Following several investigations, a special election, and a formal recommendation for her removal from office, San Mateo County supervisors could vote Tuesday to force out Sheriff Christina Corpus.
Finding that she reportedly violated conflict-of-interest laws and retaliated against deputies who challenged her authority, retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Emerson found cause for Corpus’ removal on four charges while dismissing more than a dozen others, most involving retaliation claims by employees who opposed her leadership.
The opinion, issued last Monday after a 10-day public hearing was conducted in August, is advisory only. It comes more than a year after sheriff’s union members accused Corpus of corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest.
Although most charges were dismissed, the sustained findings — conflict of interest related to her relationship with former chief of staff Victor Aenlle, retaliation against a former captain, and the arrest of Deputy Sheriffs Association president Carlos Tapia — were among the most serious raised against the sheriff. No criminal charges have been filed, and Emerson’s opinion carries no implications of guilt or innocence.
In his advisory opinion, Emerson explained his role was limited to determining whether the alleged conduct occurred and whether it constituted legal cause for removal under a voter-approved change to the county charter.
After the passage of Measure A, an initiative introduced by the Board of Supervisors in November 2024 and passed by voters in March, the charter was changed to allow the board to remove a sheriff with cause by a four-fifths vote through 2028, the end of Corpus’ term.
Because the charter requires only “cause” — a lower threshold than the “good cause” standard typically applied to employee terminations — for removal, Emerson focused on whether the acts likely occurred, rather than evaluating whether the vote to remove her in June or the process itself was fair.
The opinion also applied a “preponderance of evidence” standard, meaning Emerson judged whether the allegations were more likely true than not — a lower threshold than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal cases.
Among the broader allegations Emerson rejected was that Corpus mismanaged the Sheriff’s Office Professional Standards Bureau, which investigates internal misconduct, and selectively targeted investigations against staff who opposed her. The county argued at length during the removal hearings that she failed to complete serious investigations, created a backlog of cases, and showed favoritism in disciplinary decisions.
Emerson found the county had not proven “flagrant or repeated neglect” of duty. He sustained one allegation of a delay in signing an internal affairs investigation, but concluded the single delay did not meet the charter’s threshold for repeated neglect.
Emerson rejected several other claims against Corpus, the county’s first Latina sheriff, elected in 2022, including allegations that she obstructed investigations, violated procedural rights, or systematically mismanaged internal affairs. He also found insufficient evidence that she retaliated against other officers, including a terminated assistant sheriff.
The first sustained finding involved Corpus’ relationship with Aenlle, whom the county said she placed in positions created specifically for him, which the county argued he was unqualified for.
These issues, central to the ongoing efforts to remove her, were raised in a November 2024 report by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell and in a separate Keker, Van Nest & Peters investigation — the same law firm that presented the county’s case during the August hearings.
Emerson found that Corpus prioritized her personal relationship with Aenlle over her duty to make hiring decisions based on merit and equal opportunity.
Corpus has denied any romantic relationship with Aenlle, describing him as a trusted adviser who helped implement reforms in a department she believed was resistant to change. She argued that elected officials are entitled to select their advisers and that Aenlle’s hiring followed proper procedures, noting that he is a wealthy businessman who did not need the salary.
Emerson disagreed, writing that “in denying that she held a close personal relationship with Mr. Aenlle, appellant Sheriff Corpus has already lost credibility.” Although the county had focused on establishing a romantic relationship between the two, Emerson said it was unnecessary to determine whether the relationship was romantic to find a conflict of interest. He concluded instead that text messages and testimony showed Corpus created positions for Aenlle without competitive hiring and sought higher pay for him.
Other sustained findings involved retaliation against deputies and staff.
Emerson found basis for two allegations against Corpus involving Tapia: that she retaliated against him, and that she ordered his warrantless arrest in November 2024, which he said was without probable cause. The arrest occurred the same day the Cordell report was released.
Corpus defended the arrest as a legitimate response to a timecard fraud complaint, saying a lieutenant reported that Tapia claimed pay for work he did not perform. She said she relied on an investigator’s probable cause declaration when approving the arrest. Although the district attorney later declined to file charges, Corpus maintains that evidence supported her decision.
A fourth sustained charge involved Capt. Brian Philip, who oversaw the Professional Standards Bureau. He was transferred to corrections after refusing to deliver an Internal Affairs notice he believed was illegal. Emerson found the transfer retaliatory and said Philip’s refusal was protected under California labor law. Corpus described the move as a routine staffing decision, noting that Philip was the most junior captain and that all command staff rotate through corrections.
In a statement this week, Corpus called the removal process “unconstitutional, corrupt and fundamentally unfair,” saying the board “wrote the rules, conducted the investigation and will now act as judge and jury.” She warned that allowing the process to continue would expose other sheriffs to political retaliation.
In a special session at 9 a.m. on Tuesday in the board’s chambers in Redwood City, supervisors will review Emerson’s advisory opinion and consider Corpus’ removal.