Leaked Subpoenas Shed Light on Shadowy Sonoma County Sheriff Whistleblower Case

Key details of a long-running investigation into a whistleblower complaint over alleged misconduct by Sonoma County sheriff’s officers spilled into public view this week when attorneys for the deputies union accidentally released sealed subpoenas issued by the county’s independent law enforcement watchdog.

The documents, which sought information on personnel, promotions and the disciplinary process in the years before Sheriff Eddie Engram took office, are central to an ongoing legal battle between the county watchdog, Engram and the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, which backed Engram’s campaign for sheriff.

They were sent to county supervisors Tuesday as part of a complaint against the watchdog agency, known as the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, for allegedly harassing and intimidating deputies in a separate investigation into a 2022 fatal shooting by a deputy. The complaint was attached to a press release that also accused IOLERO Executive Director John Alden of leaking information about the whistleblower case to the news media.

“A previous version of the attachment contains court-ordered sealed materials,” a spokesperson for the deputies union wrote in a follow-up email a few hours later. “The attorneys made an error in providing it and ask that you destroy the earlier attachment and use this redacted version.”

Jonathan Murphy, an attorney representing the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, did not return a request for comment.

IOLERO issued the subpoenas last year for various records related to sheriff’s office staff members who witnessed the events alleged by the whistleblower, which remain confidential, along with a request for two years of records related to Engram’s disciplinary decisions before he took office in 2023.

Engram and attorneys representing the deputies union argued that IOLERO overstepped its authority by investigating the whistleblower complaint, and the sheriff’s office refused to comply with the subpoenas. In July 2024, IOLERO sued in Sonoma County Superior Court and asked the judge to seal the subpoenas.

Alden declined to comment on the content of the subpoenas because they are still under seal, but he said the release could undermine IOLERO’s efforts to protect the investigation, the privacy of sheriff’s office staff and the whistleblower, who has not been publicly identified.

The subject of the whistleblower complaint is also not publicly known. However, in an attempt to quash the subpoenas, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association attorney Murphy wrote to county counsel on May 10, 2024: “It appears possible, if not probable, that the subject of the complaint is the currently elected Sheriff, Eddie Engram” — in which case, Murphy argued, IOLERO has no jurisdiction to investigate.

The IOLERO subpoenas that were inadvertently released this week seek records related to three current sheriff’s office employees: Deputy Brandon Jones, Sgt. Kelly Burris and Lt. Anthony Diehm, as well as one former non-sworn employee, Misti Woods.

A public court filing described these staff as being “allegedly involved in events described by the whistleblower,” and said their personnel records allegedly document those events. Two of the sworn employees are the subjects of the whistleblower’s allegations, according to the same filing, but it is unknown which ones.

The subpoenas sought all records of internal affairs investigations that were initiated during 2019–2021 in which Burris and Jones were subjects, regardless of the findings.

The subpoenas show that IOLERO asked for detailed records related to the three officers’ most recent promotions and assignments, including Jones’ assignment to the position of background investigator, Burris’ assignment to the position of personnel sergeant and Diehm’s promotion to lieutenant.

The confidential documents also show that IOLERO subpoenaed the records of all hearings where Sheriff Engram acted as the Skelly officer, who hears appeals of public agencies’ disciplinary decisions before the disciplinary action is taken.

It also sought all disciplinary and non-disciplinary actions reported to the state’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training from 2020 to 2022, the years immediately before Engram was sworn into office. In 2023, state lawmakers empowered POST, an accreditation agency for all law enforcement agencies in California, to decertify officers for serious misconduct. Participating agencies are required to notify POST of allegations of serious misconduct within 10 days.

Watchdog questions sheriff’s disciplinary actions

Publicly available filings show that IOLERO’s investigation reaches far beyond the individuals named in the subpoenas, extending to broad inquiries into dishonesty and disciplinary results over six years ending in 2022.

The subpoenas also seek information on Brady notifications — sustained findings of dishonesty that the sheriff’s office is required to share with the district attorney — and the notices of disciplinary action to POST.

These broader requests overlap with IOLERO’s repeated criticism of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office’s administrative reviews of shootings by its deputies — incidents of such great public concern in the county that voters overwhelmingly passed Measure P in 2020 to give the civilian oversight board powers to investigate allegations of misconduct, including the power to subpoena records and witnesses.

“We’ve learned at IOLERO that in shooting cases, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office historically does not interview their own deputy sheriffs,” Alden said. “This is unlike almost every other agency in California, which does their own administrative interview to check to see if there are policy issues or violations or even strategic or tactical improvements that could be made.”

Engram was not available to comment for this report, but public information officer Sgt. Juan Valencia said the department follows a county protocol for shootings in which an outside agency first investigates whether officers broke any laws. The department then conducts its own administrative review, which would include interviewing staff if warranted.

“The outside agency that’s conducting the investigation, they ask questions of the deputy,” Valencia said. “If there’s something that comes out during the criminal investigation or during the investigation that it’s a policy violation, then yes, they’re going to be interviewed later for that policy violation.”

IOLERO has repeatedly criticized the sheriff for relying on criminal investigators’ interviews for administrative reviews.

An internal affairs investigator would ask very different questions in order to identify policy slips, or the need to reassess a policy that didn’t work in the field, Alden said.

“I don’t see how any law enforcement employer, like the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, could follow up on their duty to impose discipline where appropriate, put people on a Brady list or notify POST of misconduct if they’re not doing interviews of the personnel involved,” Alden said.