Judge: Shasta County must turn over sheriff’s office-related records to Record Searchlight
Damon Arthur
Redding Record Searchlight
After Shasta County officials spent more than 20 months blocking the release of public records relating to an investigation into the management of the sheriff’s office and former Sheriff Eric Magrini, a judge this week ordered the county to relinquish the documents to the Record Searchlight.
In August 2021, the Record Searchlight submitted requests for copies of an investigation into the sheriff’s office during the last six months of Magrini’s tenure, which ended in June 2021. The paper also requested communications about the maneuvering among top county officials to appoint Michael Johnson as sheriff and the decision to hire Magrini as assistant county executive officer.
While the County Counsel’s Office, and an outside law firm it retained, raised numerous objections to releasing the information, Superior Court Judge Stephen Baker on Monday issued a ruling in which he disagreed with nearly all of the county’s arguments.
The county has 15 days to produce the records.
Walt McNeill, the attorney who represented the newspaper in court, said he was struck by how hard the county fought against releasing the documents.
“It was extraordinary in the respect to the lengths that the county went to refuse and obstruct release of these public records,” McNeill said. He said there were other aspects of this case that made it different from other California Public Records Act lawsuits.
“Most of the time when you’re fighting with the county or a city about public records, it concerns some kind of record that doesn’t necessarily involve the internal operations of the agency and in this case, obviously, it’s all about the internal operations,” McNeill said.
He said county officials put up “almost a brick wall” to keep from the public records of internal management, “because county officials don’t want to be embarrassed by their own behavior and records that show how they’ve handled various issues. But that’s what makes reviewing public records all the more important. The fundamental premise of the Public Records Act is to give the public access to and a window into how their local government operates,” McNeill said.
After Baker’s ruling was issued, the Record Searchlight sent County Counsel Rubin Cruse a list of 11 questions, including whether the county planned to appeal the decision.
Cruse, who plans to return to private practice after he retires from the county on April 21, only replied that the “county is currently reviewing the decision and is exploring its options. A final judgment has not yet been entered.”
Silas Lyons of Redding, who is now director of Gannett Corporation’s Center for Community Journalism, said he was happy with the ruling.
Former Shasta County CEO Candidate Accuses County of Illegal Budget Maneuvers
“We appreciate Judge Baker’s careful consideration and what we consider a very sound decision. Transparency is the lifeblood of healthy government and the right of citizens, not just the press. It’s worth defending,” Lyons said.
“I think, because our industry has had some tough years and our newsroom is smaller, there may have been a misunderstanding. So let me be clear: The Record Searchlight hasn’t gone anywhere, has never wavered in its commitment to the North State, and will never stop fighting for transparency in the public interest. We don’t rush to court, but any public agency considering whether to abide by the letter and spirit of the public records law should know that we will fight when we have to.”
Management concerns at Shasta sheriff’s office, a timeline
Magrini’s struggles within his office began to bubble up shortly after he was appointed sheriff by the Board of Supervisors and sworn into office in January 2020. About four months later, Magrini was asked to attend a Deputy Sheriff’s Association meeting to address its members’ concerns over his “lack of leadership, communication and vision,” the association said in June 2021.
Conditions within the department did not improve, according to the association, and by the end of January 2021, the DSA approved a vote of “no confidence” in Magrini.
Shortly afterward, the Sheriff’s Administrative Association, the union that represents lieutenants and captains in the department, also issued a vote of no confidence in Magrini and on Feb. 17, 2021, notified county supervisors of its concerns about declining morale, loss of efficiency, poor communication and officers’ lack of confidence in Magrini.
The SAA also asked then-County Executive Officer Matt Pontes to hire an outside investigator to look into sheriff’s office operations. Pontes agreed to hire private investigator Diane Davis, but the union objected, saying Davis had ties to the county that could raise the perception of bias.
ICYMI:Supervisor offers insight into why Eric Magrini stepped down as Shasta County sheriff
So in March 2021, the county hired the law firm Ellis & Makus LLP to conduct the investigation. In June 10 of that year, Magrini resigned as sheriff and took a job as assistant CEO. Along with his new job came a 31% pay increase over what he earned as sheriff, Cruse said at the time. The assistant CEO job paid $178,341 when Magrini was offered the post.
Without holding public interviews for a new sheriff, the Board of Supervisors appointed Anderson Police Chief Michael Johnson to the post less than two months after Magrini stepped down.
Background on newspaper’s lawsuit
On Aug. 2, the Record Searchlight filed the first of four requests for records under the California Public Records Act. The paper asked for copies of the Ellis & Makus investigative report and communications among top county officials — including the supervisors, county executive and the sheriff — about sheriff’s office management. The paper also wanted communications about hiring Johnson.
The county counsel’s office denied each request. Cruse argued the materials requested were of a private nature and protected under California law that maintains confidentiality of peace officer personnel records, and that they fell under “attorney-client” privilege, making them exempt from disclosure.
Read more:Former Shasta County CEO candidate accuses county of illegal budget maneuvers
McNeill said the peace officer personnel records claim was a “sham” argument the county later dropped.
After exhausting its efforts to obtain the information from the county, the Record Searchlight filed a lawsuit in July 2022 in Shasta County Superior Court, asking a judge to order the county to turn over the documents.
The case went to trial in January 2023 before Baker.
Breaking down Judge Baker’s decision
In the ruling issued this week, Baker said the county arguments it made in court filings broke down into two basic objections. The request for communications was “overbroad” and “would require ‘a search of virtually all, if not all, county-owned computers and cell phones for responsive records,’” the ruling says, citing the county’s arguments against release.
Baker rejected that argument, saying: “The requests are not so vague and broad as to require such a search.”
Regarding communications about hiring a replacement for Magrini, he said: “The documents the Record Searchlight seeks are reasonably identifiable.”
McNeill said in earlier interviews that the county’s claim of exemption for peace officer records was not applicable to Magrini, because the investigation and communications dealt with management of the department, not the sheriff as an individual. But the peace officer’s records issue was not brought up in Baker’s ruling.
Read more:With more costs to come, Shasta County will spend $950,000 on new voting system
The county also claimed the Ellis & Makus investigation could not be released because it was protected from release as part of an exemption called “attorney-client privilege,” and the report was “attorney-client work product.”
Baker again rejected those claims, because former CEO Pontes, who is not a lawyer, first tried to hire a private investigator, and Pontes only hired Ellis & Makus after the SAA objected.
