Family and residents press Claremont City Council after death of Diego Rios is ruled a homicide

The Los Angeles County medical examiner’s listing of Diego Rios’s Nov. 28 death as a homicide renewed public pressure on the Claremont City Council on Feb. 10, as family members and dozens of residents demanded faster disclosure and accountability.

City Attorney Patterson told the council that two independent investigations are underway — the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department homicide bureau and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office justice system integrity division — and that no findings have yet been issued. “Once findings have been made by either of the independent agencies, those findings will be publicly available,” Patterson said. She added that all audio and video recordings the city holds related to the incident are posted on the city’s website and that the city is preparing an educational presentation about the laws and processes governing disclosure for a police‑commission agenda planned for April 2.

Family members and community members pressed the council for additional information at the meeting’s public‑comment period. A family member who identified himself as the decedent’s brother described the loss bluntly: “My brother Diego Rios was killed in that incident,” he told the council, and asked what steps the city will take now that the medical examiner has ruled the manner of death a homicide. John Puribosa, who identified himself as a cousin of Mr. Rios, urged residents and councilors to review the footage posted by the city and said he saw “plain abuse of power” in the video.

Patterson addressed several frequently asked questions at the start of public comment, including whether any footage was missing. She said that Corporal Benjamin Alba’s body‑worn camera was inadvertently stopped for roughly two and a half minutes during the struggle to handcuff Mr. Rios; Patterson said other cameras captured the incident in its entirety and that the ‘‘arc’’ setting on a taser was activated as a warning and did not deploy a cartridge. “There’s many other cameras that recorded the incident in its entirety,” she said, listing additional body‑worn and fixed‑camera angles available on the city’s website.

Speakers at the meeting repeatedly asked why a mobile crisis response team was not dispatched to the scene. Patterson said the Tri‑City mental‑health PAC team had been discontinued in November 2023 for staffing reasons; council staff said Tri‑City has since been developing a mobile crisis team and that a memorandum of understanding is being negotiated but is not yet operational for Claremont.

Community members also urged the council to reschedule the police commission meeting that was recently canceled for lack of business; City Manager Mister Pirie said the April 2 police‑commission agenda is intended to present state law and public‑disclosure rules and that staff cancelled the February meeting for capacity reasons while preparing that presentation. Council members said they would consider public requests and emphasized they are constrained from discussing active personnel matters in public while outside prosecutors or law enforcement investigate.

The council did not take disciplinary action at the meeting; instead, officials said they would rely on the independent investigators’ findings and continue to make available the materials that can be posted publicly. The police commission presentation on disclosure and process is scheduled for April 2, and staff said it will seek to include related public comments and documents in the official record.

The council did not set a new timeline for any employment determinations; city staff said employment‑status information for officers is protected under state personnel rules and the California Public Records Act. The family and community members in the chamber said they will continue to press elected officials for additional transparency and faster public briefings.