Investigation reveals Shasta County sheriff violated state law, other issues

After a two-year effort to prevent the release of an investigation into the Shasta County Sheriff's Office and former Sheriff Eric Magrini, county officials have complied with a court order to turn over the report to the Record Searchlight.

This is the second of two stories detailing findings from the thousands of documents released by the county earlier this month. The documents included results from the county's investigation into the sheriff's office, known as the Ellis Report.

The Ellis investigation was commissioned by the county in 2021, following a request by captains and lieutenants in the Sheriff's department who had complained about working conditions in the agency.

"As dedicated professionals, we feel that the safety of our community is paramount and it cannot be achieved under the current conditions that exist within the sheriff's office," the letter from the Sheriff's Administrative Association to the county Board of Supervisors says. "If resolution cannot be achieved, our only option will be to make notification to the California Attorney General or determine if recall proceedings are feasible, and our hope is that this will not be necessary."

More: How we got here: The two-year effort to obtain records from Shasta County

After receiving the letter, the county hired Sacramento law firm Ellis Investigations to look into the issues raised by the Sheriff's Administrative Association, which represents lieutenants and captains in the department.

The Record Searchlight is naming members of the Shasta County sheriff's command staff, county officials and union leaders in all stories because they are public figures. However, the newspaper is voluntarily withholding the names of other workers and is not publishing the Ellis Report in full in order to balance individual privacy with the public's interest in this case.

Here are the findings of the Ellis Report:

Did Magrini obtain an unauthorized rap sheet on former county CEO Matt Pontes?

The report says Magrini acknowledged he illegally obtained background information about Matt Pontes.Magrini used a statewide law enforcement communication system known as CLETS to search Pontes’ criminal background when Pontes applied for the CEO job. Using the system for employment background checks is illegal, according to the California Attorney General’s Office.

Magrini thought it was OK to use the CLETS system to conduct background checks because the county regularly performs personal history checks for hiring, the report says. Magrini accessed the CLETS system looking for criminal records to possibly knock Pontes out of the running for the CEO job so former Shasta County Director of Support Services Angela Davis could get the position, according to written testimony in the report from Capt. Pat Kropholler, who at the time was president of the Sheriff's Administrative Association.

However, the Ellis Report said Davis could not have benefited from disqualifying Pontes because she had already been offered a job in Siskiyou County by the time Magrini accessed CLETS. The now-former county CEO had criminal theft convictions on his record from 1994 in Santa Barbara County.

Did Magrini follow correct procedures in January 2020 during captains' promotions testing in the department?

The report found he did not.

After being sworn in as sheriff in January 2020, Magrini promoted Jason Barnhart to undersheriff. That meant the sheriff had to hire or promote from within the department to backfill positions. After selecting Capt. Gene Randall to oversee the jail, the Personnel Department told sheriff's officials they were supposed to test for the position through personnel, the report says.

So Magrini and Barnhart needed to redo the captain promotion process. Magrini acknowledged that he failed to correctly conduct the captain promotion testing, the report says. Also, while Lt. Tyler Thompson took the captain's test in January 2020, his name was left off the captain's promotions list, the report says.

"Sheriff Magrini’s failure to properly follow the promotion process raised concerns because it affected Lt. Thompson’s promotion opportunity during the next available promotion in June 2020," the report says.

Did Magrini interfere in an investigation into a February 2020 officer-involved shooting investigation?

The report concluded Magrini did not interfere.

Sheriff's Sgt. Jose Gonzalez shot Thomas Andrew Barbosa after his vehicle went off a cliff in Ono following a vehicle chase to the small western community in the western part of the county. The Redding Police Department took over the investigation into the shooting because it involved a sheriff's office employee. Video evidence of the shooting initially implicated Gonzalez, but Kropholler analyzed information from the incident and wrote an executive summary.

Kropholler was concerned Magrini would interfere with the shooting investigation because of past conflicts between Gonzalez and the sheriff, the report says. Kropholler had accused Magrini of preventing him from submitting the executive summary of the investigation to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office. The report concluded Kropholler should not have become involved with the investigation because of a possible conflict of interest, as Gonzalez and Kropholler both worked in the sheriff's office.

The report determined that Kropholler should have given a summary of the incident he wrote to Redding police. The report also said Magrini made inappropriate comments about the shooting after watching the video of the incident. "In hindsight, this evidence reflected that Sheriff Magrini made premature comments, based on viewing the video, reflecting a belief that Sgt. Gonzalez’ officer-involved shooting was not justified," the report said.

Ultimately, Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett did not file charges in the case, saying there was not sufficient evidence to charge Gonzalez in the shooting.

Did Magrini fail to investigate threats made against former Public Health Officer Karen Ramstrom?

The report concluded Magrini did investigate threats made against Ramstrom.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many members of the public were upset at some of the state-mandated restrictions placed on businesses and schools. That anger led to threats against Ramstrom. One commenter at a Board of Supervisors meeting yelled out Ramstrom’s home address and threatened protests at her home. A social media post also threatened to “take out” the county's top doctor.

The sheriff’s office, Redding police and county officials met several times regarding the threats, the report says. They performed a risk assessment and put together a plan to protect Ramstrom from possible attacks, the report says. She was also advised on how to react to any threats. The county hired a private security firm to monitor her home and Redding police also were alerted to the threats, the report said.

Did Magrini tell a sheriff’s deputy to delete a recording of a May 2020 Deputy Sheriff’s Association meeting?

While the report concluded Magrini did not explicitly tell Deputy Ben Estill, then-president of the Deputy Sheriff's Association, to delete a recording of a DSA meeting the sheriff had attended, the deputy felt he was pressured to delete the recording, the report says.Another deputy recorded the May 2020 meeting for the benefit of those who could not attend, the report says. Estill met with Magrini and Barnhart in Magrini’s office, where the sheriff informed the deputy the recording could have been illegal because it was done surreptitiously.

“However, because Sheriff Magrini stated that Dept. Estill had possibly committed a misdemeanor, Dept. Estill believed that he needed to delete the recording. He (Estill) did not see any other option. Dept. Estill was in a room with two of his bosses telling him that he possibly committed a crime, so Dept. Estill wanted to take responsibility and show that the DSA acted in good faith and was not trying to set up Sheriff Magrini or engage in trickery,” the report says.

Did Magrini inappropriately communicate with local militia groups during June 2020 social justice protests?

The report concluded Magrini did not invite Shasta County militia members to stand guard during the protests.However, the report said he did communicate with Woody Clendenen, a leader of one militia group, and told him to have his group "stage" on Oregon Street a block away from the Court Street protesters and not to engage them. Magrini said he would not use the militia for enforcement or police actions, the report says.

"This investigation considered that 'to stage' meant to be at the ready. (Capt. Brian) Jackson stated that (Capt.) Kropholler told him that Sheriff Magrini instructed the Cottonwood Community Militia to stage, or standby, on Oregon Street and he understood this to mean that they were to be ready. While this provided some support (that) Sheriff Magrini instructed militia groups to be ready to respond, it was not enough to outweigh the countervailing evidence that Sheriff Magrini wanted to prevent the groups from engaging," the report says.

Other witnesses, including sheriff's Lt. Jesse Gunsauls, said Magrini told them before the demonstrations that the militia was “one call” away if the protests became violent, the report says.

Did Magrini say he wanted protesters to burn down a county building?

Magrini made comments about wanting protesters to burn down the South County Patrol Station because it was dilapidated and he distributed a photo among department employees of Capt. Pat Kropholler with a Hitler mustache drawn on it, joking that it could be used to provoke protesters into torching the building, the report says.

Magrini made the comments about the time that social justice demonstrations were taking place in Redding in June 2020. Magrini drew a map from the Martin Luther King Jr. Center in Redding to the patrol station and marked it "Precinct 3," in reference to a Minneapolis police precinct burned during George Floyd protests, and said if protesters were going to burn down a building it should be the South County Patrol Station, the report says.

"Witness accounts and documents supported that Sheriff Magrini altered Cpt. Kropholler’s employee photo with a Hitler mustache and commented that he wanted to post the photo on buildings to incite protestors into burning down the buildings," the report says.

Several witnesses said Magrini made the comment about burning down the station and the Hitler mustache as jokes, but they felt it was not appropriate under the circumstances. In an account provided by Jackson, “Sheriff Magrini making a joke about Cpt. Kropholler’s photo was an example of Sheriff Magrini’s immaturity.”

During one meeting in 2020, the report said Jackson told the sheriff he should not engage in such jokes. “Cpt. Jackson also reminded Sheriff Magrini that he was now the sheriff of the county and that he needed to start acting like it.”

Did Magrini inappropriately interfere with the county’s SHIELD Training Center lease?

The report concluded he did not.

Shasta College officials oversee the law enforcement and firefighting training center in Redding. The county wanted to lease space there for an emergency operations center during the early onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the report says. Magrini, who served on the training center board, recused himself from the vote on leasing the space, the report says. He also said the County Counsel’s Office and the Purchasing Department reviewed and approved the lease, and witnesses corroborated his statement, the report says.

Did Magrini misuse grant funding to purchase an inmate transfer vehicle?

The purchases went through the proper approvals at the county, the report says.

Kropholler said the county spent $250,000 on a prisoner transport vehicle. Magrini said he used federal grants issued during the pandemic to buy the vehicle because at the time the county had to take inmates to state facilities as far away as Bakersfield. The vehicles had restrooms onboard so they didn’t have to stop along the way. Those stops could create a safety issue. The purchases went through the proper approvals at the county, the report says.

Did Magrini misuse COVID funding to buy television sets?

Witnesses said the purchases were warranted and were approved by the proper departments. Others raised questions as to whether buying large-screen televisions was a proper use of funds to offset the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pontes told investigators he did not have a problem with buying televisions with Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act grants. The report says Undersheriff Jason Barnhart said he saw Magrini using the televisions for videoconferences with other department heads, which became more common during the pandemic.

“Such a purchase was not abnormal. Mr. Pontes did not know of any department head who did not have a television in his or her office,” the report says. However, Jackson said, “the sheriff’s office should have put more money into saving businesses than purchasing televisions,” according to the report. Kropholler also said he did not think the purchases were an effective use of CARES funds, the report says.

Did Magrini facilitate Pontes' concealed carry application?

Magrini did not facilitate Pontes obtaining a concealed carry weapons permit in 2020, the report says.

Obtaining a concealed weapon carry permit requires applicants to pass a background check, attend an eight-hour classroom course and pass a qualifying shooting test, the report says.

According to the investigation, Magrini arranged to have a former sheriff’s captain provide the classroom instruction in Pontes’ office. The classroom courses usually took six-and-a-half hours and another hour of homework, the report says. The retired captain told investigators his session with Pontes took two-and-a-half to three hours, the report says.

Additionally, the instructor did not recall “but (said) he possibly filled out the (shooting) qualification sheet in advance to expedite the process,” the report says. The shooting qualification required an applicant to shoot 16 of 20 shots within the innermost nine rings of a paper target, the report says.

The evidence, however, reflected that Mr. Pontes’ qualification form was completed months prior to when he went to the range to shoot, the report says. An image of the shooting results, included in Pontes’ application, shows Pontes hit 20 of 20 shots within the required area of the target for the three guns he wanted permitted. While there may have been irregularities in the application, Magrini might not have known about them, the report says.

“Moreover, even if Sheriff Magrini knew that (the instructor) completed the qualification form in advance — and this investigation did not find that to be the case — Sheriff Magrini plausibly had discretion to vary the form’s process,” the report says.

SUBSCRIBE: Help support quality journalism like this.

Did Magrini inappropriately approve overtime pay for Barnhart?

The report says the evidence obtained during the investigation indicates Barnhart went through the proper channels to get his overtime approved at various times when he was a captain and a lieutenant.

Captains and lieutenants typically only receive overtime under special circumstances. While Barnhart worked on the department bomb squad he received $17,723 in overtime in the years 2016 to 2019, the report says.

Did Magrini inappropriately secure raises for sheriff's office employees?

Did Magrini stall raises for department employees until he became sheriff so he could take credit for the raises? The report said he did not.

The investigation showed Pontes and Director of Support Services Shelley Forbes managed the process of when raises were implemented and the raises were secured through contract negotiations with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association. Magrini did not get a raise in 2020 and Barnhart did not have close involvement with the decision regarding his own raise, the report says.

Did Magrini say he would not send 15 deputies to protect the Board of Supervisors because they didn't give him a raise?

The investigation concluded yes, Magrini made the statement because he was upset at the board for postponing his raise.

During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, board meetings were often raucous and some speakers made threatening remarks toward the supervisors. The board requested extra deputies attend a January 2021 meeting to provide security, the report says.

Magrini denied saying he would not send additional deputies to a supervisors meeting, and he said the board did not request them. But the investigation found that witnesses backed up the claim that the sheriff said he would not send extra deputies because he was angry at the board for not giving him a raise.

Some witnesses interviewed also said sending 15 deputies to a supervisors meeting would have made matters worse. Sheriff's Capt. Jackson said he thought sending 15 deputies to a board meeting was “absurd.” However, Jackson said "he was present during a meeting when Sheriff Magrini stated that he would not send fifteen deputies to a Board meeting because he did not trust the supervisors after they voted to decline his raise," the report says.

Did Magrini create a toxic work environment at the sheriff's office?

Finally, the report concluded that Magrini did not create a “toxic” environment within the sheriff’s office.

But there were conflicting accounts about the atmosphere in the department, the report says. In January and February 2021, both the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Sheriff’s Administrative Association issued votes of no confidence in Magrini. A letter from the DSA to Magrini said there was a “growing divide” in the department, employees did not feel supported and morale was low. An SAA letter to the Board of Supervisors said the working environment was “extremely hostile” and unproductive. Capt. Gene Randall said leadership meetings in January 2021 became contentious and left him “feeling sick.”

The Ellis Report put part of the blame on Kropholler, then president of the SAA, for complaining about issues in the department. “As well, to the extent that staff felt that an uncomfortable work environment existed in the main office, it understandably arose, in part, due to the current tension between Sheriff Magrini and (Capt.) Kropholler. Still, these tensions were not enough to support that Sheriff Magrini created a ‘toxic environment’ at work,” the report says.

Magrini still works for the county, a county spokesman said in August. He would not say whether Magrini was out on leave. But Board of Supervisors Chairman Patrick Jones said Aug. 23 he has not seen Magrini at work for several months.

Magrini did not reply to voicemail messages left on his phone.

Reporter Damon Arthur welcomes story tips at 530-338-8834, by email at damon.arthur@redding.com and on Twitter at @damonarthur_RS. Help local journalism thrive by subscribing today!

This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Report reveals former Shasta County sheriff violated state law