Four years after Sonoma County voters expanded the power of their civilian police-oversight agency, the county’s elected sheriff is still refusing to cooperate — and a March appellate court ruling upholding that oversight authority hasn’t changed that calculus.
Key Takeaways
- Sonoma County voters approved Measure P in 2020, giving IOLERO independent subpoena power and investigation authority over the Sheriff’s Office.
- A California appellate court ruled in March 2026 that “civilian oversight must have real authority to be meaningful,” upholding IOLERO’s subpoena power.
- Despite the ruling, deputies have refused to answer questions in compelled IOLERO interviews and the Sheriff’s Office withholds records unless subpoenaed.
- Sheriff Eddie Engram has said renegotiating labor terms with deputies is “not my problem to fix.”
- Board of Supervisors Chair Rebecca Hermosillo says she will push for a new ordinance or ballot measure to enforce Measure P’s intent.
A watchdog with no bite — by design
When voters passed Measure P in 2020, they gave the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO) expanded authority to conduct its own investigations and issue subpoenas — a direct response to the 2013 sheriff’s deputy shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez in Santa Rosa. But IOLERO Director John Alden says the Sheriff’s Office has blocked the agency at nearly every turn, accusing it of “subverting the rule of law and the will of the voters.”
The most glaring example: a dedicated conference room was negotiated at Sheriff’s Office headquarters specifically so IOLERO investigators could observe internal affairs interviews via closed-circuit video. In four years, it has never once been used. The Sheriff’s Office simply doesn’t notify the watchdog when interviews occur. In IOLERO’s first major independent investigation — the 2022 fatal shooting of David Peláez-Chavez — deputies refused to answer questions during compelled interviews, citing Fifth Amendment protections. The agency has also been forced to subpoena records it should receive automatically, and delays are routine. Alden described the obstruction as happening “right now in real time.” The county’s ongoing budget crisis and stretched county leadership add further institutional pressure on the oversight fight.
Court ruling didn’t move the needle
In March, a California appellate court issued a unanimous ruling upholding IOLERO’s subpoena authority and rejecting legal challenges from the Sheriff’s Office and the deputies union. The court was unequivocal: civilian oversight must have real authority to be meaningful. Still, cooperation has not followed. Sheriff Engram has not publicly committed to changing practices. His dismissal — that resolving the labor impasse around deputy participation is “not my problem to fix” — has drawn sharp criticism from county officials and community members alike.
Board Chair Rebecca Hermosillo, who has been vocal about holding the Sheriff’s Office accountable, says she plans to lead a working group of stakeholders to develop either a clarifying ordinance or a new ballot amendment. The goal: remove any remaining legal ambiguity that the Sheriff’s Office or union can exploit to stall oversight. This follows a series of assertive Board actions on civil rights and accountability issues — including the board’s decision to bar ICE cooperation and commit $1.5 million to immigrant services earlier this month.
A former cop speaks out
On April 19, retired Santa Rosa Police Lieutenant and former Mayor Ernesto Olivares published an op-ed in the Press Democrat calling directly on Sheriff Engram to cooperate. Olivares — himself a law enforcement veteran — argued that a functioning oversight system is not a threat to deputies, but an asset. “Accountability and public safety are not competing goals — they are inseparable,” he wrote. He urged Engram to work with IOLERO, the Board, and employee representatives to make the system work as voters intended. The op-ed underscores how broad the coalition calling for compliance has become: it now includes former police, elected supervisors, and the watchdog itself. With new County Executive David Guhin, who began his tenure last week, there may be additional pressure to resolve the impasse before it returns to the ballot.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Measure P actually authorize IOLERO to do?
Measure P, passed by Sonoma County voters in 2020, expanded IOLERO’s authority to conduct independent investigations of Sheriff’s Office incidents, issue subpoenas for records and interviews, and observe internal affairs proceedings. It was directly spurred by community demands for accountability following the 2013 shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff’s deputy in Santa Rosa.
Is the Sheriff’s Office breaking the law by not complying?
A March 2026 California appellate court ruled unanimously that IOLERO’s subpoena authority is legally valid and that civilian oversight must have real authority. IOLERO Director John Alden says the ongoing non-compliance amounts to defiance of both a court order and voter will. Sheriff Engram and the deputies union have so far not indicated they will change their approach.
What happens next — will this go back to voters?
Board of Supervisors Chair Rebecca Hermosillo has said she plans to pursue either a new county ordinance or a ballot measure to clarify and strengthen Measure P’s enforcement mechanisms. No timeline has been set, but she has described it as a priority to “honor the promise” voters made in 2020.
Leave a Reply