The program was created after the nationwide protests that followed the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. That year, California lawmakers approved legislation shifting investigations of fatal police shootings of unarmed people from local prosecutors to the California Department of Justice.

Supporters argued that state oversight would reduce conflicts of interest because district attorneys frequently depend on officers as witnesses in criminal cases. The change was intended to strengthen public confidence in decisions about whether officers should face criminal charges.

Five years later, the program has completed 41 cases, according to a CalMatters review. In none of those cases has the state recommended criminal charges against an officer who shot and killed an unarmed person.

Attorney General Rob Bonta had originally said the Justice Department would aim to finish the investigations within a year. That has not happened. On average, cases have taken nearly two years and five months to complete. Eight investigations, including several from rural Northern California, have remained open for more than three years.

The Justice Department has said funding has been a challenge. The police shooting review program received about $13 million a year, though the department had requested $26 million. Investigators raised concerns about staffing shortages as early as the program’s first case.

The delays can have serious legal consequences.

In California, prosecutors generally have three years to file charges for most crimes. Some offenses, including murder, have no statute of limitations. But if a police shooting investigation passes the three-year mark, certain possible charges can no longer be filed. Those include involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault, charges that have been used in past cases involving officers who killed people.

Lengthy investigations can also affect police discipline at the state level.

A year after California created the shooting investigation program, lawmakers approved a separate law allowing officers to lose their certification for serious misconduct. Decertification bars an officer from continuing to work in law enforcement in California.

That process also has a three-year deadline. If a Department of Justice investigation goes beyond that point, the agency can no longer recommend that an officer be stripped of their certification in connection with the shooting.

The decertification system is overseen by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, known as POST. The commission told CalMatters it can open its own investigations when officers are accused of serious misconduct.

The shift to state investigations has also revived debate over whether local accountability has been weakened.

Before the law took effect, many law enforcement officials and district attorneys opposed it. But some prosecutors who supported police reform also had concerns. They warned that moving cases to Sacramento could reduce pressure on local elected district attorneys, who otherwise would have to explain charging decisions to their own communities.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, who helped create a police-officer investigation unit while serving as chief of staff in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, said local prosecutors directly feel the weight of community concern, protests and public attention.

Under the current system, those charging decisions are handled by the state, not the county district attorney.

Local law enforcement agencies are still allowed to conduct their own investigations after a fatal police shooting in their jurisdiction. Bonta’s office has said the law does not prevent police departments or sheriff’s agencies from running parallel reviews.

In practice, however, CalMatters found that local agencies often step back once the state takes over.

Capt. Brian Cole, who oversees detectives for the Redding Police Department, said that when a case meets the criteria for state review and the Department of Justice accepts it, his agency does not conduct a separate criminal investigation during or after the state’s review. He said the Justice Department has full criminal jurisdiction over the matter.

Although the state says its review is focused on whether an officer committed a crime, the result in many cases is that the Department of Justice investigation becomes the only criminal inquiry into the shooting.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What to Know About California’s Backlog of Police Shooting Investigations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Some party activists and strategists feared that too many Democratic candidates could split the vote in California’s top-two primary system, potentially allowing two conservative Republicans to advance to the November runoff. They wanted Newsom to intervene, endorse a favored candidate and effectively clear the field.

He stayed out. The primary results suggest that decision may have served him well: Democrats still advanced a candidate to the runoff, while Newsom avoided the political risk of appearing to dictate the party’s future.

But even without endorsing a successor, Newsom has already shaped the next generation of California politics in a way few governors have. Through a series of vacancies, appointments and national political shifts, he has placed allies and rising figures in some of the most powerful elected offices in the state.

The chain of appointments began after President Joe Biden selected then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate in 2020. When Harris became vice president, Newsom chose then-Secretary of State Alex Padilla to fill her U.S. Senate seat. Padilla, a longtime Newsom ally, had chaired Newsom’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign before Newsom stepped aside for Jerry Brown and ran for lieutenant governor instead.

Padilla’s move to the Senate created another vacancy. Newsom filled it by appointing Assemblymember Shirley Weber as secretary of state.

Soon after, Biden nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to serve as U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Newsom then selected Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who had been viewed as a potential future candidate for attorney general, to take Becerra’s place.

The appointments continued after the death of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2023. Newsom chose Laphonza Butler, a labor leader and Harris ally, to temporarily fill the seat. For a short time, both of California’s U.S. Senate seats and a significant share of the state’s elected constitutional offices were held by people Newsom had appointed — including Newsom himself.

Weber and Bonta later won full terms in 2022. Padilla also won election that year, though his situation was unusual. Because he had been appointed to Harris’ seat, he appeared on the ballot twice: once to serve the final weeks of Harris’ unexpired term and once for a new six-year term. The arrangement stemmed from legal requirements tied to how appointed U.S. senators must face voters.

Butler’s appointment unfolded differently. Newsom had faced criticism for not appointing a Black woman to replace Harris in the Senate. He later pledged to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became vacant, but also initially said the appointee should not run for a full term. He later said she could.

After taking office, Butler announced she would not seek the seat. Rep. Adam Schiff won the election for the full term. Butler then resigned before the term ended, and Newsom appointed Schiff to serve the brief remaining period, giving him a small amount of additional Senate seniority.

In all, Newsom made three appointments to the U.S. Senate.

Many of his selections were historic. Padilla became California’s first Latino U.S. senator. Butler became the state’s first openly LGBTQ senator. Bonta is California’s first Filipino American attorney general, and Weber is the state’s first Black secretary of state.

Those milestones are likely to be a central part of Newsom’s legacy in California. They also could become part of his national political argument if, as widely expected, he runs for president in 2028.

Newsom’s influence extends beyond statewide office. As governor, he has filled vacancies on eight county boards of supervisors. Including his years as San Francisco mayor, when he also appointed a supervisor, the total rises to nine. He has appointed three of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court and is expected to name a fourth.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown appointed more state Supreme Court justices over his 16 years in office, but no California governor in the past century has matched Newsom’s volume of appointments to high-profile elected positions. Brown also played an indirect role in setting off the sequence by appointing Becerra as attorney general after Harris was elected to the Senate. When Harris and Becerra later joined the Biden administration, Newsom gained the opportunity to fill those vacancies.

The political importance of those decisions may grow as Newsom looks beyond Sacramento. If he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination, possibly against other prominent Californians such as Harris, he would enter the race with a deep network of officeholders whose careers were advanced by his appointments.

He also would be able to point to a record of elevating officials from historically underrepresented communities, a message that could resonate in a Democratic primary. That record would fit alongside another major chapter of his political career: his decision as San Francisco mayor to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, helping push same-sex marriage into the national debate.

At the same time, opponents will likely scrutinize some of his past appointments. Republicans emphasizing crime and public safety are expected to highlight Newsom’s role in appointing George Gascón first as San Francisco police chief and later as San Francisco district attorney.

For Newsom, the argument may be that those choices must be judged alongside the long list of other appointments he has made — appointments that have reshaped California’s political leadership and could prove valuable if he turns his attention to the White House.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s California Protégés Could Be Key to a Presidential Run appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd intensified national demands for police reform, shifted responsibility for certain fatal police shooting investigations away from local agencies and district attorneys. Instead, the California Department of Justice was required to investigate fatal shootings by law enforcement when the person killed was unarmed.

Supporters said the change would help avoid conflicts of interest that can arise when local prosecutors review cases involving police departments they work with regularly. They also argued the attorney general’s office would bring greater independence, credibility and resources to investigations that often draw intense public scrutiny.

But a CalMatters review found the program has fallen far behind the timeline promised by Attorney General Rob Bonta, who pledged after taking office in 2021 that investigations would be completed within 12 months. According to the review, the Department of Justice has not closed a single case within one year.

The average investigation has taken nearly two years and five months to complete. Of 41 closed cases, only eight were finished in less than two years. Thirteen use-of-force investigations have stretched beyond three years, a delay that can put some potential criminal charges out of reach because of statutes of limitations, except for the most serious allegations such as murder.

The delays also affect police certification. Once a case goes past three years, an officer generally cannot be decertified in connection with the incident, meaning the state cannot use that process to prevent the officer from working for another law enforcement agency.

So far, Bonta’s office has not prosecuted any officer under the program. It also has not referred any officer for decertification or discipline after completing a police shooting investigation.

The slow pace has frustrated families waiting for answers and officers waiting to be cleared or charged. It has also raised concerns among police leaders and former prosecutors who say a system intended to strengthen public trust may be undermining it instead.

“In my experience, three years is an awful long period of time, especially if you’re starting to come upon statutes of limitations,” said Anne Marie Schubert, the former Sacramento County district attorney who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2022.

Schubert said she was surprised that the most recent case closed by the program involved a shooting from 2023.

“Is it resources? Is it experience?” she said. “That’s a question I’d want to know.”

Bonta’s office has attributed the backlog largely to limited funding and the Legislature’s decision not to provide the full amount the Department of Justice requested when the program was created. The office also says local authorities are not barred from conducting their own parallel investigations.

In practice, however, local agencies often step back once the state takes over.

Capt. Brian Cole, who oversees the detective division at the Redding Police Department, said his agency does not conduct a separate criminal investigation when the Department of Justice accepts jurisdiction under the law.

“They have complete criminal jurisdiction of the matter,” Cole said.

One case that illustrates the delay began in Redding in February 2023, after a confrontation between California Highway Patrol Officer Ryan Cates and 31-year-old David Couch.

Couch had been jailed on Christmas Day 2022 and released on Feb. 8, 2023. His mother, Jeanelle Couch, said her son was experiencing a manic episode when he came home. In a lawsuit she later filed, she alleged he had been given the wrong medication for bipolar disorder during his jail stay and had spent much of that time in solitary confinement.

After his release, Couch returned to his mother’s home. She recalled that he seemed relieved to see family.

“He was happy to see us and he asked if we remembered him,” she said. The next morning, before she left for work, he spoke with her at length. “And then I didn’t see him again alive.”

That afternoon, Couch was sitting in his car in his mother’s driveway in a residential neighborhood. At 5:25 p.m., the California Highway Patrol received a report that a driver heading south on Interstate 5 had brandished a gun. The vehicle description and license plate matched Couch’s car.

Nine minutes later, Cates arrived at the home.

Dashboard camera footage showed Couch seated in a white Ford sedan with the driver’s door open. Cates ordered him to show his hands and put them up. Couch got out wearing a brown hooded sweatshirt, khaki pants, a gray baseball cap and a backpack. He held a cellphone with both hands.

According to the Department of Justice investigation, Couch also had knives strapped to his jacket, though he did not reach for them. The footage showed him walking toward Cates, who had his gun drawn.

Some of the exchange could not be heard clearly on the video. As the confrontation escalated, Couch told Cates to leave him alone, used profanity and said “shoot.” A struggle followed outside the camera’s view. The Department of Justice later reported that Couch gained control of Cates’ Taser.

Cates told investigators he believed Couch was trying to take his handgun. Moments later, after several audible clicks, Cates fired four shots. The encounter lasted about one minute.

Couch survived for nine days and died Feb. 17, 2023.

His sister, Lauren Metzger, wrote in an online fundraiser that the family could not understand why the shooting happened and said Couch did not have a gun on him when relatives and a friend found him in the street.

During the days Couch remained alive, a five-agency team led by the Redding Police Department began investigating the shooting. After Couch died, the Department of Justice took control of the case, and the local investigation ended.

More than three years later, the state completed its review. The Department of Justice investigation took 1,199 days and concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of Cates.

Cates returned to work, according to the California Highway Patrol. His attorney did not respond to messages from CalMatters.

Couch’s family has filed a federal lawsuit against the state, Shasta County and the officer. Shasta County and the state have denied responsibility. In its response, the county said Cates is entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that can limit civil liability for government officials, including police officers.

The statewide investigation program was born from Assembly Bill 1506, legislation pushed for years by former Assemblymember Kevin McCarty of Sacramento. The fatal shooting of Stephon Clark by Sacramento police in 2018 helped build support for outside review, especially after Schubert, then Sacramento County’s district attorney, declined to charge the officers involved.

Floyd’s killing by a Minneapolis police officer in May 2020 helped propel the bill through the Legislature and to Newsom’s desk. Police accountability advocates strongly supported the change, and Bonta, then an assemblymember, championed it.

But even before the law took effect, the Department of Justice warned that it did not have enough money to do the work as envisioned. The department asked for $26 million to create new investigative teams. State lawmakers approved about half that amount.

Then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra wrote to McCarty in January 2021 that the funding was “significantly lower” than the department’s estimates and not enough to create the professional teams needed for the new investigative and prosecutorial duties.

The original plan called for four regional investigative teams, based in Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles and Riverside — a structure that would have placed a dedicated team in the Inland Empire and another in Southern California’s largest metro area. Instead, the department received funding for two teams, one covering Northern California and one covering Southern California.

Within days of receiving its first case, the Department of Justice’s shooting investigation teams recognized they were short-staffed. In a 2022 budget request, the department said special agents could not complete dozens of tasks and assignments because staffing was limited.

One year into the program, investigations were already falling behind Bonta’s one-year goal. At the time, Bonta said the department would have to make do with the funding it had received.

“We got the funding that we got, and we’re going to make it work,” he said then. “We have no choice. We have to find a way.”

Since then, cases have continued to lengthen — first beyond one year, then beyond two. In 2025, one case passed the three-year mark.

The Department of Justice did not make anyone available for an interview with CalMatters about the backlog. In a written statement, a spokesperson said Bonta personally reviews every investigation and said the cases vary in complexity.

“All investigations are unique in their complexity, and some may take longer than others to investigate and reach a conclusion,” the statement said.

The office said it is working to improve speed and efficiency.

“We’re continuously identifying ways to tighten timelines and improve our processes,” the statement said. “It’s a balancing act — but it’s one we’re actively managing. Improvements are already taking hold. In the last two and a half years, we closed 9 times as many cases as were closed in the first two and a half years that the law was operational, and we remain committed to improving.”

Law enforcement leaders say the delays have become a serious problem.

Sean Thuilliez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said chiefs across the state have repeatedly pushed for faster reviews.

“When transparency is not accompanied by timeliness, the system risks falling short for everyone — eroding confidence, deepening mistrust, and prolonging uncertainty,” Thuilliez said.

Some prosecutors and advocates who support police accountability also have reservations about removing local officials entirely from the process. They argue that community pressure is often strongest at the local level, where families, activists and residents can confront elected district attorneys and law enforcement leaders directly.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, who helped create a police officer investigation unit while serving as chief of staff at the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, said local prosecutors feel the weight of community concern in ways state officials may not. She now leads the Prosecutors Alliance, a progressive advocacy organization.

“Local concern, local protests, local interest is felt by local prosecutors,” DeBerry said. “The very real pain of family and community members that experience that absolutely has an impact on a prosecutor and their willingness to take this crime seriously.”

For Jeanelle Couch, the Department of Justice decision did not end her family’s search for accountability. She said she remains hopeful that the civil lawsuits will bring more answers about her son’s death.

“I want light on it,” she said. “That’s what I want. Just, justice.”

Asked what justice would look like now, she looked down.

“Now?” she said. “I don’t know.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Law Inspired by George Floyd Protests Had Unintended Impact on Police Accountability appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Darwin last month blocked state regulators, for now, from enforcing rules that would have barred cardrooms from offering blackjack, one of their most profitable games. The regulations were issued by Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Bureau of Gambling Control and had been set to take effect this week.

The ruling is not expected to end the dispute. Instead, it keeps alive one of the most expensive and politically influential fights in Sacramento — a conflict with major implications for gambling businesses, tribal governments, city budgets and campaign fundraising.

California has about 80 privately run cardrooms, also known as card clubs. Many local governments rely heavily on taxes generated by their table games. Tribal casinos, meanwhile, argue that cardrooms have been improperly offering games that voters reserved for tribes when they approved tribal gaming measures in 1998 and 2000.

Mike Gatto, a former Democratic assemblyman from Los Angeles, said the ongoing stalemate has also benefited another group: politicians.

“It keeps the fight going; it keeps the two very powerful interests caring about what goes on at the Legislature, and therefore it keeps the campaign contributions moving as well,” Gatto said.

Campaign finance records compiled by CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database show that 27 casino-owning tribes have contributed at least $15.8 million to current members of the California Legislature. Twenty-six cardrooms and related businesses have contributed at least $2.8 million.

Bonta, who is seeking reelection this year, has also received money from both sides. Since 2012, cardrooms have given him at least $244,000, while tribes have contributed $531,000, according to Digital Democracy.

Jonathan Underland, a spokesperson for Bonta’s campaign, said the donations did not influence the attorney general’s decision to move forward with the regulations. The Attorney General’s Office referred questions about campaign contributions to the campaign.

“Contributions have never impacted the Attorney General’s decision-making process,” Underland said in a text message. He added that Bonta stopped accepting donations from gambling interests before implementing the rules.

The legal and political fight centers on so-called “house-banked” games, including blackjack. Under California’s tribal gaming framework, tribes have the exclusive right to negotiate compacts with the state to operate Las Vegas-style casino games.

Tribal governments say gaming revenue has been critical to improving economic conditions in communities that have long faced poverty and political marginalization. They argue that cardrooms have undermined tribal exclusivity by offering versions of prohibited games through a workaround.

Cardrooms do not act as the bank in blackjack games. Instead, they contract with third-party companies whose employees sit at the tables and handle wagers and payouts. Dealers are required to periodically offer players the chance to serve as the bank, though nearly all decline. Cardrooms collect fees from the games.

Tribes contend that arrangement violates the state’s ban on non-tribal entities offering house-banked games. Cardrooms maintain that the model has been reviewed for decades and is lawful.

Bonta sided with the tribes, completing regulations that two of his predecessors, Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, had begun but did not finish. Darwin’s preliminary injunction found that Bonta’s office likely went beyond its authority by banning the cardrooms’ most popular table games. The order remains in place for 45 days, and the Attorney General’s Office is expected to argue its position in court on June 30.

A spokesperson for the California Nations Indian Gaming Association did not respond to a request for comment.

Kyle Kirkland, a Fresno cardroom owner and president of the California Gaming Association, praised the temporary court order and said cardrooms expect to win the broader legal fight.

“We are a legitimate industry, we have had decades of lawful operation,” Kirkland said. “We operate legally; we provide incredible support to our employees and our host communities.”

If cardrooms ultimately prevail, it would mark the second major legal setback for tribes in less than a year.

In October, a Sacramento judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by tribes against cardrooms. The case was based on a 2024 law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that gave tribes a one-time opportunity to sue cardrooms in Sacramento County Superior Court. Before that law, tribes had been unable to bring such unfair business practice claims in state court because, as sovereign governments, they lacked standing.

The judge ruled that federal law superseded the state law.

The stakes extend well beyond the gambling floor. Some California cities depend on cardroom tax revenue for a large share of their budgets, and officials have warned that losing that money could affect police, fire and other public services. San Jose officials have said the city receives about $30 million a year from cardrooms, enough to pay for 150 police officers or 133 firefighters.

The battle over the 2024 law, Senate Bill 549, became one of the most expensive political fights of that legislative session. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, many representing districts with large tribal casinos, supported the measure. A smaller bloc of legislators with cardrooms in their districts opposed it.

During the two-year session that ended in 2024, gambling interests on both sides donated at least $4.3 million to members of the Legislature, according to Digital Democracy.

The tribes had pushed for the bill after spending millions of dollars on a failed 2022 sports betting initiative that also would have allowed them to sue cardrooms.

Cardrooms responded with an aggressive lobbying campaign. In 2023, Hawaiian Gardens Casino spent $9.1 million on lobbying at the state Capitol, the second-highest amount reported by any company to state regulators that year. Only Chevron Corp. spent more.

After Newsom signed the bill, the cardroom industry spent more than $3 million that fall targeting four lawmakers who had played central roles in passing it. Three of those candidates lost reelection, including the bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton.

For now, the court order allows cardrooms to keep dealing blackjack while the legal fight continues. But with millions of dollars in gaming revenue, city tax funding and political contributions at stake, few in Sacramento expect the dispute to end soon.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Long-Running Gambling Fight Could Benefit California Politicians appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta said officials have charged 21 and have so far arrested 5 people involved as the Trump administration accused California of not doing enough to crack down on fraud.

Federal officials have launched a nationwide effort to target improper spending in federal benefit programs, arresting eight people last week they said were involved in various health care fraud schemes in and around Los Angeles.

“This isn’t a political game for us. This is about protecting taxpayer dollars, protecting the programs that sick and vulnerable Californians rely on, and protecting our state,” Bonta said in a news release.

After the Department of Health Care Services notified state prosecutors of potential fraud, investigators discovered a scheme in which individuals bought personal information for non-California residents from the dark web and enrolled them in Medi-Cal, the state’s equivalent of Medicaid, Bonta’s office said. The program provides free or low-cost health insurance to low-income individuals and families.

Then, those individuals bought 14 hospice companies and began billing for hospice services for the stolen identities. They billed a total of about $267 million, Bonta’s office said.

The individuals are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, money laundering, and identity theft with aggravated white collar crime and money laundering enhancements.

“For years, California has led the charge to protect public programs from fraud and abuse,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in the news release. “We hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law anyone who tries to rip off taxpayers and take advantage of public programs, particularly those as sensitive as hospice care.

Under Bonta, the state has filed 119 hospice-related criminal cases and secured 51 convictions, his office said.

The Trump administration has made California a focus of its national anti-fraud efforts and zeroed in on Medicare hospice fraud in the Los Angeles area. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March to create an anti-fraud task force led by Vice President JD Vance. Most of the efforts have focused on states run by Democrats, though Republican-led Florida was among those asked to share more information on how they identify, prevent and address Medicaid fraud.

The post California officials charge 21 people in hospice fraud exceeding $250 million appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California Governor Gavin Newsom stressed the importance of trade with Mexico and immigrant labor at a press conference near the border on Thursday, striking a contrast with President-elect Donald Trump’s threat of tariffs and mass deportations.

Newsom, a Democrat, portrayed the Republican president-elect’s planned 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada as a tax on Americans who could see increased prices if the plan moves forward when Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

Trump won a second term last month promising protectionist U.S. trade policies and a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration while also taking aim at transgender rights and diversity initiatives. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta have emerged as prominent Democratic opponents of Trump’s agenda, pledging to defend the state’s liberal policies.

Newsom called the Trump tariff plans “one of the biggest tax increases in U.S. history.”

“Don’t think for a second this won’t impact you,” he said.

Newsom said California was committed to advancing plans to open a new legal border crossing near San Diego, a delayed project known as Otay Mesa East. He said the state would work with outgoing President Joe Biden’s administration but that Trump’s support would be needed to complete it by late 2027.

Newsom said the state’s National Guard troops deployed to the border would search for illicit money and weapons heading to Mexico in addition to ongoing efforts to stop fentanyl trafficking into the U.S.

Agricultural groups have said Trump’s plans for record deportations could decimate the nation’s food supply if it extends to farmworkers, a concern Newsom echoed.

“The impacts of mass deportation on the cost of food in this state, in this nation, are off the charts,” he said.

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post California governor promotes trade with Mexico after Trump threats appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The jail system has reported its highest number of detainee deaths in decades, including several suicides, the New York Times reported. Deaths were reported as homicide, overdose, natural causes and suicide.

Alicia Upton, who died of suicide in 2022, was one of 19 people who died in custody that year. It was the system’s most lethal year in more than three decades. Upton was one of at least four suicides, the newspaper reported.

Neglect by jail employees, access to drugs and cell assignments put detainees at increased risk throughout 2022, the New York Times reported.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department has reportedly assumed no responsibility for the deaths. County sheriff Chad Bianco did not respond to interview requests with the New York Times.

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a civil rights investigation into the sheriff’s office last year, citing concerns over its jail facilities.

“Whether you have a loved one in jail or are worried about crime in your neighborhood, we all benefit when there is action to ensure the integrity of policing in our state,” Bonta wrote.

The newspaper reported five key takeaways about the jail system:

1. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department failed to adequately monitor detainees and intervene when they attempted suicide

2. Mentally ill detainees were able to block cell cameras and cell door windows even though the rules forbade it.

3. Deputies did not relocate detainees who expressed suicidal thoughts to cells where they could be monitored at all times.

4. The sheriff’s department left out important information about the deaths to the public and to the detainee’s families.

5. Riverside County paid out millions of dollars in settlements related to detainee deaths.

Read more from the New York Times: Inside a Deadly Southern California Jail System: 5 Takeaways

The post RivCo Has One Of The Deadliest Jail Systems In U.S.: Report appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“I’m all in,” said Bianco, who has hinted he may run for California governor in 2026. “Trump 2024, baby. Let’s save this country and make America great again.”

In the video, Bianco dons his county law enforcement uniform while lashing out at state leaders, particularly Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, over what he calls their “love for criminals.”

Bianco said in the video that the state leaders might be “on to something,” so he’s decided to “change teams” by backing a felon for president.

A Manhattan jury of five women and seven men on Thursday found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors said the crimes were election interference, undertaken by Trump for the sake of garnering a White House win.

Commenters on Bianco’s Instagram post were mostly critical of the sheriff’s endorsement. One person wondered if Bianco would hire a deputy with 34 felony convictions. Others questioned why the sheriff endorsed a political candidate while wearing his uniform.

A California statute prohibits public employees from wearing their uniforms when engaging in political activities. Government Code section 3206 provides that “no officer or employee of a local agency shall participate in political activities of any kind while in uniform.”

It’s not clear whether Bianco was on duty at the time the video was made.

Patch has reached out to the county’s chief executive office and the state district attorney’s office for statements.

“If you really are so upset about excessive leniency shown to criminals (which I do agree with), I’d expect your want Trump to go to prison and be held accountable for his crimes,” one person responded on Bianco’s Instagram page. “Instead you support a felon for highest office in the land and let him escape accountability for his other indicted crimes yet to be tried.”

Bianco’s comments follow similar ones made by Riverside County’s Republican leaders in the wake of Trump’s conviction.

Former state Sen. Melissa Melendez of Lake Elsinore has consistently supported Trump — from his campaign that led to a successful 2016 presidential bid right up to the day he was convicted.

“I’ve got news for you, a guilty verdict isn’t going to keep Donald Trump from being the 47th president,” Melendez said Thursday via Twitter. “You may want to get used to that idea now. MAGA.”

No Republican leaders from Riverside County have publicly criticized the former president in the wake of his convictions.

Last month, Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin spoke at a fundraising event headlined by Trump’s son, Eric. The May 22 event at The Temecula Stampede was organized by the Inland Empire Family PAC. Read more here.

The post CA Sheriff Endorses Trump: ‘It’s Time We Put A Felon In The White House’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.