Judge rejects Sonoma woman’s 2nd bid to dismiss fake attempted kidnapping case

A former Sonoma woman accused of lying to police after she falsely claimed that a Petaluma couple tried to kidnap her children in 2020, has again failed to convince a Sonoma County Superior Court judge to dismiss charges in the case.

During a hearing Monday in Sonoma County Superior Court, Judge Laura Passaglia upheld a ruling denying Katie Sorensen diversion for three misdemeanor counts of falsely reporting crimes.

“I don’t find there to be anything substantial in this case to change this court’s ruling,” Passaglia said during the hearing.

Sorensen, who now lives in Montana, was not present Monday. Her attorney, Charles Dresow, declined to comment after the hearing.

Under diversion, a misdemeanor case can be postponed up to two years and dismissed if the defendant fulfills terms and conditions that are presented in court.

Passaglia rejected the option in September after concluding Sorensen never took responsibility for saying that Eddie and Sadie Martinez tried to take her children outside a Michael’s craft store in Petaluma.

A trial had been scheduled for Jan. 12 in the case, but Sorensen’s attorney filed a motion asking Passaglia to reconsider her initial denial of Sorensen’s request for diversion after Assembly Bill 2167, or penal code 17.2, went into effect Jan. 1.

It requires courts to consider alternatives to incarceration, including diversion, other court programs or probation.

“There is no rational argument that the three nonviolent misdemeanor offenses are excluded from the mandate of Penal Code Section 17.2,” the defense wrote in its latest request for diversion.

Prosecutors contend the penal code applies only to those with minimal involvement in a crime and who express remorse and a desire to reform.

“In this case, the defendant did not merely misunderstand the situation,” prosecutors wrote in opposition to the defense request. “Based on the video surveillance footage, it is clear the defendant manufactured the entire report. The defendant continuously maintained she was ‘100% sure’ the Martinezes attempted to abduct her children and broadcasted her dishonest certainty to millions of people.”

Both parties agreed Monday that penal code 17.2 is broad and Dresow called it a “legislative preference.”

All parties are scheduled to return to court March 10 to evaluate the status of the case and schedule a jury trial for Sorensen, who faces up to 180 days in jail for each misdemeanor, if convicted.

Investigators say the so-called social media influencer was at the Michael’s store on North McDowell Boulevard on Dec. 7, 2020, when she claimed the Martinezes tried to take her children.

She said the couple followed her through the store and whispered about her children before the man lunged at her stroller in a brazen attempt to kidnap her child.

A motive was never specified, but investigators searched Sorensen’s social media accounts and determined she was trying to expand her “brand” on Instagram with limited success in 2020, according to prosecutors. They contended Sorensen needed money for her children’s home-schooling and son’s medical treatment.

Furthermore, prosecutors wrote: “While political views or affiliation should in no way influence the suitability of a defendant for diversion, the defendant was found to be in significant engagement with QAnon conspiracy theories, which tend to center around kidnappers and pedophiles.”

Petaluma police said Sorensen contacted them Dec. 20, 2020, but indicated she only wanted to report suspicious behavior and didn’t want anyone arrested.

“She was calm, giggled at one point and did not appear to be in any emotional distress,” prosecutors wrote in their opposition to diversion.

Sorensen documented the incident in two Instagram videos that brought her 4½ million views and thousands of new followers. National media outlets covered the matter.

According to the prosecution, police interviewed Sorensen on Dec. 14, 2020, and presented a surveillance photo of the couple. She verified they were the people at Michael’s even as investigators explained the footage would be made public.

The Martinezes learned of the allegation after police circulated surveillance footage.

Police later announced Sorensen’s claims were without merit and cleared the Martinezes of any wrongdoing. Investigators said the video footage did not depict the scenario described by Sorensen.

“When the defendant left the store, she was not followed by anyone,” prosecutors wrote in their motion. “The Martinezes exited the store and were seen walking together on camera about 30 seconds behind the defendant and went directly to their car.”

Investigators added Sorensen claimed the couple fled after she approached an “old man and caretaker” for help, but the footage indicated the latter paid her no attention.

Sorensen was charged in April 2021 and entered a not guilty plea in June of that year.

You can reach Staff Writer Colin Atagi at colin.atagi@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @colin_atagi