For almost the entire history of California, sheriffs have been able to hold the title and position of coroner as well as sheriff. This topic rarely receives attention, but on Sept. 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1379, which separates those offices in Riverside County.
The legislation was clearly directed at Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican who had launched a bid for governor. The bill directs the county Board of Supervisors to separate the positions of sheriff and coroner and create an Office of Medical Examiner, with coroner functions residing within that new office.
The Democratic Legislature clearly has a bone to pick with Bianco over his seizure of county election ballots and his conservative, MAGA-style politics. This measure likely stems from that conflict but should be viewed outside the realm of partisan politics.
The sheriff-versus-coroner debate represents a long-running and broader problem. Quite simply, having both positions — one that investigates crimes and the other that examines deaths and provides evidence for those investigations — combined in one office is a clear conflict of interest.
The stated reason for SB 1379 is that there have been an inordinate number of deaths in Riverside County jail facilities, and the courts have levied hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties stemming from subsequent lawsuits.
“Under current law, counties may consolidate the offices of sheriff and coroner,” argued the bill’s author, Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside. “In Riverside County, this structure has contributed to persistent challenges regarding the deaths of individuals in custody in the county’s jails, including underreporting, inconsistent determinations of causes of death, and limited access to information for families and the public.”
Historically, King Richard the Lionheart created coroners during his brief reign to advance the interests of the king and included them in the Articles of Eyre in England in 1194.
Coroners, originally called “crowners,” were created as a direct check against locally elected sheriffs, whom the crown often did not trust. The original goal was mainly financial.
As the 2017 book The Conquest of Death explains: “The medieval coroner was a general crown official charged with pursing and protecting the financial interests of the king. … As it was recognized that the human population constituted an important resource for the kingdom, there were financial penalties for those found responsible for the death of the king’s subjects.”
In modern America, there is a reasonable concern that when the offices of sheriff and coroner rest with the same person, foul play by law enforcement officials might be brushed aside.
Sheriffs’ deputies, for instance, operate jail facilities in many California counties. Critics fear that a sheriff might not hold deputies accountable.
This relates to the issue of an entity policing itself, which is problematic at best and, at worst, offers no independent check on the process at all.
A number of scandals have highlighted this concern. For instance, in 2018, San Joaquin County’s top medical examiner alleged interference by the sheriff.
According to The Sacramento Bee, he claimed that doctors were “pressured to classify officer-involved deaths as accidents rather than homicides.”
Senate Bill 1303 that year would have separated the offices in larger counties, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it.
In his veto message, Brown cited local-control concerns: “This decision is best left to the discretion of local elected officials who are in the best position to determine how their county offices are organized.”
That is also a point made by opponents of this year’s SB 1379.
Nevertheless, when the sheriff and coroner are in the same office, sheriff’s officials have an incentive to manipulate death figures and improperly classify death reports.
There is also concern that sheriff-coroners might put their finger on the scale of murder investigations they are handling.
Those justifying the consolidation of sheriff and coroner point to fiscal efficiency and streamlined duties, but I would argue that in such important matters, impartiality is more important than cost savings. The offices should be separated even if it requires a state mandate.
Only three other states have combined offices of coroner and sheriff: Montana, Nevada and Hawaii.
Montana and Nevada specifically allow this consolidation in rural counties, presumably for cost savings. Several states, including Idaho, Indiana and Alabama, specifically mandate the offices’ separation.
In my view, this narrow bill should not have been created as a direct reaction to Bianco, however justified it may be based on conditions in the county jails.
The matter should be handled through a blanket statewide statute mandating the separation of the office of coroner from the office of sheriff.
The circumstances in Riverside County might merit this action, but the issue needs to be corrected everywhere, given the importance of fairly determining whether a death resulted from natural causes or homicide.
Actually, all three positions — sheriff, coroner and medical examiner — should exist separately in each county to ensure the application of best practices.
Certainly, the additional position would increase costs in most places, but the matter is one of principle.
If the cost of having a coroner or medical examiner is too great for some small counties, perhaps one coroner and medical examiner could serve several small counties jointly. But the county sheriff should never be in charge of such medical inquiries.
Coroners typically hold elected positions, while medical examiners are almost always appointed. The latter are physicians and can provide more detailed examinations based on toxicology and forensic autopsies.
There is overlap, but the two positions have distinct authority. For instance, coroners have the legal authority to call an inquest into a death if they suspect foul play.
However, the goal should be to provide the maximum checks and balances when determining the cause of anyone’s death.
Enacting this needed provision could cause officers to be more discerning when considering the use of deadly force. That makes everyone safer.
While I applaud the Legislature’s willingness to take on this issue, it needs to expand its scope to embrace the basic separation-of-powers principle and look beyond narrow concerns centered on partisanship.
Michael Warnken works on court cases relating to representation and other similar issues. He is an adviser to the nonprofit Citizens Rising. A version of this commentary originally appeared on the PRI blog.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
