Why Riverside County must dismantle the coroner-sheriff relationship
In any functioning democracy, accountability and transparency are paramount, especially when it comes to matters of life and death. However, in Riverside County, a concerning relationship between the coroner’s office and the sheriff’s department persists: the department and office are combined. This creates a conflict of interest that undermines justice and erodes public trust, especially in cases of law enforcement and in-custody deaths. Only three states in the country combine the sheriff ’s department and coroner’s office – and California is one of them.
It’s time to address this issue head-on by calling for the separation of the coroner and sheriff ’s office. A three-month study done by Riverside County CEO Jeffrey Van Wagenen, Jr. failed to provide a single legitimate reason why these offices should not be separated. The study recommends paying other law enforcement agencies to offer coroner services for officer-involved and in-custody deaths. This would further perpetuate the existing problems of conflicts (actual and potential), lawsuits, community distrust, and other problems spurring the Supervisors to call for the study in the first place.
The current and recommended structures raise questions about impartiality and independence, essential elements for ensuring justice and accountability. If there is any hope of repairing the public trust in law enforcement it comes from community engagement, transparency and accountability.
A weak study lacking analysis and any reference to San Diego, Los Angeles, or San Francisco’s successful separation of these offices reinforces the sentiment that it merely affirms protecting the status quo of a costly and failing system. With lawsuits related to in-custody and officer-involved deaths from 2010 through 2020 totaling over $77 million, one must question if this factored in the study at all, as there was no mention of these costly settlements within the study.
Without a clear separation between these entities, there exists a significant risk of bias, whether intentional or unintentional, in the investigation and de
termination of causes of death. The inherent conflict arises from the fact that the sheriff’s department, responsible for law enforcement actions, can potentially influence or control the information and evidence provided to the coroner’s office, which is tasked with determining the cause and manner of death. This conflict exists whether it is the Riverside Sheriff or another law enforcement entity that does these autopsies and reports. Neither can provide unbiased investigations, autopsy reports, cause of death determinations, and timely reports to the DOJ and the families. Such a conflict undermines the credibility of investigative outcomes and fuels suspicions of cover-ups or undue influence.
It’s worth noting that this call for separation is not unfounded or without precedence. Many jurisdictions across the state and country have already implemented measures to ensure the independence of coroner or medical examiner offices from law enforcement agencies. By separating these entities, jurisdictions can mitigate conflicts of interest, enhance transparency and uphold the principles of fairness and justice. Locally, our neighboring San Diego has already made such corrections.
Critics may argue that the current system is efficient and that there is no evidence of bias or misconduct. However, the absence of overt evidence does not negate the potential for bias or the perception thereof. Moreover, without transparent and independent investigations, it’s impossible to accurately assess the extent of any systemic issues or biases that may exist. This does not diminish the Sheriff’s office or the Coroner’s Office but allows each to function as needed and intended.
Vonya Quarles, attorney and director of the Marshall Legal Clinic, is a Riverside County resident since 2008, a mother, grandmother and concerned citizen. She can be reached at vonya@startingoverinc.org.