The City Council of Santa Ana on Tuesday directed city staff to undertake a formal investigation into complaints filed by three Santa Ana Police Department officers that allege misconduct by Councilmember Jonathan Hernández. Councilmember Jonathan Hernández spoke at the dais and to the public during the meeting, arguing the proposed censure would chill his First Amendment rights.

The item came to the public meeting after a closed-session discussion. City Attorney staff told the council the body has authority to pursue a public censure under its code of ethics and that the council could also order an independent investigation or present a draft resolution in a later public forum. The City Attorney reviewed legal options and the council debated whether to open a separate public process under the municipal code of ethics or refer the complaints to internal personnel processes.

Mayor Amezcua moved the motion to direct staff to conduct a formal investigation; Councilmember Fan seconded. During roll call on the motion one councilmember explicitly voted no; other councilmembers voted to proceed. The council gave staff direction to return with investigative results and a recommended resolution by the first council meeting in January.

Councilmember Jonathan Hernández, who is the subject of the complaints, spoke during public comment and at the dais, saying he uses his office to call for police accountability and denying that he supports harassment of employees. “This attempt to silence a dissenting voice violates my First Amendment rights,” Hernández said during public comment (timecode 5155–5198). He also noted he had been previously the target of litigation and said past legal decisions supported his right to speak.

Several councilmembers emphasized due process and requested an independent review. Councilmember Peñaloza and Mayor Amezcua said they supported a full investigation rather than immediate punitive action, and the City Attorney advised that parallel internal personnel investigations and a public ethics review could proceed under different rules. Councilmember López stated that Human Resources already had conducted an internal review and said she would vote no on ordering a new public investigation.

The council’s action is limited to ordering an investigation and does not itself impose a censure or other formal sanction. Any resolution of censure would require a separate vote after staff returns with findings and a draft resolution.

Why it matters: The vote responds to complaints lodged by city employees and raises the prospect of a formal public ethics process for an elected member. The investigation’s scope — whether internal personnel rules, the municipal code of ethics, or both — and the timeline set by the council will determine how quickly any recommendations reach the dais.

What’s next: Staff was directed to prepare an investigative report and draft materials for council consideration and to return with recommendations by the first council meeting in January.