Home Antioch Report Says Councilwoman’s Claims Against Antioch Police Officers in Sons Detainment Unfounded

Report Says Councilwoman’s Claims Against Antioch Police Officers in Sons Detainment Unfounded

by ECT

On Tuesday, Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks released a report concerning Antioch City Councilwoman Tamisha Torris-Walker after she made multiple allegations about officers who detained two of her sons illegally riding off-road vehicles on city streets.

After the incident on Dec. 30, 2020, Walker took to social media and performed a 9-minute Facebook Live rant attacking the Antioch Police Department making several accusations. This prompted Walker to call for an investigation.  Within the investigation report, Walkers claims were deemed false

After several public records requests, the confidential report by Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP was released Tuesday night. It was dated September 1, 2021 and was sent to the City Council who have already reviewed the document.

The following is a “copy & paste” of the report as is… along with the PDF.

Note: The names of Walker’s sons are withheld from this summary out of respect for their privacy. They are referred to herein as her older son and her younger son. Walker did not consent to her sons being interviewed

 

  • Full Report (PDF)Click here or read it below which was pulled from the document

 

CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On January 14, 2021, the City of Antioch (“the City”) retained Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP (“OIG”) to conduct an impartial investigation of Antioch City Councilmember Tamisha Walker’s complaint against Antioch Police Department (“APD”) officers Calvin Prieto and Andrea Rodriguez, who are assigned to APD’s Traffic Unit. Vida Thomas was the principal investigator.

On December 29, 2020, Prieto and Rodriguez, who were on patrol, observed Walker’s two sons, who were 23 years old and 13 years old at the time, riding a motorized, off-road dirt bike and an off-road ATV, respectively. The officers began pursuing the older son. After the pursuit, Prieto and Rodriguez detained the 13-year-old. In a formal complaint filed on January 27, 2021, Walker alleged that Prieto and Rodriguez dangerously pursued her oldest son, tried purposely to hit him with their patrol car, and verbally and physically mistreated the younger son while detaining him.1 (See Exhibit 1.) In an interview with the undersigned, Walker also alleged that both officers spoke discourteously to her younger son before she arrived at the scene, and that Prieto spoke discourteously to her once she arrived.

Once the scope of the investigation was determined and agreed upon, the investigator operated with complete independence as to witness identification, interview content, and preparation of findings. The investigation included interviews with eight witnesses – including Ms. Walker, Officer Prieto and Officer Rodriguez – a review of video footage, and a review of documents.

This is a Confidential Executive Summary of an Investigative Report. It is anticipated that this Report will be maintained confidentially by the decision-makers and will not be disseminated except as required by law or as determined by the decision-makers

 

  1. FINDINGS

At the request of APD, the investigator used the following findings used in APD administrative investigations, pursuant to Policy 1011.6.3. Thus, the investigator used these findings where applicable:

Unfounded – When the investigation discloses that the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve department members. Complaints that are determined to be frivolous will fall within the classification of unfounded (Penal Code § 832.8).

Exonerated – When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was justified, lawful and/or proper. Not sustained – When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member.

Sustained – A final determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing officer, or arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code § 3304 and Government Code § 3304.5 that the actions of an officer were found to violate law or department policy (Penal Code § 832.8).

No Finding – The complainant failed to disclose promised information to further the investigation; the investigation revealed another agency was involved, and the complaint or complainant has been referred to that agency; the complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint or the complainant is no longer available for clarification

 

FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER PRIETO

Did Officer Prieto engage in racial profiling of Walker’s sons? (Policy 401.3 – Bias-Based profiling Prohibited)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto engaged in racial profiling of Walker’s sons. The evidence showed that, while patrolling along A Street as a normal part of their traffic enforcement duties, Prieto and Rodriguez saw Walker’s sons riding a dirt bike and an ATV on the wrong side of the street towards oncoming traffic, and creating a traffic hazard. The evidence also showed that Prieto and Rodriguez had a legitimate law enforcement reason, unrelated to race, for pursuing Walker’s sons.

 

Did Officer Prieto engage in a racially biased use of force towards either son? (Policy 300.2.2 – Fair and Unbiased Use of Force)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto engaged in a racially biased use of force towards Walker’s sons. That evidence did not support a finding that Prieto tried to hit the older son with the patrol vehicle or run him off the road; had his hand on his taser as he exited the patrol car after stopping the younger son; pulled his taser when approaching the younger son; or pushed the younger son to the ground after he stepped off the ATV.

A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Prieto did handcuff the younger son, but only after the younger son engaged in behavior that gave the officer reasonable concern that he would be a harm to himself or others or attempt to flee. Therefore, the handcuffing complied with APD policy.

 

Did Officer Prieto engage in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons? (Policy 300.3 – Use of Force)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto tried to hit the older son with the patrol vehicle or run him off the road; had his hands on his taser while exiting the patrol car; pulled his taser when approaching the younger son; or pushed the younger son to the ground after he stepped off the ATV.

A preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Prieto handcuffed the younger son while he was detained. However, the officer only did so after developing a reasonable concern that the younger son would harm himself or others or flee. Therefore, the handcuffing complied with APD policy

 

Did Officer Prieto behave in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards Walker’s younger son? (Policy 300.3.1 – De-Escalation Requirement)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto behaved in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards the younger son.

Walker reported that Prieto made rude comments to her younger son while he was being detained. Prieto denied making the comments, and Rodriguez denied hearing Prieto make the comments. The available video footage of the incident was not very revelatory. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that Prieto made the comments ascribed to him

 

Did Officer Prieto behave in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Prieto behaved towards Tamisha Walker in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner. The evidence showed that Prieto’s behavior complied with the APD’s interpretation of the applicable APD policy

 

Did Prieto’s report fail to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident? (Policy 326.1.1 – Report Preparation)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Prieto’s report failed to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident.

The Combined Case Report (“Report”) prepared by Prieto and Rodriguez (Exhibit 2), appears to comply with the requirements set forth in APD Policy 326.1.1. The Report accurately reflect the incident that occurred on December 29, 2020. Its description of the incidents is consistent with the evidence gathered during this investigation, including video camera footage. There is no evidence that anything in the Report is false

 

FINDINGS CONCERNING OFFICER RODRIGUEZ

Did Officer Rodriguez engage in racial profiling of Walker’s sons? (Policy 401.3 – Bias[1]Based profiling Prohibited)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Rodriguez engaged in racial profiling of Walker’s sons. The evidence showed that, while patrolling along A Street as a normal part of their traffic enforcement duties, Prieto and Rodriguez saw Walker’s sons riding a dirt bike and an ATV on the wrong side of the street towards oncoming traffic, and creating a traffic hazard. The evidence also showed that Rodriguez had a legitimate law enforcement reason, unrelated to race, for pursuing Walker’s sons.

 

Did Officer Rodriguez engage in a racially biased use of force towards either son? (Policy 300.2.2 – Fair and Unbiased Use of Force)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez engaged in a racially biased use of force towards Walker’s sons. That evidence did not support a finding that, while pursuing the sons on A Street, Rodriguez’s patrol car almost struck the older son and tried to run him off the road

 

Did Officer Rodriguez engage in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons? (Policy 300.3 – Use of Force)

Unfounded. As set forth in the finding above, a preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez tried to strike Walker’s sons while pursuing the older son.

Therefore, the allegation that Officer Rodriguez engaged in an unreasonable use of force towards Walker’s sons was unfounded.

 

Did Officer Rodriguez behave in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards Walker’s younger son? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez behaved in an uncivil, disorderly, or unprofessional manner towards the younger son.

Walker reported that Rodriguez made rude comments to her younger son while he was being detained. Rodriguez denied making the comments, and Prieto denied hearing Rodriguez make the comments. The available video footage of the incident was not very revelatory. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that Rodriguez made the comments ascribed to him.

For these reasons, this allegation was not sustained

 

Did Officer Rodriguez behave in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker? (Policy 1001.3.1(a) – Conduct Unbecoming-Neglect of Duty; Policy 1001.3.4(a) – Behavior During Public Contact)

Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Rodriguez behaved in an uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner towards Tamisha Walker.

It is undisputed that, throughout her encounter with Walker, Rodriguez behaved in a calm manner, using de-escalation techniques to address Walker’s concerns. However, Walker said that when Rodriguez initially called her from the scene to report that her younger son had been stopped, Rodriguez made a rude and unprofessional comment to her, a claim Rodriguez denied. There was no evidence to corroborate this claim and for this reason, this allegation was unfounded.

 

Did Officer Rodriguez’s report fail to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident? (Policy 326.1.1 – Report Preparation)

Not sustained. A preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Rodriguez’s report failed to accurately reflect the December 29, 2020 incident.

The Combined Case Report (“Report”) prepared by Prieto and Rodriguez (Exhibit 2), appeared to comply with the requirements set forth in APD Policy 326.1.1. The Report accurately reflected the incident that occurred on December 29, 2020. Its description of the incidents were consistent with the evidence gathered during this investigation, including video camera footage. There was no evidence that anything in the Report was false


Background Info

With the report now complete and public, its unclear if the Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe or other City Councilmembers will take action against Torres-Walker in the form of censure or other actions.

You may also like

23 comments

Gr8scot Sep 14, 2021 - 9:02 pm

*MIC DROP* Boo Yaah!

Reply
J.Escobar Sep 14, 2021 - 9:24 pm

This councilwoman needs to be disciplined harshly at the least for her reaction and behavior pertaining to this incident. It is obvious she has a certain dislike for law enforcement which goes back to her conviction of arson. She is not worthy of holding public office in any capacity. She should be removed immediately.

Reply
Karla Sep 15, 2021 - 6:15 pm

So how do we kick her out of office? Recall? Lol such a joke and a scam she’s in office SMH She’s trash and making Antioch worse

Reply
Outside Looking In Sep 19, 2021 - 11:03 am

Extremely racist, both Walker and Thorpe. Both have tried to create conflict unauccessfully using race as a weapon. Both are unfit, disgraceful representatives for our city. I hope people of Antioch see this and send them walking. How embarassing for Antioch. This is not how our city should be represented.

Reply
Street-Sweeper Sep 14, 2021 - 9:25 pm

Shocker! 🤣

Reply
Antioch Sep 14, 2021 - 9:27 pm

Toe misha is a liar.
A damn liar.

Reply
Sad sad sad Sep 14, 2021 - 9:45 pm

But as per the usual conclusion NOTHING will happen to this disgusting woman. Business as USUAL!!!!

Reply
Ann Gould Sep 15, 2021 - 4:09 am

She should DEFINITELY NOT be on ANY City Counsel after all that B.S. she ranted&raved !! How embarrassing was that for the ENTIRE city! Get your heads out of your asses & Get her the (to put it nicely) 🔜 HeLL 🔚 outta there!!

Reply
Christa O'Connor Sep 15, 2021 - 12:17 pm

Hey ANN GOULD! She should NOT be on any council because she was NOT LEGALLY ELECTED! Simple as that!

Reply
Liar Liar Sep 15, 2021 - 4:32 am

WOW! Surprisingly not surprised by this outcome of the unfounded allegations made by Tamshit Walker-ToreUp

Reply
Mike G Sep 15, 2021 - 6:05 am

What a waste of time and money when Antioch schools are so abysmal. Shameful councilwomen!

Reply
Two Wheeler Sep 15, 2021 - 6:53 am

TTW lied? What? Say it isn’t so….(Sarcasm).

Reply
C Ramirez Sep 15, 2021 - 8:39 am

Let me know where to sign to get her removed! I’ve seen her kids riding out on city streets like they own this place. They are careless, entitled and annoying. SMH.

Reply
William Fraser Sep 15, 2021 - 10:36 am

W Fraser
As a resident of Antioch for the last 69 years. I think the City should take legal action to recover the cost of the investigation. Also remover from the Council immediately. These dirt bike go up and down Davidson 3 or 4 time a week it has to stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
Vicky Stone Sep 15, 2021 - 12:36 pm

You only have to sign to recall someone who has already been elected and who is not doing his job, Mr. Ramirez. Ms. Torres-Walker was not legally elected and the “recall” system doesn’t work here, What people have to do is continue badgering the City Attorney and the City Manager — via phone calls and in person — to do their jobs and remove her.

Reply
Barnum and Bailey Sep 15, 2021 - 1:50 pm

TTW = 🤡

Reply
Wayne Bond Sep 15, 2021 - 8:21 pm

The councilwoman should be relieved of her responsibilities. She is not fit for the job, but she is an unfit mother. In her eyes, her sons did nothing wrong. That belief coupled with her Facebook rant, only solidifies her inability to hold such a public position. She embarrassed herself, her children but most importantly the City of Antioch.

Reply
Is there an orthodontist in the hisouse!? Sep 15, 2021 - 9:12 pm

Can we fix her teef before we kick her out though?
Theres either too many or not enough or she has an apple in her mouth.

Reply
Steven H Sep 15, 2021 - 10:24 pm

Can we get officers Prieto & Rodrigues public apology for the amount of stress she has put them through?

Reply
Tom Everett Sep 16, 2021 - 2:03 pm

Ahhhh! Good old Tamshita and her fecal mouth! What a combo!

Reply
George Gold Sep 16, 2021 - 2:13 pm

WILLIAM FRASER – I’ve seen some mighty large trucks drive on Davison! Maybe we’ll get lucky! Heh heh! Remember what happened to the guy on Viera?

Reply
Gloria Magnussen Sep 16, 2021 - 3:57 pm

What language! OMG! Something is not right with this woman! Her kids should have been detained as they were causing extremely an hazardous situation.. There were numerous witnesses calling 911! She should be sent a bill for the investigation and maybe there shouldn’t have been any in the first place.

Reply
Dawn Sep 16, 2021 - 5:22 pm

Torres-Walker simply does not understand that anyone, including her children, cannot put the driving and pedestrian public in a hazardous situation. There must be accountability.

Reply

Leave a Comment