ALMOST A YEAR and a half ago, a San Joaquin County sheriff’s investigator presented a judge with a document that helped launch a criminal case against Stockton school board member AngelAnn Flores.
Across nearly 40 pages, that search warrant affidavit laid out the possibility of far-reaching misconduct and financial crimes: two public figures wielding secret influence over the Stockton Unified School District board; a board member killing construction fees to enhance a local developer’s profits; and signs consistent with fraud and money laundering in multiple board members’ political campaigns.
Based on that document’s claims, a judge gave sheriff’s investigators permission to search Flores’ home and workplace, seize her electronic devices and secure untold amounts of her email, social media messages, passwords, search history and location data directly from Bay Area tech companies.
Yet the criminal case ultimately filed against Flores shows almost no sign of the sweeping corruption investigators had discussed in their affidavit.
Now, a review of the document’s sprawling narrative, by Stocktonia and independent experts, raises new questions about the Sheriff’s Office’s justifications for searching Flores, and facts at the heart of the case.
Among Stocktonia’s findings:
- The narrative about improper influence on the school board is based on the accounts of a single source.
- The affidavit speculates about a board member manipulating district fees to benefit a developer, but the evidence it provides does not support that conclusion.
- “Red flags” of fraud and money laundering are attributed to an unnamed state investigator, but state officials did not provide Stocktonia any response corroborating or refuting those suspicions, or even verify whether that investigator exists.
To be sure, affidavits seeking search warrants don’t carry as high a burden of proof as criminal charges. It’s not unusual for investigators who secure a search warrant on one suspicion to ultimately pursue other charges, or none at all.
The Sheriff’s Office gave no specific answers in an emailed statement Monday in response to questions from Stocktonia about why the claims regarding improper influence, developer fees and campaign “red flags” were included in the affidavit. The department did not say whether it has investigated those claims or anyone named in them other than Flores, and did not answer questions about who within the department approved the affidavit before a judge reviewed it.
“It is our practice to not disclose investigative methods and/or internal deliberations our office utilizes. As this case is still ongoing, we are not inclined to speak on any investigative matters that may relate to others.”
Heather Brent, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson
“Unfortunately, these questions are subjective,” a statement from Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Heather Brent said. “It is our practice to not disclose investigative methods and/or internal deliberations our office utilizes. As this case is still ongoing, we are not inclined to speak on any investigative matters that may relate to others.”
In an emailed statement Monday, the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office offered no answers to questions about why the claims regarding improper influence, developer fees and campaign “red flags” detailed in the affidavit were absent from the DA’s ultimate charges against Flores.
The office did not say whether it has investigated anyone else named in those claims, or whether it plans to bring charges. And the DA’s Office did not answer questions about whether a search of Flores’ electronic devices, messages and search history was necessary to prosecute the current case against her.
“We have no comment on ongoing investigations or cases. Our priority has been and always will be, maintaining the integrity of the legal process,” DA spokesperson Erin Haight said in a statement.
Though the search warrant was released to the media by a Superior Court official, most of its claims have never been publicly detailed.
Stocktonia asked experts — who were not involved in the case — to review the affidavit based on their professional experience with search warrants, corruption investigations and campaign finance. Those experts questioned the scope of the affidavit’s argument — for example, that it points to publicly disclosed campaign contributions as a signal of improper influence over the board, but never connects them to any specific act of quid pro quo.
“What took place there, if true, is not unusual in our current (political) system,” said Patrick Murphy, a former FBI agent and supervisor for nearly 30 years, who has investigated numerous public corruption and complex financial crimes cases.
“They’re clearly trying to suggest that these campaign contributions were made to unduly influence Flores, but … they don’t come out and directly say that,” Murphy said. “They’re just trying to create this cloud of potential corruption.”
Flores now faces felony charges of making a false insurance claim and of embezzlement for alleged misspending. She has pleaded not guilty; the next hearing in her case was scheduled for March 11.
While the affidavit does include information about the alleged credit card misuse for which Flores was ultimately arrested, it takes up less than four of the document’s dozens of pages of detail. The insurance issue appears nowhere in the affidavit.
Claims about two prominent businessmen
The search warrant affidavit airs one witness’s allegations that Flores and three other Stockton Unified trustees were making decisions at the behest of a businessman and a high-profile education advocate, and in violation of state open-meetings law.
Investigators cite the witness’s claims that Flores, as well as other school board members, were being influenced by real estate developer Fritz Grupe and charter school founder Donald Shalvey.
Referring to Flores with the prefix “(S)” for suspect, the affidavit cites the witness alleging that Shalvey held sway over the board majority, which would benefit him and Grupe.
“She believes Shalvey has direct involvement and influence on (S) Flores and three other Board members (majority) related to SUSD matters, decisions and voting beginning in December of 2022,” the affidavit says.
The witness cited is Traci Miller, Stockton Unified’s interim superintendent from July 2022 until June 2023. The affidavit says Miller went to the Sheriff’s Office in April 2023, a few months before the contract for her interim job was set to expire.
Miller provided no response to Stocktonia’s repeated requests for comment via phone and email over several days.
According to the affidavit, Miller said “unspecified board members” told her about trustees holding official discussions “outside of what is required by the Brown Act.”
But Miller was not present for these meetings, the document says.
The only specific incidents described in the affidavit to corroborate Miller’s claims about improper meetings were a pair of phone calls she said she received in December 2022 from Shalvey and Grupe. Miller said the two men told her the board majority planned to search for alternate candidates for superintendent — that is, to replace Miller — before the issue was ever discussed publicly.
Based on Miller’s account, the investigator concluded “There is probable cause to believe that Brown Act Violations occurred,” adding, “large donors appeared to have knowledge and influence on SUSD related business.”
The Brown Act bars government boards from making decisions behind closed doors, including using intermediaries to arrive at a decision outside of an official meeting.
But it’s not clear from Miller’s claims that the board majority did so. The document offers no other evidence that board members were improperly conferring.
In an interview, Grupe told Stocktonia he had never had any contact with the board majority.
“I have never met any of those people who are on the board or talked to them,” he said. “I donated to them, but I wasn’t the only one.”
Grupe said he supported them as candidates after hearing that previous school boards had been “doing not-so-good things.” He said Shalvey had asked the Business Council of San Joaquin to raise funds for new candidates. “I never interviewed them,” he said, “I never met them.”
Grupe also said he had never had any discussions with Miller about the board planning to hire someone else.
Grupe’s family has donated to Stocktonia during the time prior to the news organization becoming a part of NEWSWELL. (Read our donor transparency policy here.)
Shalvey, a former CEO of San Joaquin A+,was known for sponsoring California’s first charter school and founding the statewide Aspire Public Schools charter system, which has 10 schools in Stockton. He died in March 2024.
San Joaquin A+’s current CEO, Kai Kung, told Stocktonia the organization has no comment.
Campaign donations not necessarily improper
While it’s true that Flores and other board members received campaign contributions from Shalvey and Grupe in 2022, those aren’t necessarily evidence of improper influence, two experts said.
Murphy, the former FBI agent, said if law enforcement officials want to show that campaign donations functioned as bribes, they must show a direct correlation between a donation and an official act. “That didn’t happen here,” he said of the Sheriff’s Office’s argument.
“It’s not unusual for people to expect something in return for contributing,” said Mike Galli, a veteran Santa Clara County prosecutor. But that doesn’t show impropriety, he said, “unless I specifically say, ‘I’m giving you $1,000 because I want you to vote a certain way.’”
Flores received $1,200 total in individual donations from Shalvey and Grupe in 2022, campaign finance records show. Other board candidates received similar sums.
The affidavit also includes little discussion of how Miller’s employment at the time hinged on the decision of the board members — and whether her stake in the matter could potentially color her perception of them, even as much of the affidavit’s picture of their possible misconduct rests on her word.
Galli did not say Miller’s statements were necessarily biased. But as a former prosecutor who has written more than 2,000 search warrants, he noted that when citing in an affidavit evidence provided by a witness who might be biased, “I will flag that issue directly to the judge or the magistrate who reviews the affidavit,” he said.
That way, the judge can say: “OK. As I read this, I’m going to read this with a grain of salt and say … they don’t like this person. They’re saying this. Is there something to back this up?” Galli said.
The affidavit repeats various other claims or concerns attributed to Miller. It cites emails in which Flores insists she be informed of any communications relating to her, and requests Miller “cease and desist” from discussing her with staff. The affidavit says Miller took this as a “threat of retaliation” to employees who would report wrongdoing by Flores.
The affidavit also says Miller thought Flores was inappropriately seeking the termination or resignation of district staffers, when elected board members are not authorized to make those decisions.
Claims about developer fees
According to the affidavit, Miller claimed that Flores had the ability to personally benefit Shalvey, Grupe or their business interests, by altering fees the district collects from real estate developments.
Shalvey was not a real estate developer. Grupe and his companies have developed properties across the country and are known for developing much of north Stockton.
Across California, school boards have the power to charge fees on development as a means of funding school construction to serve the area’s new residents.
The affidavit never spells out how investigators believe Flores could have manipulated the fees herself.
According to the affidavit, Miller told investigators about a board meeting in December 2022, in which Flores asked for a report about developer fees to be removed from the meeting’s consent agenda. This early portion of the meeting typically allows officials to approve certain items in a batch, but board members are allowed to remove items for further consideration.
Miller claimed this was unusual; as an investigator wrote: “Miller believes it was to either amend future developer fee rates or hide those that were not charged to select contractors from the public.”
On Dec. 13, 2022, Flores and four other board members did vote to remove a report about developer fees from the consent agenda. But that report didn’t set fees; it outlined fees set by previous boards.
Flores was on the board at the time those fees were set. She had voted against one of the fees, abstained from voting on another and, along with the rest of the board, approved a third, prior agendas show.
In June, the board voted to decrease residential development fees, based on a professional analysis, a resolution shows. Before the vote, Stockton Unified’s Interim Chief Business Official Joann Juarez reviewed the changes, and Miller brought the item to the board. Flores, Sofia Colon, Donald Donaire, Kennetha Stevens, Alicia Rico and Raymond Zulueta voted yes on the new fees, while Cecilia Mendez was absent.
One board member cannot unilaterally alter fees without a board vote. The school’s finance chief must also present a justification of the fees to the board, and the superintendent must bring it to a vote.
The affidavit’s conclusion offers no specific “probable cause” to believe a crime related to those fees had occurred.
Grupe and a business associate both dismissed the idea that a board member had manipulated fees for their benefit.
“I have no idea where this came from,” Grupe told Stocktonia.
Grupe said the Grupe Company had no current projects subject to SUSD fees. He also is a shareholder in the Grupe Huber company. Kevin Huber, president and CEO of Grupe Huber, said the firm has had few recent projects that would have been subject to Stockton Unified fees. “There was certainly no quid pro quo for a donation,” Huber said.
The affidavit offers one more questionable detail: In outlining the importance of developer fees, it cites a “recent Grupe project” called Chateau de Lyon as an example, and describes how eliminating or waiving the developer fee on that project would have allowed the developer to “enhance nearly $200,000 in profits.”
According to builder Visionary Home Builders, Grupe was the general contractor for Chateau de Lyon. It was completed 10 years ago. And it is in the Lincoln – not Stockton – school district.
Claims of campaign finance fraud, money laundering
The affidavit makes many references to a “board majority,” sometimes calling it “the newly elected board majority.” The newly elected members of the board ran for office in 2022, at the same time Flores ran for reelection: Colon, Donaire and Stevens.
The affidavit raises the idea that all four were improperly influenced by campaign contributors. But it later makes a more explosive allegation.
The sheriff’s investigator tells the judge that he has sought an analysis from a special investigator at the California Fair Political Practices Commission. He claims the investigator told him that campaign donations the board majority received from two political committees were consistent with fraud or money laundering.
The affidavit says the state investigator pointed to the candidates’ large war chests, the size of certain donations and one committee’s alleged ties to a casino outside the county. It provides no name for the special investigator.
Colon, Donaire and Stevens did not respond to requests for comment.
All four candidates raised between $76,000 and $87,000 in 2022, campaign statements show. One large sum the investigator flagged, according to the affidavit, was a $43,000 donation the Central Valley Leadership Fund committee gave Flores.
(The affidavit also notes other people and groups involved with the committee, including a member of a former Stocktonia nonprofit board. Stocktonia has no connection to the fund.)
Those amounts are not necessarily unusual in school board races, depending on the level of competition, according to John Pelissero, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.
The affidavit also claims the state investigator found that another committee that donated to each candidate “has ties to” a non-local casino.
In addition to 11 local donors to that committee, state campaign finance records show, three southern California Native American tribes gave between $3,000 and $9,000 to the committee. The committee in turn donated $4,375 to each candidate in 2022, campaign statements show.
It’s not common for candidates to receive large contributions from donors outside the county, Pelissero said. The affidavit provides no evidence of the casino connection.
Stocktonia placed repeated requests with the FPPC seeking to confirm that one of its investigators reviewed the campaign finance records described in the affidavit. After repeated emails with an FPPC representative, and a phone call and written requests to its enforcement division, the commission also sent no response corroborating or rejecting the affidavit’s claims.
As of this week, a search of the FPPC’s online databases returned no complaints or open or closed cases against any of the four school board members.
Overall, Galli questioned the timeframe of the Sheriff’s Office’s search of Flores’ electronic communications, with the warrant going back to 2018.
“I think it’s too broad a net, quite frankly. You really haven’t established probable cause for everything that you want,” he said.
Indeed, while the affidavit’s conclusion — seeking permission to search — refers to the size of Flores’ campaign contributions, it does not claim any probable cause to believe the alleged fraud or money laundering occurred.
Final charges: Embezzlement
The search warrant affidavit, signed by sheriff’s Detective Rocky Bulen, was submitted in November 2023 and the warrant was approved by Judge Richard Mallett.
Ultimately, Flores was arrested in April 2024, and has been indicted on counts of embezzlement and making false insurance claims. The embezzlement charge doesn’t specify a dollar amount; an earlier version of her charges included one for theft exceeding $950.
No one else named in the affidavit’s central claims has been charged with a crime in San Joaquin County since Flores’ arrest, an online court case search shows.
The District Attorney’s announcements, the original charges, and an updated indictment filed early this year, offer little in the way of details about the actual public theft alleged in the case.
Roughly four pages of the 55-page search warrant did discuss allegations of improper charges on the district credit card issued to Flores.
“It is also alleged that (S) Flores’ use of the district credit card was for purchases that are deemed non chargeable due to the type of item purchased and/or reasoning,” the sheriff’s deputy told the judge.
The affidavit already posted a “sample of some of the unreconciled credit card transactions” taken from Wells Fargo credit card statements, which it says had improper justification or lack of documentation.
Among them: $58.88 at an Arco gas station, various Uber trips and a March 2023 order from a donut shop.
Flores’ attorney has said she was singled out over the credit card receipts because of her efforts to raise the alarm about financial improprieties in the school district. Years after a special state audit found evidence illegal financial practices including fraud and misappropriation may have occurred — including in a $7.3 million contract passed under a previous board — questions about those problems remain. The DA pledged to root out “any and all wrongdoing” at Stockton Unified; two years later, no charges have been filed against any board member but Flores.
“The execution of this search warrant violates my client’s Fourth Amendment rights,” Flores’ attorney, former DA Tori Verber Salazar, told Stocktonia. “AngelAnn Flores has a history of standing up for justice — fighting for Stockton Unified students.”
Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment — protection against unlawful search and seizure — are at the heart of any question about an overly broad search warrant, Galli said.
“Part of the reason the Fourth Amendment was drafted,” Galli said, was to stop what he called “a general rummaging warrant.”
Scott Linesburgh and Cassie Dickman of Stocktonia contributed reporting to this story. Here’s how Stocktonia is covering the story of school board member’s arrest, search warrant.
This story originally appeared in Stocktonia.
The post Stockton school board member’s misconduct probe alleged much, but charges narrower appeared first on Local News Matters.