Judge: Sheriff removal warranted

Corpus was accused of 18 violations of the San Mateo County charter. Emerson found her culpable for three, and outlined his findings in a 42-page advisory opinion. 

In a statement detailing how Corpus has asked Attorney General Rob Bonta to “intervene immediately to stop an unlawful and dangerous abuse of power in San Mateo County,” she also noted that she felt Emerson’s findings were misguided. 

“He found that 15 of the 18 allegations brought against me were not sustained. That alone should end this,” Corpus said. “I stand by my actions, and the difficult decision I make as the elected sheriff. I should have been cleared of all the allegations.” 

Emerson found that Corpus used her position of power to elevate Victor Aenlle, her former chief of staff with whom she had a close personal relationship. Emerson noted that his responsibility was not to determine whether Corpus and Aenlle were in a romantic extramarital relationship, but rather if their relationship caused Corpus to fail in her duties as sheriff. 

The evidence supports a finding that Corpus “elevated her own interest in the close personal relationship she held with Mr. Aenlle above her obligation to appoint, recruit, select and/or retain based upon merit and conformity with the principles of equal opportunity,” Emerson wrote in his recommendation. 

Corpus’ consistent denial of any close personal relationship with Aenlle made her lose credibility, Emerson said. This lost credibility also raised concern about Corpus’ defense regarding the warrantless arrest of Deputy Carlos Tapia, the union president, on Nov. 12, 2024, Emerson said.  

Tapia’s arrest last year was a central focus of the evidentiary hearing. The union leader was arrested for alleged time card fraud the morning a major investigative report was scheduled to be released outlining misconduct by Corpus and Aenlle. Tapia was a key whistleblower leading up to the investigative report. 

Despite Corpus’ denial, Emerson determined that she issued Tapia’s arrest as retaliation because of his position and activities as the Deputy Sheriff’s Association president.

Corpus was also found by Emerson to have retaliated against Capt. Brian Philip.

Philip was hired by Corpus in August 2023 with the intent of overseeing the professional standards bureau, which dealt with training, internal affairs and complaints. During Philip’s time in the Sheriff’s Office, he worked on various programs that Corpus asked him to oversee, he testified previously. 

In September 2024, Philip was asked by Undersheriff Dan Perea to serve a notice of intent of an internal affairs investigation to Sgt. Javier Acosta. In his capacity as captain of the bureau that handles internal affairs, Philip raised concern that the notice was not properly drafted and missing detailed information. He questioned the need for the notice to be served. 

Six days later, Perea brought Philip into his office and told him that he was being reassigned to train in the jails. 

This reassignment was retaliatory, Judge Emerson concluded. 

Two months later, Philip was also ordered by Perea to carry out the arrest of Tapia on Nov. 12 2024. 

“He said if I didn’t arrest Tapia, we’d be back in his office in 10 minutes to discuss my insubordination,” Philip testified previously. 

Rather than carry out the arrest, Philip resigned. 

The ongoing removal effort has resulted in crossfire lawsuits that will likely plague the county for some time. 

Philip filed a lawsuit in February alleging whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, gender discrimination and workplace violations under Corpus’ administration. 

In June, Tapia also filed a lawsuit that requests a jury trial over allegations of unreasonable arrest, free speech and free association violations, interference with union activities and false imprisonment. 

Aenlle filed his own civil rights lawsuit alleging retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and abuse of power against San Mateo County and its top officials in September, as well. 

For two weeks In August, Corpus sat in court as attorneys representing the county, from the Keker, Van Nest & Peters law firm built their case that the sheriff violated county charter and deserves to be the first sheriff in California to be removed from the elected position. 

The county’s attorneys accused Corpus of four key things: maintaining a close personal relationship that caused conflicts of interest, retaliation against perceived disloyalty, obstruction of investigations, and neglect of duty, often influenced by favoritism or disfavor. 

The judge’s advisory opinion will inform the Board of Supervisors, whose five members will vote one last time to remove Corpus from office. This vote has yet to be scheduled, but must be done within 30 days of receiving the judge’s advisory opinion. Should the board vote to remove Corpus from office, the removal decision will be immediate and final. The Board of Supervisors have committed not to fill the vacancy for 14 days following the decision, to allow Corpus and her legal team the time to pursue any litigation. The board must decide within 30 days of Corpus’ vacancy to either make an appointment or order a special election to occur.

Corpus described the removal effort as a smear campaign launched by “the old boys’ network” because she “disrupted the status quo.” 

“This would never have happened if I were a man,” Corpus said. 

“If the removal process is allowed to proceed, no elected sheriff in California will be safe from political retaliation,” Corpus said. “The danger isn’t just to me. It’s to the rule of law.”