Sonoma County’s civilian sheriff watchdog says the Sheriff’s Office delayed serious misconduct cases for years before sending them for independent review, including cases involving a jail death, use of force and medical care issues.
A long-running dispute between Sonoma County’s sheriff and the county’s civilian watchdog is flaring up again, this time over who is responsible for delays in misconduct investigations and how much access the watchdog should have to evidence.
The latest exchange comes in a letter released March 3 by the county’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, known as IOLERO, responding to Sheriff Eddie Engram’s comments on the office’s 2024-25 annual report.
The back-and-forth is part of the process required by government auditing standards known as the Yellow Book, which allows agencies being audited to respond to findings and the auditors to address those responses.
But the substance of the reply underscores a deeper disagreement about how Sonoma County’s civilian oversight system is supposed to work.
IOLERO says the sheriff criticized the watchdog for auditing misconduct cases that were years old. The oversight office argues those delays originated with the Sheriff’s Office itself.
According to the letter, several cases cited by the sheriff were not sent to IOLERO until years after they were opened. Two cases from 2020 were forwarded in 2023 and 2024, while cases from 2021 were sent in 2023 and cases from 2022 arrived in 2024.
Those cases involved serious issues, the watchdog said, including an in-custody death at the county jail, alleged assault and use of force inside the jail, and medical care issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It’s not fair to fault IOLERO for SCSO’s delay in sending these cases to us,” the office wrote, using the abbreviation for the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.
IOLERO said it chose to audit the cases despite the delays because of their importance to the public.
The watchdog and the sheriff also appear to disagree about how complaints against deputies should be handled.
In his response to the annual report, Engram’s office suggested that IOLERO should ensure complaints contain certain information before forwarding them for investigation, including the complainant’s identity and details about the incident.
IOLERO said its intake process already reviews complaints for jurisdiction and documentation, but noted that many complaints arrive incomplete or anonymous. State law requires law enforcement agencies to investigate all complaints against officers, even if they lack detailed information, the office said, citing California Penal Code section 832.5.
The watchdog also said it cannot always evaluate complaints fully before referring them because it does not have early access to key evidence.
The office said it does not currently have full access to materials such as body-worn camera footage until after the sheriff’s internal investigation is completed. That limitation prevents IOLERO from reviewing primary evidence early enough to determine whether some complaints could be resolved informally instead of being referred for a full investigation.
Measure P, approved by Sonoma County voters in 2020, expanded the watchdog’s oversight powers, including authority to investigate misconduct and issue subpoenas. The measure was intended to strengthen civilian oversight of the sheriff’s office following years of controversy over law enforcement shootings and discipline practices.
The relationship between IOLERO and the sheriff has remained tense since then, with disputes over the scope of the watchdog’s authority and access to information.
The latest letter also addresses criticism of IOLERO’s investigative interviews in the Pelaez-Chavez shooting case, a fatal deputy shooting that the watchdog independently investigated last year.
The sheriff’s office had accused IOLERO staff of acting dishonestly during interviews with deputies. The watchdog rejected that allegation and said recordings of the interviews show deputies were represented by attorneys and that investigators accepted deputies’ assertions of their legal rights.
Despite the disagreements, IOLERO’s letter also notes areas of agreement with the sheriff, including support for funding additional surveillance cameras in the county jail to improve safety for staff and detainees.
IOLERO, created by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in 2015, is responsible for auditing misconduct investigations and promoting transparency in sheriff’s operations.
For now, the exchange highlights a fundamental question that has followed the county’s civilian oversight system for years: how much authority the watchdog has to scrutinize the Sheriff’s Office, and how willing the sheriff is to cooperate with that scrutiny.