Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships.
The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing.
As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors.
'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.'
The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days.
CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing.
Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal.
A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon.
'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.'
The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony.
Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website.
'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement.
Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared.
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
A New App Warns Users When ICE Are Nearby
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When Peter Grunthel witnessed people close to him, friends and family members of friends, being arrested by masked federal agents in upstate New York, he knew something had to be done. Just two days after President Donald Trump's inauguration, Grunthel gathered community members, rapid response leaders, and activists to build what would become the Coquí app: a real-time alert system designed to protect immigrant communities from sudden enforcement operations. The app's name is inspired by the coquí frog of Puerto Rico, a symbol of resilience and the power of voice. The app allows users who spot ICE enforcement activity to drop a location-based pin, notifying everyone within a 5 to 10-mile radius. Other users can confirm reports, share photos, and coordinate safe next steps, all without revealing their identities or doxxing them. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Grunthel, the CEO of Coqui, told Newsweek he wanted to build the app because there was "no secure way to warn neighbors of ICE activity." "We began as a hyper-local community shield and are now growing into a national network of protection. The mission stays the same: to be a shield, not a sword," he said. Despite this, ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan blasted the app and told CBS News that the app "can cause users to go and cause violence." Grunthel pushed back on the remarks, calling the statement "reckless and baseless." "I haven't seen any evidence of anyone using these apps to incite violence. Our app was built to save lives, not endanger them," he said. Responding to critics who claim the app obstructs immigration enforcement, Grunthel clarifies that Coquí simply alerts users to ICE's presence and does not encourage interference. He stresses that observing, recording, and sharing such information is legal and questions why community awareness would be perceived as threatening. "This app doesn't stop enforcement as it does not promote or recommend anyone to obstruct ICE, it simply alerts people of their presence. If basic community awareness is seen as a threat, then the real question is: what is the system trying to hide?" As Coquí expands nationally, the team is focused on growing thoughtfully and with community input, prioritizing areas where demand and trust networks already exist. Grunthel acknowledges potential legal challenges but emphasizes that the app's design complies with the law and the First Amendment, standing firmly on human dignity. Grunthel explains that the app avoids collecting personal information such as names, phone numbers, or GPS tracking data. Upcoming updates will include automatic removal of metadata from images uploaded by users, he said. Unlike many apps, Coquí does not use device IDs to send push notifications, meaning there is no central database of users. The app's newest features, Coquí Communities and Coquí Allies, strengthen local response networks by enabling users to form small, secure groups for rapid communication and by partnering with local businesses and organizations that serve as support hubs. Grunthel shares one anecdote of Coquí having helped an asylum-seeking family from Central America. "They came with no network, trusting in the generosity of strangers, other immigrants, and in the American legal system to keep them safe from despots who had destroyed their home. One of our community members came into contact with them and recommended they download the Coquí app. From then on, they have successfully lived their lives, with less anxiety," he said. Reflecting on his motivations, Grunthel says he created the app not as a typical tech founder but from a desire to do something about the increase in immigration arrests. He envisions deploying technology as a tool to protect marginalized communities. "We're here to remind people that dignity and belonging are not partisan ideas. They're human ones." Read the Full Interview Below 1. What inspired the creation of Coquí, and how has its mission evolved since its launch in New York? Coquí started in upstate New York when people I cared about, friends, and family of friends, started getting taken overnight. Over the course of eight months, literally two days after Trump's inauguration, I gathered community members, leaders of rapid response networks, and others to build the app because no secure way to warn neighbors of ICE activity existed. We began as a hyper-local community shield and are now growing into a national network of protection. The mission stays the same: to be a shield, not a sword. 2. Can you walk me through how the app works, particularly in moments of real-time immigration enforcement activity? The user experience starts when someone sees ICE circling a neighborhood or conducting active enforcement. Then that person drops a location-based pin to notify everyone within a five to ten mile radius. People nearby then confirm it, share photos, and coordinate safe next steps without exposing their identities. It's fast, local, and built on trust. 3. ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan recently claimed the app could "cause users to go and cause violence." How do you respond to that statement? That comment was reckless and baseless. I haven't seen any evidence of anyone using these apps to incite violence. Our app was built to save lives, not endanger them. Statements like these fuel stigma, distract from the real government overreach we're experiencing, and put already vulnerable communities at greater risk. What's more, our use case is no different than that of users on Waze reporting police activity on highways or streets around the country. 4. How do you ensure the app maintains privacy and security for users, especially in the face of potential federal scrutiny? We don't collect names, phone numbers, or track device activity. In the next update, we'll be able to automatically scrub the metadata from any image uploaded to the app automatically. Apple and Google require device IDs when an app sends push notifications, which is why our app does not, we also track no GPS history, and there is no database of users saved anywhere. If the feds come knocking, there's literally nothing to hand over. 5. Do you have any cybersecurity concerns? We're always cautious, but the architecture itself minimizes risk immensely. With no personal data and encrypted, invite-only group chats called Coqui Communities, there's no central vault to hack. We consult with security experts regularly to pressure test our systems. Our security philosophy is that the best way to keep users' identities safe is by not collecting any of it in the first place. 6. Tell me more about the new features — Coquí Communities and Coquí Allies — and what role they play in strengthening local response networks. Coquí Communities let users form smaller, completely sealed, invite-only groups to respond quickly in their immediate area and share important information and best practices. Coquí Allies are local businesses and organizations that act as anchor points, places you can go, people you can trust. Together, they build a decentralized safety network that's stronger than any single alert. 7. What's next for Coquí as it rolls out nationwide? Are you anticipating any legal or policy challenges along the way? We're expanding carefully and thoughtfully, continuing our regular touch bases with the immigrant community for direct UX feedback and thus continuing to be community-focused, starting where demand is highest and where networks of trust and verification can be built. Legal threats are always possible, but we're prepared. Our design and policies follow the letter of the law, the most important of which is enshrined in the Constitution, the First Amendment, while standing firmly on the side of human dignity. 8. Can you share any anecdotes of anyone who has used the app and shared info on how it has helped them? There is a family we know of who came to the U.S. seeking asylum from a dangerous country in Central America. They came with no network, trusting in the generosity of strangers, other immigrants, and in the American legal system to keep them safe from despots who had destroyed their home. One of our community members came into contact with them and recommended they download the Coqui app. From then on, they have successfully lived their lives, with less anxiety, because their particular community is very active, so is ICE. 9. What do you make of critics who say this impedes immigration enforcement operations? This app doesn't stop enforcement as it does not promote or recommend anyone to obstruct ICE, it simply alerts people of their presence. It's perfectly legal to observe, legal to record, and legal to share what you see. If basic community awareness is seen as a threat, then the real question is: What is the system trying to hide?
