Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy investigated for discrepancies in report on church

A Press Democrat report, and complaints to Sonoma County’s independent law enforcement auditor have prompted the Sheriff’s Office to launch an internal affairs review.|

The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a deputy whose account of a Santa Rosa-area church service that violated public health guidelines conflicted with reports by county code enforcement officials and The Press Democrat.

The county’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review & Outreach, also known as IOLERO, forwarded two citizen complaints to the Sheriff’s Office on Monday, said Karlene Navarro, the department’s director. Those formal complaints, which referenced the newspaper’s article about Spring Hills Church, cited inconsistencies in Sheriff’s Deputy Aziz Atallah’s report, and allege potential dishonesty, conflict of interest by sheriff’s staff and selective enforcement of the county’s health order tied to the coronavirus pandemic.

Atallah, a five-year member of the Sheriff’s Office and a current patrol deputy, was dispatched to the church in Fulton on Jan. 24, according to documents obtained by The Press Democrat through a public records request. A weekend patrol sergeant dispatched the deputy to the church in response to a Press Democrat reporter calling to inquire about a tip from the public that the church had been holding indoor services in defiance of the county’s health order, with many attendees not wearing masks.

Atallah reported arriving at Spring Hills Church at 10:12 a.m., near the end of its hourlong Sunday morning 9:30 a.m. service, according to the record. During a 17-minute visit, which he wrote included speaking with church staff and performing a walkthrough of the expansive church campus, he noted seeing no more than 15 people, all wearing masks during a “small outdoor church gathering.” Everyone on the property was complying with the public health order, Atallah reported, and church services were nearly finished for the day.

That account contradicted a report by county code enforcement staff, which documented 130 people, many of whom were not wearing masks, attending the same, primarily indoor service, according to Tennis Wick, director of the county’s permit department. Code enforcement officials, who were investigating the fourth complaint in four months alleging that Spring Hills Church was holding large, indoor services, subsequently fined the church $100 for violating the public health order. It was the first fine levied against a church in Sonoma County since the coronavirus pandemic began last March.

Atallah’s report also conflicted with what a Press Democrat reporter witnessed from a church parking lot a few moments after Atallah reported leaving the church, with dozens of cars still there and parishioners continuing to exit the main building, milling about and socializing. Many were without face masks. Approaching the church’s final service for the day, at 11:15 a.m., scores of vehicles again filled the church’s two large parking lots, and parishioners totaling at least 100 people — many without masks — went inside.

“What it looked like to me was three different versions of what occurred, with two more similar than the third. So it seems appropriate for there to be an investigation,” Navarro said in an interview, concurring with her predecessor, Jerry Threet, who filed one of the two citizen complaints.

Lynda Hopkins, chair of the Board of Supervisors, who has called for more oversight of the Sheriff’s Office, agreed.

“You have to ask questions about why is that account so fundamentally different than the other accounts that were in alignment with one another,” she said.

Over the course of a week, including on Tuesday, Misti Wood, the Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, repeatedly declined to answer questions about how to reconcile the clashing reports among the two county agencies that collaborate on enforcing the public health order in unincorporated Sonoma County. Four requests over two days this week for an interview with either Sheriff Mark Essick or Assistant Sheriff Jim Naugle were ignored or declined.

“The Sheriff conducts interviews on large or notable incidents, such as serious use of force cases and natural disasters. The Sheriff will not be conducting an interview on this story because it doesn't rise to that level,” Wood said in an email.

Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick, left, sheriff’s office spokeswoman Misti Wood, center, and Sgt. Juan Valencia, the department’s other public information officer. (Erik Castro / for The Press Democrat) 2019
Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick, left, sheriff’s office spokeswoman Misti Wood, center, and Sgt. Juan Valencia, the department’s other public information officer. (Erik Castro / for The Press Democrat) 2019

Wood initially stated that internal affairs investigations are confidential and cannot be discussed by the department, and on Tuesday directed The Press Democrat to the Sheriff’s Office website for information about how it investigates personnel complaints.

Wood said Atallah has not been placed on administrative leave while the investigation is undertaken, but said Tuesday the deputy was unavailable for an interview. The department’s policy manual states that internal affairs investigations must be completed within 150 days.

Once the Sheriff’s Office finishes the investigation, its report and evidence are submitted to IOLERO for an audit, allowing Navarro’s department to begin its own independent investigation. Substantiating allegations of officer dishonesty could lead to internal discipline, in addition to placing the deputy on the so-called Brady list kept by prosecutors for members of law enforcement with credibility issues, Navarro said.

“What the investigation should ascertain is if this was one bad report or a systemic problem within the department,” said Santa Rosa Mayor Chris Rogers, who acted as campaign manager for Measure P, an expansion of IOLERO widely passed by voters in November. “That’s really the thing on my mind and everybody’s mind: Is this the way that it’s been operating or have there been other instances where a substantive violation of the health order didn’t get addressed or the public wasn’t being made safer?”

Spring Hills Church leaders last week acknowledged that their regular services, which have for months been held indoors, have on average garnered about 400 people across four services. They have never disputed they violated public health orders.

The permit department’s staff returned to the church two days later with a fine of $100, and Bret Avlakeotes, the church’s senior pastor, committed in an interview to carry on with indoor services, despite the threat of future citations. Under the county’s health order, fines are currently capped at $100 for individuals and noncommercial organizations, including churches.

The county code enforcement team again returned to Spring Hills Church the following Saturday and Sunday to observe weekend services, once more documenting indoor gatherings with dozens of attendees who chose not to wear masks. More than 150 people were present at the Sunday morning 9:30 a.m. service, according to Paul Gullixson, the county’s communications manager.

The result of those two visits were additional $100 fines issued to the church each day — the first entity in unincorporated county to receive more than two citations under the public health order. Just 10 other individuals and businesses have been fined under the order since the county began issuing financial penalties for repeat offenses after initial warnings dating to the fall, according to the county.

“It’s, to date, the only example of someone being fined three times,” said Wick, who added his department will continue to monitor services at Spring Hills Church to ensure compliance.

On Sunday, Avlakeotes announced in his sermon to congregants that the church would reverse course and transition services back outdoors, seeking to avoid a standoff with the county. The county is pursuing — though does not yet have — formal commitment from church leadership that they will meet requirements of the county health order going forward, which under the most restrictive of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s four-tier system that still applies to Sonoma County, allows houses of worship to gather outdoors without limits on the number of attendees, so long as social distancing and mask wearing is observed.

“I will be sending the pastor correspondence saying, this is our understanding, this is the approach we will take,” Wick said. “It’s just the best form of communication if we’re involved with someone in a code enforcement case and to bring some finality to it, so everybody has an understanding in writing what the expectation is — not only what you can’t do, but also what you can do.”

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin Fixler at 707-521-5336 or kevin.fixler@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @kfixler.

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.