Judge delays hearing in Press Democrat bid to unseal search warrant served on city council member Eddie Alvarez

A Sonoma County judge postponed the hearing until May 10, following an objection from a defense attorney for one of the men charged with murder in the September shooting that occurred outside the Whiskey Tip bar in Santa Rosa.|

A Sonoma County judge delayed a hearing Monday on whether to unseal a warrant served on Santa Rosa Vice Mayor Eddie Alvarez, even as Alvarez defended himself on social media, saying police sought to accuse him of “orchestrating a murder” without evidence.

Santa Rosa Police have said Alvarez is not a suspect, and two men have been charged with murder in a September 2021 shooting outside the Whiskey Tip bar. Alvarez had been present at the bar earlier in the evening but had left before the gunfire.

Police served a search warrant on Alvarez as he left a Jan. 11 City Council meeting and are fighting in court to keep it under seal.

“Release the evidence that tied me to the shooting in which I WAS NOT AT, describe the contact I've had with the perpetrators which I'VE NEVER MET IN MY LIFE,” Alvarez wrote in a Facebook post.

A Santa Rosa police spokesman declined to comment on Alvarez’s statements.

In an interview Monday, Alvarez reiterated that he had never met Fogatia Fuiava and Ednie Afamasaga, the two men charged in the killing. A preliminary hearing in their trial is scheduled for June.

Police have declined to comment on the grounds they used to search Alvarez. In a court filing earlier this month, an attorney for the department wrote that the sealed warrant relates to an ongoing investigation and should not be made public.

“I’m just as in the dark as the public as why this happened,” Alvarez said. “The longer this issue goes on the more explaining I have to do. It’s a shame that people of color always have to explain why their innocent in a system where supposedly you’re innocent until proven guilty.”

In court Monday, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Christopher Honigsberg delayed a hearing on the warrant until May 10 following an objection by a defense attorney representing one of the men charged with murder.

The Press Democrat filed a motion in late March asking Honigsberg to unseal the warrant, which has remained shrouded in secrecy for more than three months.

The newspaper’s attorneys are arguing that under state law, a search warrant becomes public record after being executed unless a judge rules on a motion to maintain the seal longer.

There is no public record that a motion to extend the seal was made on the Alvarez warrant.

Police seized three cellphones from Alvarez, including one that had been issued by the city, the council member previously told The Press Democrat. Two council members witnessed the warrant being served in the City Hall parking garage.

Honigsberg had given SRPD and the Sonoma County District Attoreny’s Office an opportunity to contest The Press Democrat’s motion but argued that absent such opposition he would unseal the warrant.

Santa Rosa city attorney Robin Hammond filed a motion April 11 arguing that the warrant was connected to an ongoing investigation and should remain sealed, “until the investigation has been completed or until such time as SRPD is willing to waive its official information privilege.”

To support their assertion, city attorneys included a sealed declaration from Deputy District Attorney Anne Masterson.

Masterson is leading the prosecution against Fuiava and Afamasaga for the Sept. 25 killing of Kenneth McDaniel outside the Whiskey Tip.

Attorneys for both men were present in the courtroom on Monday. Martin Woods, Fuiava’s attorney, argued that the Masterson filing could prejudice Honigsberg, who is also presiding over the two men’s murder trial.

“You are receiving information and I don’t know what it is,” Woods said, referring to Masterson’s declaration.

“There’s a reference to an ongoing investigation. Against who?” he said.

Honigsberg agreed to allow Woods time to make his argument and moved Monday’s hearing to May 10 without hearing arguments from The Press Democrat’s lawyers or city attorney Hammond.

The continued secrecy is harming both Alvarez and the public, according to Press Democrat attorneys Thomas Burke and Sarah Burns.

After three months, “the public knows no more now than it did then about this search of a publicly-elected official, because the Warrant Materials were filed under a blanket seal, and have remained that way ever since,” they wrote in an April 18 filing.

“SRPD’s actions have cast a veil of impropriety over Councilmember Alvarez while he continues to carry out his representative duties,” the filing continued.

In June 2020, more than a year before he was shot to death outside the Whiskey Tip, McDaniel and three other men had been charged for vandalism and felony burglary after breaking into a marijuana dispensary Alvarez owns.

Alvarez had told SRPD Chief Ray Navarro he knew the deceased well before police served a search warrant on him. In a Sept. 27 email, three days after the event, Alvarez emailed Navarro and told him he was at the bar. The Press Democrat obtained that email in a records request before city officials shut down disclosures.

“Wanted to share with you what I also shared with (a police sergeant),” Alvarez wrote to the police chief. “I did know the deceased in this case as he was involved in a break-in at my shop last year.”

Other city council members have questioned the decision to serve Alvarez outside city hall, though on the whole the council appears to have chosen to let the matter play out in court with limited public comment.

Alvarez and council member Natalie Rogers, the two people of color on the council, have questioned whether Alvarez, the first person directly elected to represent the largely Latino Roseland area, was treated differently by police.

You can reach Staff Writer Andrew Graham at 707-526-8667 or andrew.graham@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @AndrewGraham88

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.