Human Trafficking investigation. Anyone with information regarding the identity of this subject is requested to contact Sr. Inspector Kevin Coelho at (925) 957-8629.

Newark man pleads guilty for two counts of attempted kidnapping for rape of Walnut Creek, other women

By Leave a Comment

Planned kidnap and rape of multiple victims

Matthew Caruso. Photo by WCPD.

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

Yesterday, Wed., March 11, 2020 defendant Matthew Caruso of Newark (38-years-old) pleaded guilty to two felonies of attempted kidnapping for rape, one count for each victim in the case. Judge Laurel Brady of the Contra Costa County Superior Court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Caruso to nine years in state prison.

Last year, Caruso was charged with four felonies by our Office after an extensive investigation by the Walnut Creek Police Department. Caruso tried to abduct Jane Doe outside of her apartment in the early morning of March 26, 2019. Fortunately, the attack and kidnapping failed, but Caruso tried to use a taser to subdue the victim. He then fled the scene wearing an elaborate disguise.

Not only was the primary victim able to fend off her attacker, but a witness noticed that the suspect dropped his phone in nearby bushes as the victim thwarted the attack. A few hours before this attack, Caruso drove by another victim’s residence but did not engage with this victim.

A particularly observant civilian in Fremont helped to catch this defendant with his quick thinking. The good Samaritan found disturbing notes from Mr. Caruso explaining his desire to kidnap and rape multiple victims, zip ties, and a mask in a dumpster and immediately called the Fremont police. The officers in Fremont did an amazing job of sifting through the garbage in that dumpster to locate a receipt that they traced back to the defendant.

Teamwork between attentive community members and diligent police officers brought this suspect to justice and made the community safer.

To protect their confidentiality, our Office does not release the name or age of the victim, or their relationship to a defendant for this type of case. A criminal protective order was also ordered by the judge to prevent the defendant from communicating with either victim.

The case was investigated by the Walnut Creek Police Department. Deputy District Attorney Bryan Tierney prosecuted the case on behalf of the People. DDA Tierney is assigned to our Sexual Assault Unit.

Case information: People v. Matthew Caruso, Docket Number 01-189376-7