DA refutes claims of inaction

May 13—Earlier this week, a Sikh civil rights organization announced that a civil lawsuit was being filed after an incident last year in Sutter County that involved a Sikh man who was allegedly threatened with a racial slur and violence and later subjected to more slurs and hateful graffiti at his residence.

Along with the suit that involves Sutter County, officers with the Sutter County Sheriff's Office and the individual who threatened the man involved, an organization known as the Sikh Coalition also claims that it has continued to urge the Sutter County District Attorney's Office to bring criminal charges.

According to the Sikh Coalition, Sutter County resident Rouble Claire was allegedly "accosted by a woman in his neighborhood while at South Butte Market" on May 11, 2021. The woman allegedly yelled and cursed at Claire. She allegedly called Claire a "f***ing Hindu" and threatened to "ram" him with her car. She then got back into her car and allegedly sped toward Claire in the parking lot, before swerving away at the last moment.

Later that day, a separate woman that was allegedly connected to the "assailant," wrote "sand n****r," a racist slur used against people of Middle Eastern descent, in chalk outside of Claire's house and in his driveway. She also allegedly called him a "n****r," an ethnic slur typically used against Black people.

The Sikh Coalition alleged that Amanda Hopper and the Sutter County District Attorney's Office have refused to press charges related to the incidents, despite evidence presented by the coalition that it feels should have warranted action.

Graham West, media and communications director for the Sikh Coalition, previously said that the district attorney's office "cited the amount of time that had elapsed between the incidents and the police finally calling for charges as reason not to move the case forward — despite the fact that this delay was due to the SCSO's failure to properly investigate and act."

In response, Hopper made the following statement:

"The Sheriff's Office did not refer this case to my office for hate crimes against Mr. Claire. The referred charge was for violating Penal Code Section 245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon. The probable cause statement from the Sheriff's Office did not contain sufficient evidence to prove this crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically as the eye witness stated that it did not appear that the suspect attempted to hit Mr. Claire but was merely trying to block him in," Hopper said. "If the alleged information contained in the civil documents are accurate, then my office has not received all of the reports and evidence referenced. Should all evidence be submitted to the District Attorney's Office, we will conduct a new review and legal analysis of the facts and make a filing decision. The statute of limitations for the requested charge is three years so the case can be filed anytime prior to May 11, 2024."

On Thursday, the Sikh Coalition said Hopper was "mischaracterizing facts" in her statement to the Appeal.

"Reports indicate that the Sutter County District Attorney's Office (SCDAO) was made aware of this case in September of 2021 by the Sheriff's office, and then in both November of 2021 and February of this year, the Sikh Coalition also reached out to them to lay out all of the evidence in this case and explain the charges that we believe to be warranted based in the facts," Sikh Coalition Legal Director Amrith Kaur Aakre said in a statement. "The eyewitness account corroborates that the individual who was harassing Mr. Claire at the grocery store one year ago was acting in a dangerous and threatening manner. We disagree with the assertion that there is new information in these 'civil documents' that the SCDAO was not aware of: this information has been presented to the SCDAO repeatedly, and is simply being made public for the first time. At any point, the SCDAO could have proactively investigated this case, asked questions, or met with our legal team as we requested; it is always incumbent on a DA's office to determine what charges are appropriate in a case, regardless of what police recommend."

The Appeal reached out to Hopper on Thursday about the "mischaracterizing facts" allegations. In her response, Hopper detailed exactly why charges weren't brought and how the process works at the district attorney's office.

"The District Attorney's Office received the single police report in this case submitted to our office on December 3, 2021. The sole charge requested by the Sheriff's Office was a violation of assault with a deadly weapon from an incident occurring on May 11, 2021. That case was refused because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Hollis committed that crime," Hopper said. "The failures in proof specifically stem from Mr. Claire's statement that the vehicle swerved and stopped approximately five feet from where he was standing and that Ms. Hollis 'maneuvered her vehicle to avoid hitting' him. Further, an independent eye witness to the incident stated that she believed Ms. Hollis had 'attempted to block Claire's vehicle in with her' own car. The witness further stated that Mr. Claire was standing near the driver's door of his vehicle and not where Ms. Hollis drove. The witness went on to state that she did not believe Ms. Hollis was trying to hit Mr. Claire because she drove towards the car and not towards Mr. Claire."

Along with allegations made regarding possible hate crimes and assault, the Sikh Coalition also alleged that a deputy who responded to the incident outside Claire's home "used his own water bottle in an attempt to wash away the evidence before taking photos for the office."

Despite the Sikh Coalition's claims that Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes acknowledged "that his deputies failed to follow proper investigatory protocol in the course of these cases," Hopper said proof of the possible destruction of evidence was never submitted.

"I have been made aware that the Sikh Coalition is calling for additional charges because Mr. Claire was 'threatened and harassed with racial slurs and graffiti,'" Hopper said. "Their civil lawsuit claims that Mr. Claire was threatened. No facts meeting the elements of criminal threats have been submitted to the District Attorney's Office. They further claim that a deputy attempted to destroy evidence prior to photographing it. No such facts have ever been submitted to my office."

According to witnesses and those involved, the entire confrontation between Claire and "Ms. Hollis" stemmed from the belief that Claire had killed a dog.

"All witnesses including Mr. Claire himself agree that Mr. Claire and Ms. Hollis argued and exchanged angry words," Hopper said. "Ms. Hollis accused Mr. Claire of killing her dog. Mr. Claire denied and stated, 'I didn't hit her dog and even if I did, she can't prove it.' The independent witness stated that she did not hear Ms. Hollis make any racist or derogatory statements towards Mr. Claire."

Hopper also explained why her office declined to press charges or seek further action related to the incident.

"Regarding the request that my office file charges of hate crimes, threats, or graffiti, that is simply not possible based upon the evidence submitted. Mr. Claire stated that a female adult wrote 'Sand N****r" on the street in front of his house and on the cement driveway. He later requested charges for a hate crime and for trespass regarding this incident," Hopper said. "However, Mr. Claire was unable to identify the female who took such action. Law enforcement officers showed him a photo line-up containing the photographs of six potential suspects, including Ms. Hollis. Mr. Claire was unable to identify the female who wrote derogatory and racist words in front of his house. Mr. Claire was able to take a photograph of the female and showed it to another witness, who was likewise unable to identify her. While there is no doubt that the action was criminal and this office takes such hate speech seriously, criminal charges cannot be filed when the identity of the suspect is unknown.

"The only mention of future harassment against Mr. Claire is his statement that 'in the days and weeks following the original incident, his trash cans were knocked over in the street on multiple occasions.' Mr. Claire stated this action was committed by 'unknown persons.' Again, criminal charges simply cannot be filed when there is no known suspect."

According to Hopper, requests by the Sikh Coalition did not follow the protocol generally followed by her office.

"The Sikh Coalition seems to believe that the District Attorney's Office should have met with their representatives in order to receive all of the evidence in this case. This office does not receive evidence from a non-witness to a crime," Hopper said. "As with any criminal investigation, if the law enforcement officers are given further evidence, they conduct further investigation and then send any supplemental reports to this office. This has not been done in Mr. Claire's case. I grew up in this county and have life-long friends who are Sikh. I take hate crimes very seriously. I also have an ethical and legal duty to only file cases that meet the burden of proof. This case does not."