The legal battle over removing San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus took some strange turns Tuesday (Sept. 23).
Corpus and her lawyers went into Superior Court to ask a judge to halt the county Board of Supervisors from removing her for alleged corruption.
In an anticipation of her request, the county said that it would remove Corpus but not fill her vacancy for 14 days.
Corpus’ lawyers said the county’s offer wasn’t acceptable.
That threw the matter into the lap of the judge, Nina Shapirshteyn, who will have to decide what happens if the Board of Supervisors remove Corpus.
Shapirshteyn didn’t take any action yesterday.
But Shapirshteyn will have to move fast. Under the procedures the supervisors have approved for removing the sheriff, a hearing officer is expected to provide his recommendation on whether to remove Corpus on allegations including nepotism, conflicts of interest, retaliation, false arrest and using homophobic and racial slurs.
Once the supervisors receive the recommendation of Hearing Officer James Emerson, their next step is to vote on whether to remove Corpus.
In court papers filed Sept. 15, Corpus’ attorneys have said they feared that vote could come within a week.
If the supervisors vote to remove her, the action will be immediate, meaning she will have to surrender her gun and badge, and leave her offices at 330 Bradford St. in Redwood City that day.
Under state law, the undersheriff, former San Francisco police captain Dan Perea, would assume her job. She picked Perea last year as her undersheriff after Chris Hsuing quietly exited the position.
The voters, in a special election in March, changed the county charter to give the supervisors authority to remove Corpus with a four-fifth vote.
The process of giving her an opportunity to make her case has been slow, with a 10-day appeal hearing occurring last month.
Meanwhile, the county has been paying Corpus’ legal fees. However, the county has refused to say how much it has spent in legal fees for her or the county, which hired outside counsel to handle the case.
“She’s making mean faces at me.” That is what Christy is worried about.
If Corpus is fired when should she leave ? Today. Today September 25, 2025 was the day I predicted she’d finally be fired ( for the fourth and final time). Apparently that isn’t happening so the woke process of multiple layers of hearings, appeals, court rulings and attorney bills will continue to pile up. Now it’s reported the County wants to give Corpus 14 extra days after she’s fired to actually leave office . Why ? Hasn’t she done enough to damage careers and morale within the Sheriff”s office while wasting your taxpayer money on endless attorneys fees ? The woke politicians who brought you Corpus need to now step up, admit responsibility , fire her without delay and schedule a special election so the voters can elect a new qualified experienced Sheriff with respect for values , integrity and public service.
I am beyond disappointed in the BOS and county government . What has been allowed to happen to our Sheriff’s Office and the burden placed on taxpayers is incomprehensible.
This issue is all about elected officials. Be mad at the system. If the Board of Supervisors had the power to remove a Sheriff or even the all of the Mayors in the county, they would have a long time ago.
What is not understood is that after passing Measure A in March why this insane process with multiple steps and a 10-day court hearing was necessary. The Sheriff should have been removed after the first vote and put on administrative leave.
The damages that accrue every day while this process unravels are so concerning. The fact that this woman goes into the public saying she innocent and proved so without any ruling from the judge! This should be the writing on the wall for the public that continues to be gaslit.
If Corpus believes she proved herself innocent, why is she running to superior and federal court to try and stop the process? What does she think the ruling will say? If she thinks she will be proven innocent, these are some insane efforts going on to stop being fired.
What would these 38-plus witnesses gain, or what political motivation would they have to testify against her. A good handful of them live in other states and/or are retired? Why would anyone victimize these victims that came forward and defend the wrongs that happened to them? Why would anyone say Corpus is innocent? She arrested her union president with $950 in dispute. People get arrested for stealing purses at Nordstrom or Louis Vuitton for more. She should have treated an employee with respect and investigated that properly, not arrested someone to scare people! That was the turning point of her abuse of power. At that point she had already fired a command staff member over “rumors” without discussing anything she “heard.” The rest of the inappropriate vacations with her friend is what it is — inappropriate and another abuse of power with intimidation.
Victor is NOT qualified for the role he was given. He’s not qualified to evaluate any command staff performance and definitely not qualified to have access to personal files or confidential information.
In my humble opinion, these things alone were proven in court and are strong evidence to remove this elected Sheriff.
The new “witch-hunt “internal affairs processes” and the random public members who testified are pathetic. This woman ruined her life. Her decisions. Her insubordination her incompetence. Secrets and lies aplenty. Holy Cow!
Be mad at the process to remove an elected official. The board had no power until Measure A. The process to remove her didn’t have to take this long. Police chiefs do not have this power, why should a sheriff?
A conversation for another time, but the next San Mateo Sheriff election or special election could be more political. We don’t need the shady characters posturing with political leaders on social media already!
Current or past friends of Victor, stay away. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Doctor My Eyes: That is not quite right. In case #25-CIV-04319, as part of its 09/19 response to the Corpus team’s 09/15 petition for court-ordered stay of Measure A, the county refuted Corpus’s claim she’d suffer immediate “irreparable harm”, by stipulating that it would be willing to wait at least 14 days after removal before re-filling the office. A notation in Judge Shapirshteyn’s 09/23 minute order noted in passing that plaintiffs didn’t accept the county’s stipulation.
My understanding is that (therefore) the county isn’t bound by that; that it’s just a statement of present intention.
I don’t have a reference handy, but recall that, in the event of the Sheriff office becoming vacant, the office’s duties would be performed on an interim basis by the Undersheriff (currently Dan Perea) or some other person next in succession — but that person doesn’t become Sheriff. That doesn’t refill the office.
County Charter section 415 says the Board of Supervisors should remedy the vacancy by either appointing a new Sheriff or calling a special election. If the Supes fail to act within 30 days, a special election gets called automatically.