5-0 vote costs City $50,000 including attorney’s fees

Mock trial held, court wouldn’t grant officers qualified immunity which contributed to decision

Officers responded to home in Dec. 2020 where he was strangling his mother

Died in the hospital 3 days later while not in police custody

Coroner’s autopsy determined died of drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest

Independent toxicology report found presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.

DA reported, “an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea” and “accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.”

By Allen D. Payton During a Closed Session meeting Tuesday night, May 14, 2024, after receiving information from a representative of the County’s insurance pool the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to settle the lawsuit by the family of Angelo Quinto who died in December 2020 following an interaction with Antioch Police Officers, while attacking his family during a mental health crisis. The council agreed to settle with the family for $7.5 million. The Closed Session agenda item #1 read, “CONFERENCE INVOLVING JOINT POWERS AGENCY – Municipal Pooling Authority and California Affiliated Risk Management Authority (CARMA). Discussion will concern EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9 MARIA QUINTO-COLLINS, et al., v. CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California CASE NO.: 3:21-cv-06094-AMO; Name of local agency representative on joint powers agency board: Thomas Lloyd Smith, City of Antioch; Appearing on behalf of joint powers board: Linda Cox, Municipal Pooling Authority and Amanda Griffith, ERMA (Employment Risk Management Authority).” The Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) is the County’s insurance pool and along with ERMA and CARMA determined the maximum amount of a settlement they would approve. Had the council not settled and continued fighting the lawsuit, the three authorities would not have paid for attorney’s fees and any settlement or amount determined by the judge or jury. Instead, it all would have had to be paid from the City’s General Fund, most of which pays for the police department. By settling the lawsuit, the City only has to pay its $50,000 deductible including attorney’s fees. Background On Dec. 23, 2020, Officers responded to the home of Quinto’s parents after dispatch received a call that the young 30-year-old Filipino-American Navy veteran was attacking them. As previously reported, Quinto’s sister placed the call telling police Angelo was strangling their mom, and the mother was not breathing. The sister told police Angelo took drugs. The sister had a hammer in her hands, which her brother had taken from her at one point, but she was able to get it back. Upon arrival, officers found Quinto being actively restrained by his mother on a bedroom floor of the home. Although claims were made by his family that officers restrained Quinto by using a knee to his neck for five minutes, that was proven false, as police claimed they had only placed a knee on his back. According to then-Chief Tammany Brooks, “At one point, during the handcuffing, for a few seconds an officer did have his knee across Angelo’s shoulder blade…taught at police academies for prone handcuffing.” Quinto died in the hospital three days later while not in police custody. (See related articles here and here) During Brooks’ report of the incident he said, “I have been in contact with the Coroner’s Office and the following four points have been jointly approved by multiple pathologists related to their findings thus far:

1. Although the decedent had injuries consistent with a struggle with his family and law enforcement, none of the injuries appeared to be fatal.
2. There were no fractures of the skull, torso, or extremities.
3. A full examination of the neck revealed there was no evidence of strangulation or crushed airway.
4. They are currently expanding toxicology testing because they were aware of reported past drug use.”

An autopsy was performed on December 28th by the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office which ruled Quinto succumbed to excited delirium and prescription drugs during the physical altercation with officers. Further, the cause of death was determined to be Excited Delirium Syndrome due to drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest. (Excited Delirium being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death has since been outlawed in California with the passage of a bill, AB-360, last October. It prohibits coroners, medical examiners, physicians or physician assistants from listing excited delirium on a person’s death certificate or in an autopsy report). On February 18, 2021, Quinto’s family, through their attorney, John Burris, filed a complaint against the Antioch Police Department. Burris had previously complained the officers didn’t have their body cameras turned on, but the council hadn’t yet approved the purchase of police body cams and the department did not implement them until 2021. On Friday, August 20, 2021, Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner David Livingston announced that a coroner’s jury reached a finding that Quinto’s death was an accident, not at the hands of another. Then, in September 2022, Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton determined, Antioch Police officers engaged with Quinto in a manner that was lawful and objectively reasonable under the circumstances and an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea. According to the DA’s Office, “A toxicology report by the Coroner’s Office showed that Quinto had the presence of caffeine, Levetriacetam (a therapeutic for adults and children with epilepsy), and Modafinil – a drug to stimulate wakefulness – in his system. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner reviewed the autopsy findings and agreed with its conclusions. “The Quinto family commissioned an independent autopsy, and its findings note the cause of death was restraint asphyxiation. The private autopsy lists petechial hemorrhaging as the basis for such conclusion. An independent toxicology report also found the presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam. “However, of critical importance to the investigation, an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea. While there are conflicting medical opinions as to the cause of death, the accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck. “After reviewing the evidence, the method of restraining Angelo Quinto by Antioch Police officers on December 23rd was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, when applying the applicable law and the California District Attorney’s Uniform Crime Charging Standards, there is no evidence of a criminal offense committed by the Antioch Police officers involved in restraining Angelo Quinto.” Yet, according to a March 16, 2023, report by the San Francisco Chronicle, “During a deposition, the county contract doctor acknowledged the possibility that Quinto died of asphyxiation from restraint, according to a court filing by attorneys for Quinto’s family.” Councilmembers’ Actions, Comments Prior to Settlement The settlement vote by three of the council members was to be expected as they’ve been sympathetic and apologetic to Quinto’s family. During the council meeting on Oct. 25, 2022, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson wore T-shirts with the message, “Justice for Angelo Quinto”, Wilson proposed naming the City’s emergency response team after the young man, which was supported by the entire council, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker said, “I want to say to the Quinto family, you lost your son, that’s how we got here. Your loss has spurred some change, but it didn’t have to happen.” (See related article and the 2:35:42 mark of the council meeting video) In addition, Torres-Walker wore the same shirt at a later time and event. Plus, the mayor has repeatedly, falsely claimed Quinto died while in police custody. But the unanimous vote in favor of an out-of-court settlement was not expected. Barbanica Explains Reason for Settlement About his vote for the settlement, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “these are extremely difficult cases. I’ve been very clear in open session that the DA’s office and Coroner’s inquest did not find that he died at the hands of the officers. I let those investigations speak for themselves. There was no criminal wrongdoing by any of the police officers.” “But when the insurance pool is paying for the City’s legal defense, if the council declines a settlement offer presented to them, and decides to continue to fight it, then the City will pay potential attorneys’ fees and any judgement that holds the City responsible,” Barbanica explained. “The City is paying $50,000 which includes attorney’s fees, and the insurance pool is paying up to the balance of $1 million, which is common in any settlement, limiting the exposure to the City’s General Fund.” “Once you get to $1 million, it kicks over to secondary insurance which paid the remaining $6.5 million balance,” he added. “In addition, the court did not grant the officers in the case qualified immunity. If we had continued in this case, we don’t know what it would have meant for the officers,” he stated. “The city attorney also made a very wise decision to hold what is called a mock trial in this case and is done in secrecy.” “That was all done during the course of the lawsuit with an actual jury because he wanted to know any potential outcome. Those were factors that went into the decision-making on the settlement,” Barbanica explained. “This was not a haphazard decision. There was a lot of research, and all of this was done prior to them coming to us with a proposed settlement.” Ogorchock Offers Her Reasons for Settling When reached for comment explaining her reason for supporting the settlement, Ogorchock said, “As with any lawsuit, if they would have found even one percent liability by the City, it could have opened up the General Fund to pay more than what was paid.” Asked if the insurance authorities said why they felt a jury would have been sympathetic to the family instead of the City, Ogorchock would not get into the details from the Closed Session discussion. Asked about who represented the City, Ogorchock said, “the city attorney (Thomas L. Smith) chose the attorney to represent the City in the case.” “We settled the case based on the city attorney’s and the insurance carrier’s advice. If we hadn’t, it would have opened up the City to the liability,” she added, reiterating the information shared by Barbanica. “In litigation cases, MPA will give us their advice and if we even have a small percentage of liability they will recommend a settlement amount. We as council, can choose to either accept or reject MPA’s recommendation. If we reject it, then we as the City take on the full, potential liability costs.” However, later Barbanica said, “The city attorney chose the attorney from a list of attorneys from the pooling authority.” Questions for City Attorney, Acting City Manager, Interim Police Chief The background information shared above, and the following questions were sent Tuesday night to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Acting City Manager Kwame Reed and Interim Police Chief Brian Addington: “Who represented the City in court against the lawsuit by Angelo Quinto’s family including the names of the law firm and attorneys? If the case had not yet been presented to a jury, were there any preliminary rulings by a judge in favor of Quinto’s family? Why settle if all the facts were in favor of the Antioch Police officers? What were the determining factors by the Municipal Pooling Authority, CARMA and ERMA which caused them to recommend settlement instead of defending the City and why that amount? Were any of the officers who responded to the Quinto home subjects of either the FBI investigation into ‘crimes of moral turpitude’ or the racist text scandal? If so, was that the reason for the settlement, the fear a jury would side against those officers and in favor of Quinto’s family? What language is included in the settlement? Does it claim culpability by the officers? According to then-Police Chief Tammany Brooks, Quinto was not in custody at the time he died in the hospital on Dec. 26, 2020. Is that correct? If not, when did that information get changed?” They were also asked for copies of both the lawsuit and any and all settlement documents. They did not respond prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

“some of the text communications between a relatively small number of officers reflected attitudes or beliefs which are not shared by the vast majority of APOA members.” – Statement from RLS Principal Attorney Mike Rains

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023, Mike Rains, the attorney for the Antioch Police Officers’ Association, of the Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver law firm, issued the following statement in response to the release of names of officers in the scandal involving racist and other offensive texts. (See related articles here and here)

“This Office serves as General Counsel to the Antioch Police Officers’ Association (APOA) and its individual members.  We represent many, but not all, of the officers whose names were released by a Superior Court Judge as having involvement in text messaging which she criticized and declared “unworthy of (legal) protection.” As we will discuss below, we have serious concerns about the manner in which both the names of the officers and two separate reports prepared by an Inspector in the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office came to be public records before the law in California, codified in Penal Code section 832.7, declared them to be subject to public disclosure.  We also have serious concerns as to whether the text messages themselves, which were originally obtained by authorities in connection with a criminal investigation of only a portion of the Officers who were named by the judge, and which do not constitute criminal conduct, formed the basis of an administrative investigation, in potential violation of California’s Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (Penal Code section 1546).

“We are hopeful that the investigation will be thorough and objective and will determine culpability where it is deserved.”

 We understand the public scrutiny of police officers throughout the nation and acknowledge that revelations of text messaging such as that reported in this case can provoke emotional and even sometimes hateful responses. Nevertheless, police officers, even when accused of potential misconduct, should be afforded basic and fundamental rights of due process. We insist such rights be provided, even to persons who have committed the most grotesque and horrific crimes imaginable — why shouldn’t police also be afforded constitutional rights? Such rights ensure that investigators, prosecutors, and judges abide by existing laws before adjudicating anyone as “guilty,” and pronouncing judgment and sentence before a response from the “accused” is sought or considered. 

“We also hope the investigation will not disparage each officer and seek to end their career as a law enforcement officer, simply because they became the uninvited recipient of texts sent by others or responded with sarcasm.”

With those observations as a backdrop, we can say, on behalf of the entirety of the APOA membership, that some of the text communications between a relatively small number of officers reflected attitudes or beliefs which are not shared by the vast majority of APOA members.  Those officers, and many whose names were recited by the judge, have now suffered the injustice and indignity of condemnation simply because they work at the same agency as those whose communications were offensive.  Since our office represents thousands of police officers in the State of California, we understand the impact messaging of the type engaged in by a relatively small number of these officers can have on the public’s perceptions of law enforcement officers everywhere, even though we are reminded constantly by our clients everywhere that they do not support the rhetoric, and do not share the apparent mindset of those responsible for the rhetoric.

We are aware that the police chief has retained an “outside” investigator to interview each and every officer whose name appeared in any of the text messages in question.  Those officers have been named as subjects, whether the officer was simply one of numerous recipients of a “group text” and did not respond, or whether the officer took an active role in the messaging.  We are hopeful that the investigation will be thorough and objective and will determine culpability where it is deserved. We also hope the investigation will not disparage each officer and seek to end their career as a law enforcement officer, simply because they became the uninvited recipient of texts sent by others or responded with sarcasm.