BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
I have a great deal of respect for San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Over the years, I’ve seen him make difficult decisions without bending to politics or pressure from special interests. So I’m perplexed by his decision not to bring criminal charges against former sheriff Christina Corpus, who was fired for corruption.
I think there was enough evidence to charge her with false arrest for ordering the arrest of a political opponent, deputies union president Carlos Tapia, on a bogus timecard charge. Wagstaffe himself said the timecard charge against Tapia wasn’t justified.
In fact, Capt. Brian Philip quit rather than carry out Corpus’s order to arrest Tapia.
And an independent hearing officer, who reviewed the evidence in the case and heard testimony, said the arrest of Tapia was one of the reasons why the Board of Supervisors should fire Corpus.
Wagstaffe’s decision sends the wrong message. To law enforcement officers, it says that they won’t face serious consequences for a false arrest. I doubt Wagstaffe wants to leave that impression, but that’s one way to read this.
On the other hand, convicting Corpus of false arrest might not matter much in the bigger picture.
A misdemeanor
If she were to be charged with false arrest, it would probably be a misdemeanor. It would only rise to a felony if there were aggravating circumstances, like if she used violence or had kidnapped Tapia. Nobody is alleging that here.
If convicted of a misdemeanor, a defendant like her with no criminal history would get probation or community service. So what’s the point?
A low-stakes trial
If you want to see Corpus stand trial, that could still happen. A civil grand jury has brought four “accusations” against the former sheriff that will lead to a trial. But a civil grand jury’s powers are extremely limited. If a public official is convicted of an accusation brought by a civil grand jury, the most severe consequences the official could face are removal from office and a ban from ever holding elected office again.
Corpus has already been removed from office, and it’s unlikely she could ever get elected to anything in the future. As a result, there won’t be much at stake at such a trial. She could probably save herself the legal fees of a trial and just accept the accusations in order to prevent a trial and move on with her life.
Civil suits remain
Yes, there are numerous civil suits against her, but in nearly every case, the county is also named as a defendant because the government has the deep pockets. It’s doubtful those cases will ever go to trial. They’ll get settled out of court with a brief press release in which both sides claim they were blameless. But you — the taxpayer — will be stuck with the bill.
So her case will end not with a bang but a whimper, to quote T.S. Eliot.
One footnote: She will be walking away with a pension that pays her $402,338 a year along with health care benefits worth $75,307.44 annually. She’ll get those benefits, with inflation adjustments, until her death. She’s 55. The Board of Supervisors, who decided to fire Corpus, has made no effort to claw back her post employment benefits.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
Wow. Thanks again to Dave Price and the Daily
For this informative and disturbing opinion piece.
Prosecution of Corpus would certainly be justified, but is it necessary? She has already been shamed and removed from office, which seems like a pretty big deterrent. Prosecuting former elected officials is pretty touchy and rather “banana republic”, as in the partisan noise from a less than trustworthy media, it can be difficult for the public to determine whether it is justified or political. On the national stage, we are seeing how it plays out, with Trump prosecuting Democrats, after they prosecuted him.
First of all, criminal prosecution would re-instill faith and re-build rapport within the community that the Thin Blue Line does not exist. Corrupt law enforcement officers need to be held accountable.
Secondly, a felony conviction would strip her of her pension. Taxpayers already spent millions to remove her and will be spending millions more on all the lawsuits because of her. Having her collect a huge pension for decades adds insult to injury.
I agree with Price’s conclusion, but I’d like to see what could be done to rein in future sheriffs from engaging in retaliation, intimidation and nepotism. We need stronger checks and balances.
It shouldn’t cost so much to have a recall election. Ans elected officials shouldn’t be able to violate laws and employees rights without consequences. The power Corpus had impacted hundreds of employees for years before she was removed. It took millions of dollars to do that – what a disgrace!
All of these civil lawsuits involving Corpus are just tying up time with lawyers and endless amounts of paperwork. For what? The more time that drags on people aren’t as interested in participating in testifying. Some people named in these lawsuits have moved, retired, or even passed away.
It’s sad to say the least that this woman was elected and destroyed so much trust and faith. It’s shameful a realtor was even allowed to get access to the Sheriff department and how he abused his undeserving power. The entire time she served in office proved to be purely corrupt. She demoted employees, she fired people, she arrested someone unnecessarily and the. traveled with Aenlle to meetings that ofter people say she never attended, she purchased unnecessary items like a $75k table, massage chairs, ice cream machines, leased properties never used, she didn’t even come into work the majority of the last year she was in office. Don’t forget what elected officials are capable of getting away with and look at the expenses it takes to get any kind of justice or any consequences. Criminal charges, yes are warranted and deserved! Are criminal charges going to just waste more time (court would probably move to another county) and money for lawyers and then minimal if any consequence resulting. Hopefully POST suspends her license permanently soon.
Think about this- she could have quit when the Cordell report came out and possibly negotiated millions to do so.. Then she could have worked in another county or been elected to office in another part of California. She is unemployed and getting paid retirement but she isn’t working in law enforcement hopefully ever again. Are more charges or loss of pay or a criminal record going to change anything, now or in the future? Sadly, probably not.
Somewhat premature, isn’t it Mr. Price? Now that the man previously known as the Honorable Mr. Wagstaffe, Esq. has explicitly, and publicly, declared his intentions and decisions regarding criminal charges against the former sheriff, he has thereby implicitly waived any lawful protections for public records act (PRAs) requests on at least that one investigation. Yet what about her mastermind sidekicks, her undersheriff and the guy who liked to call himself doctor or chief?
I, for one, would have preferred the Post make those PRAs, review the facts established or unable to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the multi-year criminal investigation; perhaps write a story each on those investigative circumstances and facts in the former sheriff and her disgraced “Chief of Staff”, to help the opinions of other readers to be formed. Then opinions can be composed after the facts are publicly exposed; those would then be well informed opinions. I guess I’ll have to wait for journalists or historians to consider that alternative.
It’s hard to parse the comments of the “former resident,” but as a regular reader of the Post, I’ll give it a try. I guess you missed the numerous stories about the county rejecting the Post’s public records requests. When the county says “no,” what are journalists supposed to do then? The Post has aggressively sought out and published records in this case, more so than the other newspapers. “Former resident” missed that. He also missed or didn’t read the Cordell and Keker reports.
I’d like to correct him when he claims “[Wagstaffe has] implicitly waived any lawful protections for public records act (PRAs).” Where in the statute does it say that? The open records act doesn’t magically change now that the District Attorney has decided not to file charges.
CW, how kind to take interest in this as I did. I saw the previous Post stories and commented on several, as I would hope you saw as a regular reader. The Post has sought PRA refused records in court before, as that is a legal opportunity for them; although I was not suggesting they go to court against the DA in this matter. Who missed what as far as lawful options for responsible investigative reporting? Perhaps CW might reconsider their judgements, perhaps not; CW is entitled to their opinion either way.
PRA statutes are pretty clear that if the full report is withheld, the agency is absolutely required by law to release certain baseline operational facts unless doing so would directly endanger a witness or jeopardize an ongoing safety matter. Baseline operational facts not yet released include the time, substance, and location of the incident, along with descriptions of any injuries or property damage involved. From conflict of interest law violations, which is what the the involved sheriff’s termination involved, among other violations amounting to law violations such as false imprisonment (not necessarily a misdemeanor, certainly felony charges are merited in these circumstances) of a labor union president by a corrupt elected official, to potentially kidnapping of that individual, there is plenty not yet released. What crimes were investigated? Interesting too that the DA breaks the story in a newspaper story, not a media release on the DAs webpage.
Furthermore, such a PRA exemption from release does not apply if the file involves serious officer misconduct or severe incidents. I can think of no more serious misconduct than corrupt acts of the elected sheriff, especially those sufficiently serious as to cause her removal from office two years into her term and serious enough for the state to revoke her certification and ability to be a California peace officer. Pretty serious in my view; others may disagree.
I like Wags. I voted for him multiple times. Yet the people of San Mateo County, the victims and those who have followed this case deserve more. If CW is uninterested in more, that is absolutely fine. My position was and is only a comment that the opinion piece was premature and incomplete. I doubt Mr. Price, who I also respect, will agree with me, but it would be nice if those avenues were pursued by him or his staff. No magic desired, just compliance with relative PRA statutes.
“Former resident” seems a bit confused. He seems to want a list of the instances of misconduct by Corpus and Aenlle, along with details such as times, dates, names, etc. If so, he might look back at the Keker Van Nest May 30, 2025 Notice of Intent to remove Sheriff Corpus from office, which contains much more than just the baseline facts that he claims are being withheld.
Sorry you struggle so much to understand my recommendation that Mr. Price and The Post reporters use the PRA statutes to support the people’s right to know about the DAs investigation through investigative reporting, CW. It just made more sense to me to get that information before the Opinion piece. I take no offense at the exchange with you and I hope you take none with me. We simply do not agree. We are each entitled to our opinions. I’ve read all associated reports I can get my hands on, including court files.
Since you indicated you didn’t know section details regarding the information release, I provided the substance of my understanding of some to you; apparently my bad in that effort. If your preference is for pertinent sections themselves try, California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §7920.000 et seq.), California Penal Code §832.7 (SB 1421/SB 16), and Gov. Code §7922.525 (concerning redactions of exempt portions). The case involves a historic, unprecedented abuse of power by an elected official who has already been removed from office, the DA’s office faces zero risk of jeopardizing a live criminal trial against the former sheriff. The public interest in a historic account of this event overwhelmingly outweighs any residual government secrecy. We all seem to be caring community members, let’s keep it mutually supportive. I appreciate Mr. Price’s work and opinions, even when I disagree; Wags too.