Reported / Citable
Background
Sonoma County established the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO) in 2016 to provide oversight of the County Sheriff. The original ordinance gave IOLERO certain review and recommendation functions but expressly prohibited it from conducting independent investigations or issuing subpoenas. In November 2020, county voters passed Measure P, which significantly expanded IOLERO’s powers, including authority to receive and investigate whistleblower complaints involving the sheriff’s office and to subpoena records and testimony.
After Measure P passed, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) ruled that the County had violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by placing certain provisions on the ballot without first bargaining with the affected unions. PERB declared some Measure P provisions void. Meanwhile, in 2022 the Legislature enacted Government Code section 25303.7, which generally authorizes sheriff oversight entities to subpoena documents and witnesses in connection with investigations and reviews.
IOLERO received a whistleblower complaint and served subpoenas on certain Sheriff employees. The Sheriff and the Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association refused to comply, arguing that IOLERO lacked subpoena authority. IOLERO sued to enforce the subpoenas. The trial court ruled against IOLERO. While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended both section 25303.7 and Penal Code section 832.7 to expressly authorize sheriff oversight entities to access peace officer personnel records.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal, Division Five, in a partially published opinion, reversed the trial court and directed the trial court to enforce the subpoenas. The court first held that the trial court’s order was appealable and proceeded to the merits.
On the central published issue, the court held that Government Code section 25303.7 grants subpoena authority to sheriff oversight entities and that IOLERO is a sheriff oversight entity within the meaning of the statute. Section 25303.7 was enacted to standardize and reinforce the authority of local sheriff oversight bodies, and the statutory grant of subpoena power is broad enough to encompass investigations of whistleblower complaints involving the sheriff’s office. IOLERO’s structure and function under the County Code make it an oversight entity entitled to exercise that statutory authority, regardless of any earlier PERB ruling about how Measure P’s changes were adopted.
The court rejected the Sheriff’s argument that compliance with the subpoenas would necessarily violate Penal Code section 832.7’s protections for peace officer personnel records. The court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the Legislature amended both section 25303.7 and section 832.7 to expressly authorize sheriff oversight entities to access peace officer personnel records, while requiring them to maintain confidentiality. The amendment, effective January 1, 2026, removed any tension between the subpoena authority and the personnel records protections. In the unpublished portions of the opinion, the court rejected additional defenses raised by the Sheriff and the Union.
Key Takeaways
- Government Code section 25303.7 grants subpoena authority to county sheriff oversight entities, including for investigations of whistleblower complaints.
- Local sheriff oversight bodies established by ordinance or initiative qualify as sheriff oversight entities under section 25303.7 if they perform the statutory oversight functions.
- The 2025 amendments to sections 25303.7 and 832.7 expressly authorize sheriff oversight entities to access peace officer personnel records, while requiring confidentiality consistent with Penal Code section 832.7.
- Earlier PERB rulings about how Measure P provisions were adopted do not control whether the resulting oversight entity has statutory subpoena authority under state law.
- Trial court orders denying enforcement of administrative subpoenas in this oversight context are appealable.
Why It Matters
This is a significant decision for police accountability and county sheriff oversight in California. By confirming that sheriff oversight entities have meaningful subpoena power, including in whistleblower investigations and to access personnel records, the court has substantially strengthened the practical effectiveness of these oversight bodies. Counties that have created similar oversight entities can now rely on this opinion when their authority is challenged.
For sheriffs and deputy sheriffs’ associations, the case is a reminder that resistance to oversight subpoenas is unlikely to succeed under current law. Counsel should focus on ensuring proper confidentiality protections and on negotiating procedural protocols that respect both oversight needs and personnel record sensitivities. The case will likely be cited in future disputes between county oversight entities and sheriff’s offices throughout California.