Lawsuit filed against San Mateo County, sheriff

“This is a case about a police officer sacrificing a twenty-year career in law enforcement, his professional reputation, and a multimillion-dollar pension to resist public corruption,” the lawsuit reads.

The Sheriff’s Office has become entrenched in scandal that its sworn personnel believe is the fault of Corpus and her former chief of staff Victor Aenlle. An investigation conducted by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell substantiated rumors of the two engaging in a person relationship beyond friend with “overwhelming factual evidence.” The lawsuit refers to Aenlle as Corpus’ boyfriend.

Corpus and Aenlle have repeatedly denied the relationship and Corpus has said the report is filled with lies.

San Mateo County has yet to be served, but will provide comment on the lawsuit’s details once it is served and reviews the allegations, Chief Communications Officer Michelle Durand said.

Philip began working as a captain in August 2023. Shortly after, Aenlle allegedly demanded Philip to stop communicating with Corpus, according to the lawsuit that suggests this as evidence of gender discrimination.

“[Aenlle] tried to refuse [Philip] from having direct conversations with Corpus and we believe he wouldn’t have done that if Philip hadn’t been a man,” Franklin said.

The lawsuit primarily details instances when Philip felt he was being retaliated against for not following orders he felt were unlawful, including the arrest or investigation into “political opponents” of the sheriff.

On Nov. 12, 2024, the 400-page investigative report into Corpus and Aenlle by Cordell was made public. That morning, Undersheriff Perea ordered Philip to arrest Deputy Sheriff’s Association President Carlos Tapia, who was an early whistleblower raising concern over Corpus’ administration.

Instead of conducting the arrest, Philip resigned and reported the arrest order to County Executive Mike Callagy. Tapia was arrested without warrant for felony charges of timecard fraud, which District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe eventually deemed wrongful and unnecessary.

Corpus said in December that although the District Attorney’s Office declined filing charges against Tapia, an internal review would be conducted by an independent third-party investigator.

In September 2024, Philip also refused to launch an internal affairs investigation into a deputy that was “close to the President of the Organization of Sheriff’s Sergeants, a union that had publicly condemned Sheriff Corpus and Aenlle,” the lawsuit alleges. Philip felt the notice for investigation was insufficient and illegal.

After refusing to sign the notice of investigation, Philip was removed from his position overseeing the Professional Standards Bureau “with the intent to replace him with a Corpus support” who would “comply with the regime,” the lawsuit claims.

The retaliation inflicted against Philip by Corpus and her executive team is not unique to Philip — the lawsuit lists six other former Sheriff’s Office personnel with their own experiences.

Additionally, on Jan. 23, Corpus brought Aenlle into the Sheriff’s Office headquarters where he was armed and “encountered multiple employees who had participated in the independent investigation against Aenlle,” the lawsuit said.

Aenlle’s role in the Sheriff’s Office was terminated by the Board of Supervisors in November 2024 and therefore banned from county facilities not open to the public. However, he is allowed in the building if escorted by the sheriff. The lawsuit described this event as an example of intimidation.

“Some of these employees were so distressed that they requested to leave the premises for their safety,” the lawsuit reads.

Franklin said he is optimistic for the “extremely strong case.”

“This is an issue that impacts not only Brian Philip’s fundamental rights but also the people of San Mateo County,” Franklin said. “The complaint is 20 pages, there’s a lot more that goes into this. There’s a lot more to the story and we look forward to speaking in front of a jury.”

Sheriff initiates transfers

A recent request for the transfers of staff in specialty position assignments by Corpus and Perea has also raised concern from personnel within the Sheriff’s Office.

The day the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Organization of Sheriff’s Sergeants held a press conference to advocate for Measure A, staff within the Sheriff’s Office were told that anyone who had been in a specialty position for more than three “will be cycled out to provide opportunities for other team members.”

The Deputy Sheriff’s Association released a press statement suggesting this move was retaliatory.

“The timing of this announcement is striking, as it disproportionately targets the most vocal critics of the sheriff, including two individuals who had spoken at the press conference that day,” the statement read.

The DSA’s statements suggest deputies or staff historically serve in specialty assignments for a tenure of five years, “allowing personnel to acquire the necessary skills and experience to be truly effective in their roles, with assignments also offering additional pay incentives.”

The decision to provide transfer opportunities for specialty positions was not a response to the press conference, Corpus said in a statement. The transfer form was created in early January with the help of Human Resources and the County Attorney’s Office, she said.

“As stated in Undersheriff’s Perea’s memo, cycling team members in different positions allows for professional development and growth, which is in alignment with my commitment and vision to building a well-rounded and adaptable law enforcement organization to provide the highest level of service to San Mateo County residents,” Corpus said in a statement.

The announcement came without any prior communication to the unions, the DSA statement said.

“This is a clear example of the kind of retaliation that the men and women of the Sheriff’s Office have come to expect,” the statement read. “When they challenge the sheriff, she changes the rules without warning and disregards established labor practices, forcing employees into life altering changes in their careers and work conditions, including the loss of hard-earned pay incentives.”