Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Decertification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST commissioners decline to advance revocation for Riverside sergeant over 'rat' flyers
Summary
The Commission reviewed POST case 230-3451 involving Sergeant James Matuku of the Riverside Police Department. The division recommended revocation for dishonesty; after debate and public comment the commission voted 3–8 to not move the matter forward to an evidentiary hearing.
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training reviewed POST case 230-3451 on Nov. 17, 2024, considering a division recommendation to revoke Sergeant James Matuku's peace officer certification for alleged dishonesty during internal affairs interviews.
The division presented its investigative summary, saying surveillance and IT records showed a flyer was downloaded and printed from a station computer minutes after Matuku was recorded walking toward the station and that fingerprint examiners identified Matuku's left and right thumbprints on a flyer kept inside a vinyl sleeve. David Paletta, law enforcement consultant, said the division concluded "there is clear and convincing evidence that Sergeant Matuku repeatedly lied to internal affairs investigators" and recommended revocation.
In public comment, Brad Gage, counsel for Matuku, argued the record contained inconsistent fingerprint reports and unexamined prints belonging to other officers, and said new exhibits provided with his written submission showed exculpatory material. Matuku also addressed the commission, saying surveillance footage could be interpreted as him walking to his personal vehicle and noting a key‑card audit could clarify entrance to the building.
Commissioners questioned the evidentiary scope. Commissioner Barcelona asked about conflicting documents asserting "no conclusive prints"; Brian Henley, attorney for the division, replied that the division's position is that Matuku's prints were found on the flyer. Commissioners also discussed the limited scope of this phase: the commission must rely on the investigative summary and the record before the advisory board and decide whether those materials, if proven, demonstrate a high probability of serious misconduct under Penal Code section 13510.8.
After discussion a motion to adopt the revocation recommendation was made and seconded. The roll call produced 3 votes in favor and 8 against; the chair announced, "The motion fails." No formal evidentiary hearing was scheduled by the commission at the conclusion of this vote.
The commission emphasized that this proceeding is phase two of the SB 2 process and that any final determination of misconduct would occur only after a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge if the commission had voted to advance the matter.
Details from the investigative summary and the advisory board record remain part of the administrative record and would guide any subsequent ALJ proceeding if authorized.
