Sheriff defends Batmobile raid

The original 1966 Batmobile used in the TV series designed by George Barris.

Daily Post Staff Writer

San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolanos says he won’t apologize for sending four deputies to Indiana over a dispute involving a Batmobile, even though it appears he will be investigated by both state and local authorities.

Bolanos, in an internal memo on Monday (Aug. 8), stands by his decision to have his office investigate the dispute, and he would have initiated such an investigation no matter who had requested it. This memo is the first time Bolanos has publicly addressed the Batmobile controversy.

“This investigation was conducted …

Premium Content: To read the rest of this article, please click here and Sign In or Subscribe to access our paid site.

If you have a Daily Post Archives account, your access includes Premium Content such as this article. Enter your Archives Username and Password, and you will be redirected to the article.

If you are a first-time user, please Subscribe to select a plan that meets your needs, and create an account to view premium content such as this article.


  1. Mr. Racop was following the terms of the contract signed by Mr. Anagnostou. Mr. Anagnostou failed to fully pay for the car, but then demanded that Mr. Racop either return the money or the car. Mr. Racop was under no obligation, at that point, to do either, as the money had already been committed. Mr. Anagnostou complained to the DA, and the DA said it was civil case. Mr. Anagnostou then filed a civil case, and was obliged to follow that civil case up in the appropriate court system, in Indiana. Mr Anagnostou became impatient (though the car was halfway done, per the contract). And asked his friend, Sheriff Bolano, to go and Intimidate Mr. Racop. The Sheriff then rammed an affidavit through the DA’s office.
    Mr. Anagnostou knew this was an unfinished civil case, he didn’t want to deal with the civil courts, so he weaponized the police and used them as a way to extort Mr. Racop. In California, if you file a false police report, the penalty is 6 months in jail, a hefty fine, and restitution to the government for costs incurred.
    Why is no one talking about the case this way? Because the DA and Sheriff are all friends and friends with Mr. Anagnostou. The Board of Supervisors is playing a dangerous game, clearly the law has been broken, not by Mr. Racop but by Mr. Anagnostou and our County Sheriff. This opens up the possibility that San Mateo county could face a big civil torte suite from Mr. Racop, over the weaponizing of Sheriff’s department, to extort money and property from Mr. Racop, and by endangering Mr. Racop’s health from the horrid stress of this incident.
    The DA should promptly dismiss this case. Issue a citation to Mr. Anagnostou. And deflect any lawsuits, using that citation, as this could be considered the result of a crime by Mr. Anagnostou.
    Keep in mind, nothing is moving until Mr. Racop knows whether the civil court will direct him to pay back Mr. Anagnostou, or to finish the car, or give the car to Mr. Anagnostou as-is. And that has been the case for more than a year now. So the best way to resolve this is to either settle this out of court or be patient and let Mr. Racop finish this build.

    • So here we go. Jake, what is your connection to the case or are you a keyboard warrior? Since you used terms like “torte suite”, I’m guessing you’re not a lawyer.

      • Thanks for asking Rick, I have no connection to this case. I did grow up in Redwood City, I went to the same grade school as one of the Anagnostou brothers. Generally, I believe generally Anagnostou’s were a very nice family. I also knew/know, and have worked with, DA Wagstaffe’s brother Dennis, and his father Gerard. And I will tell, you great people, great lawyers to have on your side, as they were in my case.
        But here’s my problem, with this case. I also feel (empathise with the struggles of) (though don’t know, and have no affiliation) with Mr. Racop. For about 10 years I was an independent business man, as is Mr. Racop. Business people are busy doing their job, and having someone try and extort better terms from a contract, or extort money by demanding something they didn’t pay for, using either the police or other kinds of enforcement (where life, liberty are threatened), creates serious problems for small business people and our society.
        Also, I am a taxpayer in San Mateo county, and I don’t want our government exposed to this kind of liability. Mr. Racop is said to have health problems, what if he has a heart attack or stroke, to what extent will a jury believe this is as the result of illegal actions by Mr. Anagnostou or Sheriff Bolano, and what are the implications of that for San Mateo county?
        I am a also a bit of a keyboard warrior, but that is part of all the rights we enjoy under our U.S. Constitution, which many have sacrificed everything they had to defend. I pay homage to that legacy by exercising those rights in this or any other forum.
        I sincerely hope you respect that.

      • Torte is one of the first things they teach you in business law 101. I learned about torte at Canada College, in a business law 101 class. No I am not a lawyer. But I sense that anything a judge (then in trial, a jury) might believe, could wind up being actionable cause of a lawsuit, and justify monetary (or other) remedies, when the case is finally adjudicated.

      • Should have written “Tort suite” (thanks for alluding to an issue). Emotional distress is covered in a Tort suite. So the diction was okay, spelling wrong. Torte is a desert, Homer in me says “Hmm! torte”.

  2. Well, you’re half right. It’s tort suit — no “e” at the end of suit. Of course nobody in the legal profession uses the word tort. Maybe you ought to see if you can get a refund for your community college education.

Comments are closed.