The San Joaquin County Superior Court says evidence used to obtain an arrest warrant for one of its former clerks should have never been in the hands of the county Sheriff’s Office.
In turn, the Sheriff’s Office has accused the Superior Court of impeding its investigation and trying to keep information from the public.
In a legal saga that began with deputies searching and arresting a different public official — a Stockton school board member — the latest twist is a simple misdemeanor. But the case, which has already triggered a surprise legal filing and new claims of improperly obtaining secret documents, now pits the criminal justice system against itself.
Last month, sheriff’s deputies arrested Pamela Edwards, a longtime legal process clerk for the court, on a misdemeanor charge of violating a court order in 2023 for allegedly releasing a sealed document from the school board investigation.
Edwards was set to be arraigned Wednesday. However, a lawyer for the court entered the fray with an unusual filing called an ex parte motion less than 24 hours before the hearing – the court is not a party to the case. In that emergency motion, the court asked that the arrest warrant be sealed.
The filing alleges the arrest warrant for Edwards contains “highly confidential and sensitive information” belonging to the Superior Court, described as employment records and security footage. The court also claims it did not provide the records or surveillance footage to the Sheriff’s Office and doesn’t know how they came to be in possession of authorities.
Confidential personnel information and court surveillance videos potentially becoming public is “highly concerning,” the motion says, “particularly because the court did not provide or authorize the use of this information.”
SJ County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Heather Brent acknowledged that deputies had obtained surveillance footage and employment records, and declined to say how. She told Stocktonia Friday evening that the department had obtained the material from “other sources” she would not identify.
“On behalf of the Sheriff’s Office, I can assure you that it was received ethically and legally,” Brent said.
The presiding judge, Erin Guy Castillo, agreed to temporarily seal the arrest warrant for Edwards, until the next arraignment hearing Jan. 15. The last-minute action angered the county sheriff, who blasted the court.
“They wouldn’t assist us in our investigation,” the sheriff said in a Facebook video posted after the court hearing. “This was a warrant that is a public document, that the public has a right to see, and for some reason they’re trying to keep it from the media.”
The court’s request to make Edwards’ arrest warrant confidential is just one of many twists and turns in a case that has led to a public dispute between law enforcement and the local judicial system.
The misdemeanor case itself began because of a different media release.
The SUSD investigation
In November 2023, sheriff’s deputies searched Stockton Unified School District’s headquarters and the home of district Board of Trustees member AngelAnn Flores, who was board president at the time. 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 board member helping with inquiries by state and federal investigators into alleged fraud at Stockton Unified.
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’ home – from court staff.
Days after the Record’s article about the search warrant was published, the outlet reported a court spokesperson said the document had been released by accident.
It’s unclear if the court still holds that view.
“The initial assumption was that the release was inadvertent,” Superior Court spokesperson Erica Ochoa told Stocktonia last week. “But the court undertook further review upon which it cannot comment as it is a personnel issue.”
Then in November – 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.
SJ County Sheriff Patrick Withrow also said last week the reporters who received and wrote stories on the warrant were under investigation.
However, the Sheriff’s Office is now crying foul at the court’s effort to seal the arrest warrant for Edwards.
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, Brent told Stocktonia following Edwards’ hearing Wednesday, such as to protect witnesses or case information.
Brent says warrants such as the one used to arrest Edwards, known as a Ramey warrant, or probable cause warrant, are usually considered a public document. She also said 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.”
In contrast, Brent says assuring the search warrant in the Flores case was kept confidential was important in protecting the investigation.
“There was information in it that could hinder the case, be detrimental to people who are involved in that case,” Brent said. “There’s a lot of names and information.”
However, the Superior Court describes a similar situation in its emergency motion to that of Edwards’ case: confidential information making its way into the hands of those that shouldn’t have it.
The Superior Court’s motion claims that publicly releasing the warrant used to arrest Edwards and its corresponding declaration of probable cause could violate California privacy laws and pose a security risk to the court.
The warrant contains information related to a “confidential personnel investigation” related to the clerk’s employment with the court and the investigation’s findings, the court says, as well as links to and descriptions of confidential court security camera footage.
Publicly releasing the video footage would show the position and location of court cameras, as well as certain processes being carried out by court employees, the motion says. Confidential records caught on camera could also be deemed a violation of privacy if that footage is released to the public.
It’s unclear the extent of employment records and surveillance footage deputies obtained. A November social media post by the Sheriff’s office announcing Edwards’ arrest says, “After the San Joaquin County Superior Court conducted its administrative process, we began our criminal investigation that included statements of witnesses & suspect(s), collection of relevant documents and evidence.”
That post includes a still photo that appears to be from court security footage, showing an over-the-shoulder view of a clerk flipping through documents. A red arrow points from those documents to an up-close image of a sealing order dated Nov. 9, 2023, for a search warrant. However, the security footage isn’t clear enough to see whether that document is indeed included in the stack of documents shown.
Employment and security records are typically deemed private under California law, the court’s motion says, and therefore override the public’s right to know what’s in Edwards’ arrest warrant.
An unusual case
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.
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 last week.
A Superior Court spokesperson also said the court could not comment on pending litigation.
When asked if the Sheriff’s Office is now finding itself in a situation similar to the Edwards case in using documents the court claims should have remained confidential, Brent said that comparison was “false.”
“Not at all,” she said.
Here’s how Stocktonia is covering the story of school board member’s arrest, search warrant.