The first court hearing for a former Superior Court clerk charged in the release of one sealed document led instead to a surprise move to seal another one.
The last-minute action angered the county sheriff, who blasted the court, accusing it of not cooperating with his investigation, and said that journalists are also under investigation in the case.
Pamela Edwards, who no longer works for the county’s Superior Court, was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday morning. She stands accused of violating a court order, after allegedly releasing a search warrant in another criminal case to the media last year.
Instead, the court took up an emergency motion to seal the arrest warrant in Edwards’ case — a motion filed just hours earlier, not by the prosecution or the defense, but by an attorney representing Edwards’ former employer, Superior Court itself.
Edwards’ attorney, David Wellenbrock, told Stocktonia that both he and the prosecution had only received notice of the court’s filing Wednesday morning.
Known as an ex parte motion, lawyers typically file these emergency requests to forestall potential “immediate danger or irreparable harm” to their clients, California’s court rules state.
Before Edwards’ arraignment could start, Judge Erin Guy Castillo met briefly with the prosecution, the defense and court’s attorney outside the courtroom for private discussion. Upon their return, Castillo agreed to temporarily seal the arrest warrant until an arraignment continuation scheduled for January.
“The Court cannot comment on pending litigation,” spokesperson Erica Ochoa wrote in an emailed statement when asked why the court asked to seal the warrant.
Erin M. Hamor, a Sacramento-based attorney who made the emergency request on the court’s behalf, did not immediately respond to requests by Stocktonia for comment Wednesday afternoon.
Court records show that Hamor filed an ex parte application for an order to seal the Ramey warrant just before 4 p.m. Tuesday.
It’s unclear how often courts intervene in cases in their own jurisdiction. The Judicial Council of California — the court system’s rule making arm — has no data on the matter, a spokesman said. The council cannot comment on the San Joaquin County court’s role in Edwards’ case, he added.
Outside court Wednesday, SJ County Sheriff Patrick Withrow was indignant that the judge had sealed the arrest warrant. He said the document was public and never in his entire law enforcement career had he seen a situation like this.
“Why is the court trying to seal (it)?” Withrow said. “We find that very strange.”
Arrest warrants typically include statements by detectives laying out the facts of the case and the reasons for seeking arrest. There are circumstances when sealing a warrant is merited, according to sheriff’s spokesperson Heather Brent, such as to protect witnesses or case information.
However, Brent says warrants such as the one used to arrest Edwards, known as a Ramey warrant, are usually considered a public document. She also explained that a warrant is typically only sealed on behalf of the investigating agency.
“We have no idea why they’ve sealed it,” Brent said. “There wasn’t any reason that we believed that it should be sealed.”
The case against Edwards, the clerk, hinges on the release of another warrant — a search warrant the Sheriff’s Office wanted to remain sealed.
The released search warrant
In November 2023, sheriff’s deputies searched Stockton Unified School District’s headquarters and the home of school member AngelAnn Flores.
Deputies’ investigation ultimately led to felony charges of misappropriation of funds, grand theft and false claims for Flores in May.
Flores’ lawyers claim the charges amount to political retaliation for the boardmember helping with inquiries by state and federal investigators into alleged fraud at the school district.
Shortly after the search of Flores’ home, the Stockton record reported that it obtained a copy of the search warrant — the court document in which investigators justified the need to search Flores — from court staff.
Days after the Record’s article about the search warrant was published, a court spokesperson said the document had been released by accident, the outlet reported.
But last month – months after Flores had already been charged and was awaiting trial – the Sheriff’s Office arrested Edwards. In a Facebook post about the arrest, the Sheriff’s Office said deputies believed the clerk knew the warrant was sealed and had released it anyway.
The DA’s office charged Edwards last month with a misdemeanor for breaking a court order.
Sheriff says clerk investigation continues
The ex-clerk made no appearance in court Wednesday, and her case isn’t set to return until Jan. 15 at 8:30 a.m., Judge Castillo held. For now, Edwards’ arrest warrant is temporarily sealed. No charges were formally announced during Wednesday’s arraignment.
Typically, deputies write arrest warrants and prosecutors review them before a judge signs off on the arrest. But with Ramey warrants, named for the California Supreme Court case People v. Ramey, law enforcement can go straight to a judge without prosecutors’ review.
Officers may also use Ramey warrants when someone ignores a court summons, Stockton defense lawyer Darrell Griffin said Wednesday.
“It’s not super typical for a Ramey warrant to be sealed,” Griffin said. “But it depends on the circumstances.” Sometimes warrants are sealed to hide the identities of confidential informants or undercover officers, he added.
In short: “It’s generally to protect the identity of somebody or something,” Griffin said.
Brent says it made sense to seal the search warrant in the Flores case to protect the investigation. She doesn’t think that logic applies to Edwards’ arrest warrant.
The search warrant “was sealed because there was information in it that … could hinder the case, be detrimental to people who are involved in that case. There’s a lot of names and information,” Brent said. In contrast, Edwards’ arrest warrant is just “specific to one person being investigated.”
In his comments on the courthouse steps, Withrow accused the Superior Court of not cooperating with his department’s investigation into Edwards.
“When this investigation initially started after the sealed warrant was released, it was very challenging for our office to be able to gain information from the court,” Brent said.
Ochoa, the spokesperson for Superior Court, told Stocktonia the court “has cooperated with the Sheriff’s Office to the extent that the law allows.”
In a statement Wednesday, the DA’s office also did not share the Sheriff’s Office’s critique.
“As for the cooperation from the court and the nature of the warrant’s release, we appreciate the court’s cooperation in our investigations,” spokesperson Erin Haight said.
At an impromptu media conference after the hearing, Withrow was asked if his office was investigating any journalists as part of the clerk’s case. In August, deputies questioned a then-Stockton Record reporter about the Flores warrant at her home.
He also said that the two Record reporters who wrote the story on the Flores search warrant were considered parties to the case. It’s unclear what Withrow meant by that statement.
Representatives for the DA and Sheriff’s Office told Stocktonia Wednesday afternoon that their departments could not disclose any details on the case, including whether any other suspects were being investigated or considered.
But Withrow, after the court hearing, said the reporters who wrote the article about the warrant in the Record were under investigation. Pressed on which reporters, he would only say the reporters who wrote the Record article.
“We’re investigating anyone who may have conspired to release the (warrant) on this case,” Withrow said. “Wherever that leads — journalists, citizens, whatever.”
Here’s how Stocktonia is covering the story of school board member’s arrest, search warrant.