Stockton officials acknowledged Monday that the city mistakenly released police body-camera footage involving former Vice Mayor Kimberly Warmsley, despite objections from Police Department leaders who said the records should have remained confidential.
The admission came during a contentious City Council Audit Committee meeting as Vice Mayor Jason Lee questioned police leadership and Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin about how Stockton responds to public records requests and whether residents receive consistent treatment.
Police Chief Stanley McFadden told the committee that the department had specifically advised against releasing both the police report and body-camera footage involving Warmsley. Someone who no longer works in the City Attorney’s Office authorized their release anyway, he said.
“We were explicit when we said 100% that report never should have been released,” McFadden said.
Larkin agreed that the city made a mistake.
He said officers initially responded to the incident as a civil standby, meaning they were present primarily to keep the peace. However, the circumstances changed and the encounter became a police investigation. Larkin said the investigative records should have remained confidential.
“It absolutely should not have been released,” Larkin said, describing the disclosure as a mistake resulting from confusion over the facts and how the law applied to them.
Officials did not identify the former City Attorney’s Office employee who authorized the release or say when the decision occurred.
The revelation emerged during an extended discussion over the California Public Records Act that became increasingly contentious as Lee pressed police officials to explain why certain records become public while others remain confidential.
Lee questions consistency in records decisions
Lee, who defeated Warmsley in the 2024 District 6 City Council election, raised the previous release while questioning police officials about requests involving public officials and other sensitive investigations.
The vice mayor said he wanted to understand how the city determines which records to disclose and whether officials could clarify those rules for residents.
“If I, as an elected official, don’t understand, I know the public doesn’t,” Lee said.
Police officials explained that members of the public can request records through several channels, including the city’s public records system, the City Clerk’s Office and the Police Department.
What records someone can obtain depends on the type of document and their connection to the incident.
Larkin said police investigation records generally carry legal protections, although California law provides exceptions for certain records and circumstances. Victims and other eligible parties may obtain some reports, while the public can also access certain information about arrests, calls for service and department policies.
The department’s records manager, Gaurav Bhatnagar, said police route requests to the appropriate units before reviewing the information for legally protected personal details and determining what they can release.
Deputy Chief Anabel Morris repeatedly emphasized that the department follows state law and that filing a public records request does not automatically entitle someone to investigative information.
“A lawful withholding of information does not mean there’s a lack of transparency,” Morris said.
She explained that privacy protections, investigative integrity and officer and witness safety can limit what the department releases.
Lee, however, questioned why the city had previously disclosed information involving Warmsley while restricting access to records connected to other incidents.
“When you implement one policy for one person, one policy for a different person, I could see how people would see things differently,” Lee said.
Police officials maintained that their records-release policy had not changed. McFadden said the earlier Warmsley disclosure resulted from a decision by the former City Attorney’s Office, not a change in Police Department policy.
Disagreement over private conversations spills into public meeting
The discussion grew increasingly personal as Lee raised an allegation he said he had received involving fellow councilmembers and questioned whether he could obtain a police report about the matter.
Police officials explained that receiving information about an alleged crime does not necessarily entitle the person who reports it to copies of investigative records.
Morris said department officials had already explained those restrictions to Lee during a private meeting Aug. 17.
She challenged his decision to revisit the matter publicly, saying the department had spent more than an hour explaining its procedures to him.
Lee responded that private conversations did not eliminate his responsibility to ask questions about city policies in a public meeting.
The exchange intensified when Morris referenced several other incidents she said police officials had previously discussed with Lee, including the stabbing of a political campaign consultant.
Morris said she had told Lee that police arrested a suspect within about 20 minutes and determined the attack was unrelated to the campaign-related concerns he had raised.
Neither Morris nor Lee identified the consultant by name Monday.
The description appeared to reference the July stabbing of campaign consultant Ted Lehrer , although officials did not confirm that during the meeting.
An attacker stabbed Lehrer multiple times while he waited for a bus in downtown Stockton on July 16. Lehrer later identified himself publicly and said he considered the attack random and unrelated to his political work. Police arrested Domenique Whitfield shortly after the stabbing.
Morris questioned why Lee continued raising issues that police officials had already addressed privately.
“In private, you will say that you understand,” Morris said. “In public, it tends to be a different story.”
Lee rejected the suggestion that public questioning undermined his support for the department.
“We don’t do all the work of the people in the privacy of our offices,” Lee said. “We do have a responsibility for transparency.”
As the exchange grew sharper, Morris defended the department’s record and Lee said officials were attacking him for asking questions.
“We worked entirely too hard for 27 years for me to stand here, sit here and say that we’re not transparent,” Morris said. “I will not allow that.”
Lee repeatedly emphasized that he supported police leadership but said his position as an elected official required him to examine department policies and internal controls.
Committee recesses as tensions escalate
City Councilmember Michele Padilla eventually raised a point of order, telling Lee that committee members needed to remain respectful toward city staff.
“This is unacceptable,” Padilla said. “We need to be respectful to staff.”
The committee called a five-minute recess but did not reconvene until approximately 10 minutes later. As the recess began, a member of the audience shouted criticism at Lee.
During the break, police officials, committee members and City Attorney Donald Larkin spoke inside the chamber. A security guard stationed outside told Stocktonia that officials had received instructions to review the city’s decorum policy.
When the committee reconvened, Padilla appeared to be crying.
Lee warned that he would clear the chamber if audience members caused another outburst, although members of the media could remain.
The tension continued during public comment, when former Vice Mayor Ralph Lee White used a homophobic slur while criticizing Lee. Lee ended White’s comment and told him to leave the chamber or face removal. Security personnel later removed White from the meeting.
Other residents used public comment to ask for clearer explanations of the records-request process, particularly when someone witnesses an incident but is not directly involved.
McFadden suggested that the department could develop informational materials addressing common questions about who can obtain police reports and what information remains confidential.
City to consider clearer public records guidance
Despite the confrontation, Lee and police leaders eventually returned to the broader question of improving public understanding of police records and the legal limits on disclosure.
McFadden defended the department’s internal accountability practices, saying employees generate complaints about misconduct within their own ranks and that the department disciplines personnel when investigations establish wrongdoing.
Lee said the discussion demonstrated why officials needed to examine how Stockton applies its records policies, particularly when decisions by different city departments produce different outcomes.
By the end of the meeting, he said he would continue working with the City Attorney’s Office on potential policy changes and clearer guidance about which police records residents can obtain.
Officials did not announce a new review of the Warmsley disclosure or identify specific changes to prevent another erroneous release.
The department maintained that its existing policy had not changed, leaving the city to determine whether its procedures for reviewing and authorizing sensitive disclosures need additional safeguards.