Sheriff Mark Essick sues Sonoma County to prevent release of harassment complaint

Is Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick a law enforcement officer or an elected official?

He is both, placing important questions about public accountability for sheriffs in the hands of a Sonoma County Superior Court judge. The answer to those questions will determine whether the public ever gets to see the results of an independent investigation into a complaint of bullying and harassment filed against Essick by Sonoma County Supervisor Lynda Hopkins.

Essick, who was elected sheriff in 2018 when 66,465 voters picked him over two challengers, claims the public doesn’t have the right to see the complaint or the outcome of the investigation into his behavior because he wears a badge.

The County of Sonoma, which concluded in December there was no legitimate legal justification to withhold the documents, contends Essick’s role as an elected and powerful government official trumps his peace officer status. Transparency rules that apply to other top public servants should apply to sheriffs, too, attorneys for the county argue.

Essick has obtained a court order temporarily keeping records of the investigation secret. He has filed a lawsuit asserting his belief the public doesn’t have the right to ever see information about Hopkins’ complaint because he is a peace officer, a group of government workers given extraordinary confidentiality in California when they are investigated for misconduct.

In legal filings, Essick argues that even as an elected official his privacy is governed by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. These laws give a broad degree of confidentiality to law enforcement accused of misconduct not provided to any other type of government employee.

Essick’s attorney has asked a judge to consider his concern that “Essick will suffer irreparable injury and damage” should the records be released in violation of those privacy protections for peace officers, according to a Dec. 21 petition filed in Sonoma County Superior Court.

“The release of the records would unlawfully violate the constitutional and statutory protection of Sheriff Essick, a peace officer, to the confidentiality of his peace officer personnel records,” the court filing states.

The county believes Essick is a top elected government official subject to public scrutiny under California law. He oversees the Sheriff's Office, which employs about 635 people, operates the county jail and is the lead law enforcement agency in unincorporated areas of Sonoma County, the town of Windsor and the city of Sonoma.

Michael Colantuono, an attorney representing the county, said the case is an important test between the public interest in accountability for high-ranking officials and police privacy rights. The county believes its position is bolstered by the fact the sheriff was acting in his capacity as a county leader while communicating with Hopkins, another local leader.

“The courts have found your right to privacy is lessened when you choose to answer public life,” Colantuono said. “The public right to know is paramount for people in positions of responsibility in government.”

A judge will hear arguments from the county and Essick about the controversy May 19.

The complaint against Essick was lodged by Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, who said the sheriff bullied and harassed her during a heated Aug. 20 phone call three days into the Walbridge fire. In an interview with The Press Democrat, Hopkins said Essick seemed overcome with “tremendous” anger toward her in response to her questions about residents wanting to access their animals in fire evacuation zones. She said his words felt like threats.

“The sheriff threatened me and hung up on me,” Hopkins said.

Within hours, she had contacted County Administrator Sheryl Bratton and county counsel with her concerns.

In an interview last week, Essick declined to provide his perspective on the phone call with Hopkins or discuss the lawsuit, but he defended his ability to work collaboratively with other county leaders amid the controversy. He referred questions about the incident and his lawsuit to an attorney, Diane Aqui, who declined a request for an interview.

“There’s been absolutely no change — my relationship with the supervisors is business as usual,” Essick said.

The Board of Supervisors hired Berkeley attorney Amy Oppenheimer to launch an independent investigation, according to Colantuono. Essick was notified about the investigation in September, court files show.

Oppenheimer’s firm conducted interviews with Hopkins, Essick and other county employees. Oppenheimer reported her conclusions to county attorneys and human resources officials about whether the elected sheriff had acted improperly.

The Press Democrat filed a public records request Dec. 10 with the county seeking harassment complaints against Essick reported or investigated in 2020.

Essick's attorney said he was informed Dec. 16 the county intended to release the initial complaint, the investigative report, executive summary and formal notice of the investigation’s outcome to The Press Democrat.

He filed a lawsuit Dec. 21 asking a Sonoma County Superior Court judge to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the release of the documents and bar county officials, including Hopkins, from revealing what the investigation found and other information in related reports or Essick’s personnel file.

Judge Arther Wick issued a temporary restraining order Dec. 22.

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said elected sheriffs are in entirely different positions of authority than other peace officers and should be treated as such.

“He’s a high-ranking official that is accountable ultimately to the voters,” Snyder said. “California law is pretty clear that high-ranking elected or appointed officials are subject to broad disclosure requirements for records relating to alleged misconduct.”

At a March 3 hearing, Sonoma County Judge Jennifer Dollard gave The Press Democrat an opportunity to intervene in the case. Richard A. Green, executive editor of The Press Democrat, said the newspaper’s intervention was not necessary in light of the county’s determination that California’s transparency laws for top elected officials applied to Essick.

“In this case, county officials already have determined these records should be released to the public, and we’re confident that will happen,” Green said. “We think Sheriff Essick’s lawsuit to hide these documents from the public was an evasive move to avoid being transparent to the constituents he serves, and we hope he complies with the county’s call for these records to be released.”

Green said officials charged with doing the public’s work are obligated to do that work in a very public, transparent manner.

“Taxpayers have the right to know and see firsthand how government officials, including our sheriff, conduct the public’s business — even if it’s being done through text messages and telephone calls,” Green said. “In this case, a prominent public official is accusing the sheriff of misconduct. What happened? What was said? Were there threats? Was there intimidation? Were lines crossed? The public deserves answers to these questions.”

You can reach Staff Writer Julie Johnson at 707-521-5220 or julie.johnson@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @jjpressdem.