[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6381322,"mediaKeyId","2128560-d63852a7e85b67c528f855f696858646","parentId",2128560,"title","Board recommends decertification for several officers after hearings; one case returned for stay/probation","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",21575000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2128560-d63852a7e85b67c528f855f696858646&start=21575&end=21575","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2128560-d63852a7e85b67c528f855f696858646/thumbnail_21575000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6381322/California/Board-recommends-decertification-for-several-officers-after-hearings-one-case-returned-for-stayprobation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381322-2eae03e001406dddf4f22388aa722eb3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770911672&Signature=b60-LLANZhnuqbCYM5p9hQFZnaip~7pe6YJTSD-oLR222n~BYbkFgQxqhcp7~M0ioNDDmjW0mvwTIxvVWfDOYlbJ1r-LWtaIZ578Zh-EGhaD0pS4~K74Mm50SPkCeu5uXrlGZtPtQiigQMdRI1Zp3rVkCrkNEghe9jKgdvEpHWEWr2ZVy5I6Y96IUromj9NWo1I2Dwx4Q1JlRe0SPJgn~l-b6mY86SxOJPgn6lnnkBdRAL~zDptGUxV8NPp7s6COG5AZOoKLNbqFpCHy9OKB3m0xA9PrvYdz7C4cmaJQIsznxtShsZdmLq-Wof~9lPPr0APqk8woRP-uZnUPFYuAUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training","date","2025-01-17T01:15:35Z","article","The Peace Officers Standing Accountability Advisory Board convened Jan. 16 to hear Division presentations on multiple officer cases and to vote on whether the charged conduct met the statutory serious‑misconduct standard (Penal Code §13510.8 and Commission Regulation 1205). After presentations, public comment and deliberation the board made recommendations to the Commission in each matter.

The board’s actions at the meeting covered five contested personnel matters that were presented by the Division and legal staff. The cases and board recommendations were:

• Tommy Thompson (POST case 240‑0920; former Los Angeles Police Department detective). POST’s Division recommended revocation after presenting evidence the division said showed two on‑duty events in March 2023 in which Thompson was arrested for driving under the influence, one matter involving drugs and an on‑duty collision. The board voted to recommend revocation; the motion carried after the board’s second vote (final board tally recorded as 7 yes, 1 abstention). Thompson spoke to the board by phone and said he had enrolled in recovery and Alcoholics Anonymous and had retired from LAPD after serving the suspension days the department imposed.

• Gabriel Gaxiola (POST case 230‑2971; Los Angeles Police Department sergeant). The Division presented investigative findings that Gaxiola had two DUI arrests while employed as a sergeant and that one of those arrests involved a high blood‑alcohol concentration and an on‑duty city vehicle in 2016. The Division recommended revocation; after deliberation the board recommended a revocation stayed in favor of an extended probation/rehabilitation arrangement (the motion that carried directed a stayed revocation with conditions, reported as passed 6–1). Counsel for Gaxiola noted an active rehabilitation agreement with LAPD and told the board that Gaxiola remained on that program.

• Joshua Satterfield (POST case 235109; Torrance Police Department officer). POST presented extracts from a department forensic review and internal affairs materials showing multiple group text messages between several Torrance officers that the Division found contained racist, homophobic or transphobic language and direct demeaning references to community members. The Division concluded the messages demonstrated bias under Penal Code 13510.8(b)(5). The board voted to recommend revocation; the action passed unanimously after a roll call.

• Blake Williams (POST case 230‑5781; Torrance Police Department officer). The Division presented selected WhatsApp messages from a group labeled “the boys,” including images and language the Division found to be racist and antisemitic. Torrance conducted an administrative investigation and the city manager determined termination was appropriate; the Division recommended revocation. After public comment and deliberation, the board recommended revocation (motion passed; one board member recused for this vote as noted on the record and the motion carried with the recorded majority).

• Braulio Robledo (POST case 230‑9558; former Los Angeles County deputy). The Division presented evidence that Robledo conducted a traffic stop and subsequently made multiple statements to supervisors and to Internal Affairs that the Division concluded were demonstrably false. The Division’s recommendation was revocation for dishonesty (Pen. Code §13510.8(b)(1)). After deliberation the board recommended revocation; the final motion passed on the record with the majority supporting decertification (motion recorded as passing 7–1).

What the board said: Board members emphasized that their role at this stage is to decide whether the Division’s summary of facts, if proven at an evidentiary hearing, would meet the high‑probability clear‑and‑convincing standard in the statute. Several members said they found the language and content in the Torrance cases to be inconsistent with the public’s right to expect impartial law‑enforcement services. Other members pressed staff on chronology, training and the impact of rehabilitation agreements on the Commission’s independent certification decisions.

Next steps: The board’s recommendations will be transmitted to the Commission for final action. If the Commission adopts a recommendation to revoke a certificate, affected officers may appeal to an administrative law process provided under the statute and regulation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","POST POSAD Advisory Board Hearing - January 16th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At its Jan. 16 hearing the POST advisory board reviewed four agency‑referenced cases and recommended decertification for multiple officers after presentations and public comment; the board also recommended a stayed revocation/long probation in one case.","taxTitle","Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",76745,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6381327,"POST presents data on complaints: staff say bulk are not classified as serious misconduct",1483,1823000,3306000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2128560-d63852a7e85b67c528f855f696858646&start=1823&end=3306","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2128560-d63852a7e85b67c528f855f696858646/thumbnail_1823000.jpg","/articles/6381327/California/POST-presents-data-on-complaints-staff-say-bulk-are-not-classified-as-serious-misconduct","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381327-8c708a33accda29bf4e086f055af7273/orig.mp4?Expires=1770911672&Signature=iFApRw7gLnQFNvc6L5jrHr~tYyE5~m0PvT~48xsxdXacoUYdZAIyuxCTZ1-EdUSw6-VpWQYIFLKrTDpZ7smRZLpiO5Ar2xIJdoEFKzE-fML8bbK5h2wykJQPNKa88wudWGw3NncXqJKmMVEOuZ-cbcBYCBEw54IQudB0fit94Po4DFqiPxK9kTKZKU2VLZptfQ7q-8QAQRXf35ZMR84cnSw3JJSWyc974mih1eA9zEKvtaJxJwI3Iuf0uqiUbCupJCt2baK2CWaKiwfuMUZ~KIUixVC9d-SuyI~~OHG7BUIewF5DlANmwvFvqO7ue-vRFpbdMJeti9rbc2GCRB15lQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Good morning. The Peace Officers Standing Accountability Advisory Board received an overview of statewide complaint and intake data at its January 16 hearing, where staff described the volume and status of reports received since the board began operations.

POST assistant executive director Anne Marie Del Munoz introduced the data briefing and turned it over to Bureau Chief Christine Ford, who told the board the Division had received \"over 31,000 agency misconduct reports\" affecting \"over 18,000 law enforcement officers\" and that the state has \"over 82,000 officers.\" Ford said roughly half of the agency reports come from retroactive or \"look‑back\" cases and described a growing number of public complaints.

Ford told the board that about 22,000 of the agency reports had been assigned for action and that, at the time of the presentation, roughly 12,000 cases were open and about 9,000 had been closed. She said case workloads include a large queue of “unassigned” reports that staff triage by priority and that many of those unassigned items reflect agency investigations that did not meet POST’s statutory threshold for serious misconduct.

Sarah Wallace, bureau chief for Intake and Disposition, spoke about public complaints and intake practices. She said public complaints increased year over year (staff cited nearly a 47% rise in public complaints over the prior reporting period) and explained that the intake bureau links public reports to agency reports when both exist so a single case jacket is maintained for related submissions. Wallace said that many public complaints do not allege the narrow categories that qualify as \"serious misconduct\" under Penal Code 13510.8 and are therefore closed after intake work or referred back to the agency for handling.

Board members repeatedly pressed staff for clearer visuals and breakdowns the public could easily read. Board member Dr. David Glaser and other members suggested a one‑page infographic showing headline counts alongside the most relevant breakdowns (e.g., serious‑misconduct vs. non‑serious, assigned vs. unassigned, open vs. closed). Ford and Del Munoz said staff were already refining the visuals and would return with sample graphics and additional details, including a clearer public‑complaint disposition breakdown.

The briefing prompted discussion of data quality and training: members noted that some so‑called “issues in error” were caused by duplicate entries or incorrect officer identification numbers when agencies submit reports, and members encouraged continuing outreach and training to agencies to reduce those errors.

Board members also asked for periodic reports on disposition of public complaints that are not linked to agency reports, and staff agreed to provide a more detailed breakdown going forward.","At its Jan. 16 meeting the Peace Officers Standing Accountability Advisory Board received a statistical briefing from POST staff showing more than 31,000 agency misconduct reports and a marked increase in public complaints, but staff said most reports do not meet the statutory serious‑misconduct threshold.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board recommends decertification for several officers after hearings; one case returned for stay/probation

POST presents data on complaints: staff say bulk are not classified as serious misconduct