This morning’s Sacramento Bee reports that another longtime female sheriff’s deputy in Yolo County has filed suit, alleging that Sheriff Ed Prieto subjected her “to protracted sexual harassment, culminating in his offer to trade an assignment for oral sex.”
Denny Walsh, the reporter at the Bee, writes, “Robin Gonzalez claims in a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday that the blatant conduct has continued for almost her entire 11 years under Prieto’s command.
“The uninvited and unwanted attention has included hugging and kissing her, cradling her buttocks in his hands, pinching other parts of her body, lewd stares, repeated observations regarding her appearance and weight, and remarks laced with sexual innuendo, according to Gonzalez.”
The alleged conduct culminates with a suggestion that the deputy could continue as an investigator “if she performed oral sex on him.”
Ms. Gonzalez reported the behavior finally to HR Director Mindi Nunes who allegedly “told her there was not much her office could do because Prieto is an elected official.”
The Bee adds, “However, Nunes did look into the matter and found at least some of her grievances were justified, Gonzalez relates, and Prieto promised to avoid contact and conversation with Gonzalez. Instead, she says, he continued the actions that have created a hellish working environment for her, and her fear of retaliation became a reality in various ways.”
The sheriff declined response. However, attorney Cori Sarno with Kilday & Kilduff, who represents Mr. Prieto and Yolo County, said, “This lawsuit is a bogus attempt to extort money from the county (a co-defendant in the suit) by making false, inflammatory claims against the sheriff.”
Ms. Sarno adds, “The county has looked into Deputy Gonzalez’s claims by hiring an independent investigator who interviewed quite a few people in the department and found no evidence to support her claims.”
This the third such lawsuit against the Sheriff since early 2012. While one might be tempted to conclude where there is smoke, there is fire, we would caution against such a conclusion.
The first previous suit was thrown out on summary judgment by U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller who ruled, “Even assuming the terms ‘gravy’ and ‘dark one,’ as directed at plaintiff by Sheriff Prieto and other deputies, are subjectively and objectively offensive slurs, they were neither frequent enough nor severe enough to create a hostile work environment.”
The second, by Victoria Zetwick, alleges relatively minor conduct including a kiss on the cheek.
For us, the far more concerning development in the sheriff’s department involves revelations that two sheriff’s deputies in separate incidents may have lied in their incident report and on the stand regarding the basis for conducting searches of separate individuals in traffic stops in Yolo County.
Both of these incidents involve provable allegations that were recorded in court transcripts and backed up by video and audio evidence.
As the Vanguard first reported on Tuesday, according to court transcripts, Deputy Del Castillo of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department indicated in his incident report that the defendant had consented to a search, when video and audio evidence presented in court clearly demonstrated that was not the case and the defendant had not consented to the search.
“What is really troublesome to the Court is the deputy’s misrepresentation in the incident report, which brings into question the deputy’s credibility from the get-go,” Judge David Rosenberg said in a court transcript from one of the cases, in granting a motion to suppress evidence that led to Deputy DA Jared Favero dismissing the case due to lack of evidence.
In the second case, probation status was in dispute, with the deputy clearly misinforming the defendants of the probation status, using it to unconstitutionally searching the vehicle.
“I think what is very troublesome to the Court is Deputy Hallenbeck’s flat out misrepresentation to the defendants. That is very troublesome to the Court,” Judge Rosenberg said in the second case. “Deputy Hallenbeck was informed that Ms. Myers is on probation, ‘no reference to searchable status,’ and yet he stated in no (un)certain terms on two or three occasions that we have a defendant who is on searchable probation and effectively used that as a bludgeon to intimidate the passengers.”
Judge Rosenberg continued, “He was told that there’s ‘no reference to searchable status,’ and the officer stated that she was on searchable probation.”
“It is clear that the defendant did not want the vehicle searched and didn’t hear any reason why the vehicle should be searched,” Judge Rosenberg said. “So that kind of conduct is just unacceptable to the Court. Citizens should not be treated that way.”
Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto spoke to the Vanguard on Monday morning, and, after becoming aware of the incidents, he vowed a full investigation.
In both cases the misconduct by Sheriff’s deputies was severe enough to earn a strong rebuke from Judge Rosenberg and resulted not only in the suppression of evidence but the dismissal of cases where individuals were found to be in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Unfortunately, these types of pretext searches are probably more common that we would like to believe. In these cases, the deputies got caught, ironically, because they actually found something.
As Judge Rosenberg would note, “It just appeared to the Court that much of this was pretextual so that the officer could get into the vehicle to search it.”
Some dismiss these cases as getting off on a technicality or suggest that law enforcement, while getting disciplined for the violation of civil rights, should be credited for correctly predicting violations of the law.
But the only protection that citizens have is the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures which need to be supported by warrants or probable cause.
These rights were written into the Constitution to prevent the government from infringing on the rights of ordinary citizens. The government here exceeded its authority and now those operating as its agents need to be held accountable for it.
In these two cases, the deputies lacked probable cause to conduct their searches and lacking that probable cause, they went so far as to fabricate their justifications for the searches.
Without video evidence in the first case, Deputy Del Castillo might very well have gotten away with lying about the individual’s consent to a search. The video however is the best witness here, showing that the individual said “no” to the search when the deputy said he had said “yes.”
In the second case, the dispatch record makes it clear that the individual was not on searchable probation. The deputy was told this, but he told the defendants repeatedly that they were.
As Judge Rosenberg noted, the deputy “stated in no (un)certain terms on two or three occasions that we have a defendant who is on searchable probation and effectively used that as a bludgeon to intimidate the passengers.”
So here you not only have the fact that there was a lack of probable cause to effect a search, but also the fact that in both cases the deputies were dishonest.
Unfortunately, while Sheriff Prieto may conduct his investigation, it seems unlikely, given state laws protecting peace officers, that either deputy will face any kind of real punishment for their transgressions.
While the Vanguard certainly does not dismiss the severity of a sexual harassment allegation, we are much more concerned with the conduct of the sheriff’s deputies operating under the color of authority, with the ability to lawfully deprive people of life, liberty and property under a due process of law.
The problem here is that the due process of law was circumvented.
The Vanguard is disappointed that other regional media outlets are quick to publish the salacious details of alleged oral sex or the threat of it, but slow to publish accounts of dishonesty under the color of authority.
To make matters worse, in one case, we see mere allegations. In the other, these violations came to light in a judicial proceeding with strong evidence and a strong rebuke from the former presiding judge.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”Even assuming the terms ‘gravy’ and ‘dark one,’ as directed at plaintiff by Sheriff Prieto and other deputies, are subjectively and objectively offensive slurs, they were neither frequent enough nor severe enough to create a hostile work environment.”[/quote]
While I agree with you that at least on the face of the matters involved, the claims of lying in the two instances you site and they way they were handled by the prosecution is more serious. The accusations of sexual and other forms of work place harassement are far from trivial. I also think it is ludicrous to state that “they were neither frequent enough nor severe enough to create a hostile work environment”. One episode, for the victim, is enough to create ” a hostile work environment” in that, the individual is faced with a very difficult decision. If one reports the episode, and is not supported, one may be subject to retaliation for having reported. If one does not report the episode, one is continually presented with the probability that it will occur again. Not enough “hostility” for you ? Well, then, consider the overall atmosphere that is created when the head of a department, through their actions, demonstrates that this kind of behavior is ok. Does anyone not believe that those working under such a leader will perceive these as types of behaviors that will go unaddressed in the organization ?
That quote about the hostile work environment is from the judge who dismissed the case on summary judgement.
I’m not defending the actions if they occurred, but I’m far from convinced at this point that they have.
Guess I’m just stupid… connection between a sexual harassment charge and a potentially wrongful set of traffic stops?
medwoman… you are absolutely right.[quote]One episode, for the victim, is enough to create ” a hostile work environment” in that, the individual is faced with a very difficult decision. If one reports the episode, and is not supported, one may be subject to retaliation for having reported. If one does not report the episode, one is continually presented with the probability that it will occur again. Not enough “hostility” for you ? [/quote]Logically, even tho’ an unsupported charge is free from retribution, under the law [retribution itself would be “actionable”, we all know that if an accusation is made of sexual harassment, it MUST be true, and the employee charged should be dismissed/recalled without investigation, appeals, or any other recourse.
Working environments are set from the top down. The fact that the two officers lied is without question, so is the fact that either the officer or the sheriff also lied (maybe both). This is a place where lying is an accepted part of the job. The only way to fix it is to change it from the top down.
Same office hpierce?
[quote]The second, by Victoria Zetwick, alleges relatively minor conduct including a kiss on the cheek.[/quote]
I can’t imagine that this could possibly be construed as “minor conduct” if it was uninvited. What on earth is going on at the Sheriff’s Department that this is not considered to be blatant sexual harassment?
[quote]Same office hpierce? [/quote]Ok… only common denominator would appear to be the Sheriff… so, one must presume you are inditing him for both.
BTW, same County, State, country and the planet earth.
The point of the commentary is that each of these lawsuits has gotten a reasonable amount of play in the local media, but not the two instances where the deputies were found by Judge Rosenberg to be lying and rebuked by the judge.
So I think common denominator is not the right term given the point.
“The second, by Victoria Zetwick, alleges relatively minor conduct including a kiss on the cheek.”
How would it have gone over if he was also kissing male Sheriffs on the cheek? Would they have considered this minor conduct? Or would they feel like their personal space was being violated inappropriately by their boss? I wonder….
You’re point is well taken. Mine use of the term “minor” was comparing the allegations of this lawsuit to that of previous ones.
I wasn’t trying to call you out as much as I was really wondering how it would go over if Prieto did kiss his male sheriffs on the cheek? I wondered if a lawsuit filed by a male based on this type of behavior be treated differently then a women’s? Then I wondered what if a gay male boss treated his male employees the way Prieto is accused of treating one of his female employees? It would be interesting to see if the situation would be treated the same way if a male was the accuser….
It’s a good point. Last time one of these lawsuits was filed, one of the County Board of Supervisors remarked that Prieto was old school, suggesting that his conduct was less malicious and more misguided. Hard to know.
I’ve worked for and with some men who a County Supervisor might consider old school. I”m laughing to myself when I consider the responses these men might have to a gay boss or coworker treating them they way they often treated some of their female colleagues. (maybe subjected them to this could be part of a lawsuit settlement…;-).
Apples and oranges.
1. Old school Prieto’s actions toward his deputies was cool 50 years ago but doesn’t work in the world of today.
2. Cops telling it their way goes on all the time and it would seem some sort of discipline should be in order but i question some of the over the top condemnation expressed here.
Both issues are disconcerting yet completely different in nature. Both need to be addressed but both also need to kept in perspective.
[quote]1. Old school Prieto’s actions toward his deputies was cool 50 years ago but doesn’t work in the world of today. [/quote]
Old school actions were never “cool” and never “worked” for the women be subjected to it, they just had less power to do something about it.
Medwoman wrote:
> The accusations of sexual and other forms of
> work place harassement are far from trivial.
I don’t want to say that they are trivial or defend the sheriff since every fire chief, chief of police and sheriff I’ve met are a cross between a B list Sacramento politician and the boss in the movie Office Space (My firefighter, cop and deputy sheriff friends have even worse things to say about their bosses).
I don’t want to name any names or departments, but there are a huge number of woman who have figured out that if you fake an injury or harassment they will pay you to leave (it is not their money, so why not?) and let you retire early (making about what the average FAMILY in America makes). At my best friends department 100% of the women they have hired (since they hired the first woman more than 30 years ago) has taken early retirement due to a reported injury or harassment.
As a taxpayer I would love to can the sleaze ball public safety guys (medwoman may be happy to hear that I just saw something that said cops have pushed doctors off the top spot they have held for years and MDs are now the profession second most likely to have an affair), but I would also like to crack down with the large number of woman (and small number of men) who game the system to “retire” in their 30’s with a big pension for the rest of their life.
[quote]I don’t want to say that they are trivial or defend the sheriff since every fire chief, chief of police and sheriff I’ve met are a cross between a B list Sacramento politician and the boss in the movie Office Space (My firefighter, cop and deputy sheriff friends have even worse things to say about their bosses)[/quote].
[quote]At my best friends department 100% of the women they have hired (since they hired the first woman more than 30 years ago) has taken early retirement due to a reported injury or harassment. [/quote]
If such widespread harassment exists then maybe all these women are actually being harassed.
B. Nice wrote:
> If such widespread harassment exists then maybe
> all these women are actually being harassed.
That is my point, a lot of women (and some men) in public safety are really harassed (and injured).
I’m just worried that to “make the problem go away” more and more departments are just “giving away” millions and millions of taxpayer money to any women (they seem to fight the fake harassment and fake injury claims with men except for senior management that they let retire with fake injuries) that says he called me a name I don’t like or my foot hurts.
http://unionwatch.org/the-impact-of-tax-exempt-pensions/
Re: “I’m just worried that to “make the problem go away” more and more departments are just “giving away” millions and millions of taxpayer money to any women (they seem to fight the fake harassment and fake injury claims with men except for senior management that they let retire with fake injuries) that says he called me a name I don’t like or my foot hurts.”
I agree with SouthofDavis on this. While harassment can certainly be serious; by giving such enormous compensation to those that claim harassment; you are exposing employees to the temptation to, er, exaggerate or just confabulate harassment incidents. What ever happened to moderation in compensation for such incidents; why do we reward self-proclaimed harassees (geniune or not) with such a huge financial bonanza? Out of balance.
South of Davis my point is that if the harassment problem is as bad as you report then it doesn’t seem necessary for women to have to fake any charges.
“…a 2006 investigative report by the San Jose Mercury found that two-thirds of San Jose Firefighters retired with service disabilities….”
David, this is from SOD’s cited report. Have you ever come across information about whether and Davis firefighters have left with “service-connected disabilities”?