Silence amid investigation was bad plan
Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli’s decision not to file “hate crime” charges against the man who left San Anselmo Mayor Brian Colbert racist and threatening voicemails has been met with disappointment.
It shouldn’t be too surprising as Frugoli has repeatedly stressed that there is a high legal threshold for such charges to be upheld in court. She reached a similar conclusion earlier this year in deciding not to file “hate crime” charges against an East Bay man who was recorded on video posting Nazi stickers around Fairfax.
Colbert is the first Black person to serve on a Marin city or town council. His stance in local political decisions is fair game for criticism, but racial threats have absolutely no place in that dialogue.
Earlier this year, Colbert received voicemails from a local resident. Colbert reported the calls to the Central Marin Police Authority, who arrested the man after a search of his home also turned up firearms. Police also obtained a gun violence restraining order against the suspect, who was released after posting bail.
The case then went to Frugoli’s office to determine whether they would file charges. That was more than six months ago. That’s how long it took Frugoli’s office to investigate the case and decide not to press charges.
In August, after weeks of silence from Frugoli’s office, the town’s Racial Equity and Social Justice Committee sent her a letter asking for an update on the DA’s investigation.
Frugoli promised a response. But instead of responding to the committee — and a rightfully concerned community — her communication was limited to an attorney she believed was representing Colbert.
That’s not an appropriate response.
The community deserved a public response to the committee’s letter, even an explanation of the steps her office had taken (and planned to take) toward reaching a decision.
Public silence was not the right approach, particularly given the public concern raised about the case.
More than three months later, she released her decision and included a video. The decision was similar to the one she reached in the Fairfax case.
She determined the voicemails were “reprehensible” and “disgusting,” but not criminal. She noted that a committee that she formed of deputy district attorneys, investigators and witness advocates reached the same conclusion.
The Constitution, Frugoli said, allows hate speech as long as it doesn’t interfere with the civil rights of others.
Colbert, who understandably was worried about the threats, said he finds Frugoli’s decision “very disappointing.” He said the ruling “sends a terrible signal.” He’s right.
Frugoli has publicly condemned racist and hate speech repeatedly, but her office’s handling of these cases has essentially let offenders off the hook, other than having to deal with the inconvenience and expense of being suspects in those investigations.
That may be enough for some offenders, but it doesn’t do much toward condemning hate speech.
San Anselmo residents who publicly questioned Frugoli’s handling of the case wanted to see her take action, making a statement that reflects the community’s values.
Her office’s long public silence did little to build public confidence in its handling of the case. Silence only fed speculation over how her office was handling the case. Sharing information only between attorneys did little to stem that speculation.
The public expects and deserves to hear from her. After more than three years in that higher-profile job, she should have stepped up to that role and its responsibility.
Frugoli’s been absolutely clear that she finds hate-fueled racist threats reprehensible, but her handling of the Colbert case fell short of delivering a strong public message.