In the wake of Ferguson, should we question authorities' handling of disclosure in Walnut Creek police officer's arrest?

Authorities on Friday FINALLY got around to releasing information about the arrest of a Walnut Creek police officer, nearly two weeks after a bizarre incident in which he was picked up in Richmond on suspicion of assaulting a woman with a baseball bat.

I need to ask up front (and I'm sure I'm not the only one asking): Why did it take so long for authorities to make public this attack and the police officer's arrest? I find it concerning, as well as head-scratching. 

Haven't police and prosecutors learned better by now? After several decades of high-profile cases that thrust alleged police misconduct (from Rodney King to Oscar Grant to Michael Brown) into the center of national debate about race and police/community relations, it's hard to believe that law enforcement agencies around here would still think they could perhaps sweep something like this officer's arrest under the rug -- or at least keep it out of the news for as long as possible. 

It's especially mind-bogging given how we're in the midst of yet another agonizing national discussion about police accountability and unequal justice in Ferguson, Missouri. Many journalists and other observers attribute the outbreak of riots and heightened tensions to the puzzling, scattershot way police disseminated information about the case, notably their delays in releasing Officer Darren Wilson's name and then cherry-picking facts to disclose (the video of Brown stealing cigars) in a way that seemed designed to give police a public relations advantage. 

So nearly two weeks after Thompson's arrest, the Marin Independent Journal and Contra Costa Times reported that Thompson, a 53-year-old, 30-year veteran of the Walnut Creek police, was arrested in the early morning hours of August 16. 

At about 2 a.m., police received several 911 calls about a woman screaming and a possible masked man with a bat.

The woman said she had run out of gas and was walking when she was confronted by a man wearing a mask when he hit her with a baseball bat, Richmond police Capt. Bisa French told reporters. The assailant also used the bat to strike the woman's car. The woman was taken to the hospital for non-life-threatening blows and was expected to recover.

Witnesses directed police to a suspect, who turned out to be Thompson. He had retreated to a nearby car. In the car, police found a bat, a mask, two guns and wrist restraints. 

French pointed out that the restraints are similar to those that police often carry with their other work gear. I must say that French's need to make this point about the restraints almost comes across as an apologia on behalf of a member of her police fraternity. She seems to be saying, "Well, of course, any self-respecting off-duty police officer would have wrist restraints in their cars!"But this bit of information also begs the question, is it normal for cops -- off-duty or on -- to also carry around bats and masks? 

When confronted by Richmond police, Thompson apparently told them he was one of them. The situation, though, gave Richmond officers enough probable cause to book him into Contra Costa County jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats and felony vandalism.

Unfortunately, we don't know what bail amount was attached to those charges. The Contra Costa Times points to the fact that someone in authority  -- police, Contra Costa prosecutor Barry Grove, or the jail -- wouldn't release that information.  I find this curious because, whenever I covered police cases, as recently as 2011, bail information was readily available, either from the arresting agencies or from the jail. In fact, it's usually takes the punch of a few computer keys to bring up the information.

In any case, Thompson was able to make this undisclosed amount of bail and was released to go back to his Martinez home. His release slowed the case down a bit. If a suspect isn't in custody, the District Attorney's Office doesn't have to quickly pull together charges in order to justify continuing to hold the suspect.

Still, it seems as though prosecutors are taking their time. I'm not sure what's so complicated about the case: Victim says she was attacked by a guy with a baseball bat. She was found with injuries. Police find suspect in a car with weapons involved in said attack. 

OK, there could definitely be more to this story. There often is. These could even be facts that would help Thompson's defense. His family apparently owned a house for sale in that Richmond neighborhood. 

Grove told the Times that charges won't be coming down for another week or so. However, publicity about this strange case and accompanying themes of unequal justice, police accountability and lack of transparency may prompt Grove and co., we hope, to speed things up a bit. 

Whatever other details may emerge, you still have an off-duty cop allegedly going around at 2 in the morning, wearing a mask, and attacking a person with a baseball bat.  

Questions of unequal justice come in when you consider the fact that Thompson had the resources to make bail -- whatever that bail was. He'll probably hire a private attorney, and then enjoy the backing of his police union. In the meantime, he gets to keep his job. He was put on administrative leave, but he gets to collect his full salary. 

I think its fair to say that if a less resourceful fellow -- a civilian from the community -- had attacked a woman with a baseball bat, he'd still be in jail. And he'd probably lose his job and possibly his and his family's livelihood. There's no way he'd be able to hire a private attorney, or rely on support from a politically powerful professional organization. 

I think it's also fair to say that if the suspect had been your regular street thug, the Richmond police would have made that information available to reporters immediately -- not that a bat attack by one of the town's usual suspects would have constituted a big story in a town that typically sees much worse.

But, as always,  the rules of disclosure change when the case involves a police officer. 

Walnut Creek police certainly weren't in a rush to let their citizens know that one of their officers had been jailed in a bizarre attack. According to the Contra Costa Times, Richmond police notified Walnut Creek police on the day of Thompson's arrest.  

So, it appears that the Walnut Creek police have been sitting on this bit of information for some time as well. Walnut Creek Police Chief Tom Chaplin told the Times on on Friday, "We are aware of the arrest of one of our officers." So, why not share this information with the public? Embarrassing for Thompson and for the department? Of course, but that's how it goes. 

Top Contra Costa prosecutor blasts Times editorial, the conduct of his own union, and what he describes as the toxic atmosphere in our county’s District Attorney’s Office

Who would think it, but the race among three candidates to be the next Contra Costa District Attorney is getting scorching hot. One of the office’s top prosecutors, and one of California's most respected homicide prosecutors, has issued a public statement, pointing to alleged bad behavior and politicial posturing among some of his DA colleagues and attacking the Contra Costa Times for ducking out on its Fourth Estate role as community watchdog.

Hal Jewett is the "Jack McCoy" of the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office, says Contra Costa Times Political Editor Lisa Vordergruebben. Her blog Tuesday published a letter that Jewett has sent to the Times, criticizing the paper for too easily dismissing allegations that one candidate’s supporters in the DA’s office violated the law.

The prosecutor’s union has endorsed one of the candidates, Dan O’Malley, a former Contra Costa County prosecutor and Superior Court judge. That means, the union is not endorsing the second candidate Mark Peterson, who is currently another senior prosecutor in the office.

This latest brouhaha stems from Peterson crying foul about a January 14 fundraiser hosted for O’Malley by some of his DA’s office supporters. Peterson alleged that these O’Malley supporters acted illegally by hosting this fundraiser and asking the 50 invited prosecutors to donate money. An Internet invitation, written by prosecutor Johanna Schonfield, asked guests to "join Dan O'Malley and your fellow Deputy District Attorneys ... at an intimate fundraiser." It suggested that prosecutors give $200 to $500.

Peterson said the fundraiser ran afoul of a law that bars candidates for office, and employees of that office, from soliciting donations from others in the agency.

Barry Grove, president of the Deputy District Attorney's Association, said the e-mail invitation was written by a young attorney who wasn’t familiar with the law. Both he and O’Malley said O’Malley didn’t know about the solicitation for donations and asked that it be removed once he got wind of it. Furthermore, O'Malley's campaign has decried Peterson's attempts at an "ill-conceived smear campaign" over this incident, in which, the campaign says, he made other false allegations, such as who was or was not invited to the event, before investigating the facts.

Vordergruebben says in a recent column she questioned whether the incident was sufficient enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Her newspaper also published an editorial, saying that Mark Peterson “needs to stop his reckless accusations” against O’Malley and his supporters. In the view of the Times, this is simply the case of some lawyers getting “sloppy,” and “perhaps technically violating the law.” It is a diversion from the real issues that the candidates need to talk about.

Personally, I have not decided who I’ll vote for. But, this whole race has turned out to be disappointing and disturbing. First of all, aren’t prosecutors, with their JDs, supposed to be smarter than this? And, aren’t prosecutors hired to work on the public’s behalf, upholding the law?

It might be true, technically and legally, that no crime occurred. And, maybe some of Peterson's accusations against O'Malley crossed a line. But, so did the actions of O'Malley's supporters in asking for the donations.

The whole incident and back-and-forth accusations smell. Like a murder victim’s corpse left rotting in a house for a few days.

Sorry for my lame attempt at a Raymond Chandler-esque simile, but I’m not the only one who smells something rotten going on in our District Attorney's Office. And that person is Jewett.

I’ve seen Jewett in action in the courtroom and spoken with him. I know some of our politics would clash, and I don’t agree with some decisions he has made on certain cases, but I’m convinced he acts out of respect for the law and a desire to do the right thing, not to further his personal glory. By the way, in 2008, he was named "Prosecutor of the Year" by the California District Attorney's Association. Here is his letter:

It was with some dismay I read today’s editorial telling a candidate for public office to “shut up”, and castigating him for reporting a violation of campaign fundraising laws to the attorney general. Your remarks were profoundly ironic and rude.


Your conclusions were wrong. Any newspaper (or other advocate of the 1st Amendment) telling any citizen to “shut up," or trivializing the violation of a law designed to prevent undue influence being placed on public employees vested with a public trust, is itself irresponsible.


As a prosecutor of 27+ years in this county, I have never seen the kind of political environment that exists in this office now. Our new prosecutors union has long since exceeded its stated purpose of maximizing benefits for its members, and now seeks to exercise substantial influence in the political arena.


Historically, that was the job of the district attorney … but times have apparently changed. I have never previously seen a solicitation for monies even approaching the $500 mentioned in the “e-vite” here. The suggestion that the idea of this solicitation originated with some young lawyer who didn’t know better is ludicrous.


The assertion that this wasn’t a fundraiser by prosecutors for prosecutors (with a few police detectives thrown in the mix for good measure) is poppycock. However, the truly disturbing aspect of this story is not the violation of a relatively obscure law. It is the denials; it is lawyers in full spin mode prepared to sacrifice a young attorney to avoid responsibility. Your editorial did not help.


This office is almost daily treated to closed door sessions of experienced lawyers and managers talking political strategy. Banter in the hallways includes experienced prosecutors openly singing about “war”.


It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for the low and mid-level attorneys to figure out which side their bread is buttered on. The effect of all this on the clerical personnel is undoubtedly numbing. It is precisely this kind of environment the statute you pay lip service to was designed to prevent.


With all of the posturing going on, one thing is certain: in our zeal to promote our candidate (whoever that may be) we are quickly loosing sight of our client (The People).


If your newspaper is not the partisan rag your editorial suggests it is, you should carefully and critically examine all of the assertions being made by all of the candidates, both about themselves and about their opponents.


If the public is being misled or the law is not being obeyed, it is your responsibility to expose the truth regardless of your predilections. That’s what Mark Peterson did (while trying murder case after murder case, by the way).


Truth first.


Harold W. Jewett