POST panel fails to revoke former Riverside sergeant’s certification over rat-flyer dishonesty allegations

The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training on Nov. 17 reviewed evidence that former Riverside Police Department Sergeant James Matuku lied to internal affairs about creating and placing flyers depicting a crossed-out rat and the words “rat busters” in a department locker room. A motion at the commission to revoke Matuku’s POST certification failed, 3–10.

POST law enforcement consultant David Paletta told commissioners the division’s investigative summary and findings showed a “high probability” Matuku was responsible for creating, printing and posting the flyers and that he repeatedly denied involvement during two internal-interrogation sessions on Jan. 19, 2023, and Feb. 21, 2023. Paletta said investigators located Matuku on station surveillance footage walking toward the building shortly before a flyer file was downloaded and printed from a report-writing room computer, and that fingerprint examiners “confirmed that both Sergeant Matuku’s left and right thumbprints were located on the flyer that was housed inside the vinyl container.”

Paletta said the division recommended revocation and that the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board had earlier recommended revocation by a 4–3 vote.

Matuku’s attorney, Brad Gage of Brad Gage Law, told the commission the record contains conflicting forensic notes and three fingerprint experts reached different conclusions about whether Matuku’s prints appeared on all of the flyers. Gage also said surveillance footage shows Matuku walking in the direction of the station but does not conclusively show him entering the building, and argued other officers’ prints were found on several flyers and had not been checked. “Those inconsistencies . . . affect the high clear and convincing evidence standard,” Gage said.

Brian Henley, an attorney with POST’s Legal Affairs Bureau, told the commission that the matter before them must be decided on the investigative summary and the record that was before the advisory board and that new materials submitted recently could not be relied on at this phase. Henley said, in response to a commissioner question, that “there is no dispute that Mr. Matuku’s fingerprints were found indeed on one [flyer].”

After public comment and commissioner discussion, a motion to revoke Matuku’s certification failed. The roll call showed three affirmative votes; the commission chair announced, “We have 3 yes votes. The motion fails.” The record shows the advisory board had previously recommended revocation 4–3.

Because the commission did not adopt revocation at this meeting, there is no POST-imposed decertification from the body on Nov. 17. The panel’s decision at this stage did not make a final factual determination about Matuku’s misconduct; under the SB 2 process the next adjudicative phase would be a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge only if the commission adopted a recommendation to proceed.

Matuku spoke briefly during the proceeding and said the surveillance trajectory could have been toward his personal vehicle parked in a command row rather than toward entering the station. His attorney said the former sergeant has filed a civil lawsuit challenging his termination from the Riverside Police Department.