Sonoma County Sheriff’s records case granted appeal as judge blocks release of bullying investigation

Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick has again successfully petitioned to block the release of a bullying investigation into him as his appeal in a six-month legal battle advances to a state appellate court.

The case pits Essick against Sonoma County, which is arguing for release of the records.

It now sits before the 1st District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, where Judge John Streeter ruled county records from the investigation — prompted by a complaint from Supervisor Lynda Hopkins — will remain off limits to the public pending the appeal.

Under a lower-court ruling in favor of the county and against Essick, those records were set to be released as soon as Monday.

Streeter, however, granted Essick’s request to halt that disclosure “until further notice.”

Such cases can take six to nine months to reach a resolution, according to an attorney with the Sonoma County Counsel’s Office.

The Press Democrat first requested the records from the county in December, prompting Essick’s legal bid to keep them secret.

He has argued the investigative report is a personnel record and that he, like any other county employee, is covered by exemptions that allow such records to remain private.

He also has argued that he is shielded by state law protecting personnel records for peace officers.

The county has said that he is an elected official and as such, the public has a right to see an investigation into complaints about his behavior while in office.

“We’re looking for a more resolved decision on who is my employer,” Essick said in an interview. “Sonoma County, the people, or the Board of Supervisors?”

Hopkins, the Board of Supervisors chair, accused the sheriff of harassment and bullying after a phone call in August 2020 amid the Walbridge fire, during which she says she felt threatened by his comments.

The comments came in a call about Hopkins’ evacuated west county constituents. The conversation grew heated, Hopkins said, and included remarks by Essick that led her to worry for her safety.

Hopkins filed a complaint with the County Counsel’s Office. The county hired an outside investigator to look into the complaint and prepare the report in question.

County officials found the report was a public record and agreed to release it to The Press Democrat, but Essick sued to block that release. He lost his initial case in Sonoma County Superior Court but filed an appeal with the state court on Monday as the release date loomed.

The stay on the records at this point is unlikely to be lifted until the judge issues a final ruling in the case, said Josh Myers, a chief deputy county counsel.

The timeline of the appeal means Essick’s continued legal battle could extend well into this year or next, when he is up for election.

Court documents have indicated the investigation includes interviews with witnesses aside from Essick and Hopkins.

It is not clear if the investigation is limited to Hopkins’ complaint or involves other allegations of bullying by the sheriff. County officials have declined to discuss the scope of the investigation or its findings.

“He threatened me,” Hopkins told The Press Democrat in March. “To me it’s just a line that you don’t cross, and he crossed it. The sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement official in the county. He controls law enforcement where I live.”

But if the records are found to be exempt from disclosure, Essick said he does not think the public is entitled to see them.

“If these records are determined to be confidential personnel records, it's my desire that they will be treated as such,” he said. He previously told The Press Democrat he is not paying for his case with department funds.

In the petition filed in the 1st District appellate court, Essick’s attorney argued that releasing the records before those questions were settled would render the case moot. Essick would suffer harm and “prejudice” that would be “permanent and irreparable,” wrote Diane Aqui, his Santa Rosa-based attorney.

“Should he run for Sheriff again, it is likely that the investigative report will be prominently displayed in campaign advertising attacking his record,” Aqui added. “Further, the next time he applies for any peace officer position, the investigative report will be available online for all to see. Not only does this harm Essick, it also imperils his effectiveness both as Sheriff and peace officer.”

Hopkins expressed dismay over the case’s appeal and the court order barring the release of records.

“I question why the sheriff wants to continue to drag this out and continue to attempt to suppress information,” she said.

“For me closure is transparency and accountability,” Hopkins said. “I want to be able to put this behind me. It’s very difficult when the sheriff continues to sue to suppress information that I believe the voters have a right to know.”

The county will continue to fight for the records release, Myers said.

“We believe that this report should be made a public document and we believe that Judge Dollard made the correct decision,” he said. Sonoma County Judge Jennifer Dollard on May 18 ruled against Essick.

She also denied a request from Essick to stay the release of the records while he appealed. Streeter, the appellate judge, overruled that order in deciding to take the case up.

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