Claremont residents demand accountability and agendized review after Diego Rios' death

Dozens of Claremont residents called on the Police Commission on April 6 to take immediate steps after the Nov. 28 death of Diego Rios, pressing the body to agendize an ad hoc use-of-force review board, release full body-worn camera footage and clarify whether the officers involved remain on duty.

The public-comment period opened after a presentation from City Attorney Alicia Patterson on California disclosure law. ‘‘These statutes are carefully crafted to give agencies time to avoid interfering with criminal or administrative investigations, but they also create specific disclosure timelines,’’ Patterson said, summarizing the California Public Records Act, AB 748 (recordings) and SB 1421 (personnel records and certain use-of-force incidents).

Speakers representing students, family friends and residents described the community"This is the first police commission meeting since November," said Jason, a Claremont resident, urging the commission to use its position to recommend that the city and police department take accountability. "We were ignored consistently and deliberately by the Claremont City Council," he added.

Several speakers said the county medical examiner ruled Riosdeath a homicide and alleged video evidence shows officers using a choke hold or positional restraint. Isabelle, a Claremont resident, told the commission the partial body-worn camera release in January omitted footage the community expects to see and asked the commission to agendize a use-of-force review board and add seats to the commission for greater accountability. "Diego's death was preventable," Isabelle said.

Other speakers pressed the commission to formalize integration with Tri-CityMobile Crisis services, arguing that specialized mental-health response should be the default for 911 dispatchers handling mental-health crises. "If officers Benjamin Alba and Joshua Arona had called for the Tri-City mobile crisis unit, Diego Rios would have been alive today," one commenter said.

City Attorney Patterson answered questions on process and timing, emphasizing that disclosures are tied to statutory timeframes and whether criminal proceedings or investigations are ongoing. "Once final determinations are made by any investigating agency or Claremont's internal investigation, final findings or discipline are disclosable under SB 1421," Patterson said, but she warned that criminal investigations can lengthen those timelines and that some records may not exist until investigations conclude.

Community members repeatedly pressed for clarity about officer employment status and whether Claremont has complied with Brady-related disclosures; Patterson said she was not aware of noncompliance and invited residents to provide sources if they believe the city has failed to disclose required information.

The commission did not take formal action on the public requests during the meeting. The next regular Police Commission meeting was announced for June 4.