On the final day of her removal hearings last month, San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus did something unexpected: She reversed her opposition to an independent inspector general that would look into misconduct within her office, which she acknowledged is filled with personnel who don’t respect her leadership.
Corpus, elected in 2022, faces not only removal through a civil grand jury accusation filed in June alleging misconduct and abuse of power but also the fallout from Measure A, a voter-approved initiative passed in March that gives the Board of Supervisors authority to remove a sheriff through 2028.
Related Articles
Judge orders partial release of spending records in Sheriff Corpus corruption probe
Sheriff Corpus takes stand as San Mateo County removal hearings close
Sheriff Corpus’ allies defend her in high-stakes San Mateo County removal hearing
San Mateo County executive testifies in sheriff removal hearing
Former chief of staff testifies in San Mateo sheriff removal hearing
Retired Judge James Emerson, who presided over the county’s removal hearings, has 45 days to issue a written advisory opinion. The board then has 30 days to review, with a four-fifths majority vote needed to dismiss her. If removed, Corpus would be the first sheriff in the state to be ousted by a board of supervisors.
The recently concluded hearings were open to the public but not recorded. Testimonies focused on Corpus’ leadership, personnel decisions and internal sheriff’s office culture, drawing heavily on a 400-page report published last year by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell.
This month marks one year since sheriff’s union leaders publicly accused Corpus of fostering a culture of “unease and retaliation,” igniting a political battle that has divided the community, consumed countless hours and resources, and has likely cost the Silicon Valley county millions. Despite mounting pressure, Corpus — the county’s first Latina sheriff — shows no signs of backing down.
But the accusations against Corpus are just the latest chapter in a sheriff’s office long shadowed by scandals.
In 2007, Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos and Sheriff Greg Munks were caught in a Las Vegas brothel. After his election in 2016, Sheriff Bolanos allegedly intervened in 2022 in a private dispute over a luxury replica “Batmobile” in Indiana. Neither faced removal proceedings.
Greg Munks greets his officers before taking the oath of office as the new San Mateo County Sheriff on Monday, Nov. 20, 2008 in Redwood City. (Mathew Sumner/Staff Archives)
Unlike other large counties with both an inspector general and a civilian oversight commission, San Mateo relies on ad hoc investigators like Cordell, which “allows problems to fester,” said Nancy Goodban, a member of Fixin’ San Mateo County, a citizen-led reform group.
While the group does not oppose the removal process as a form of accountability for sitting sheriffs, it has been advocating since 2021 for a permanent, full-time inspector general to independently monitor the sheriff’s office, investigate complaints, review policies, and report publicly — responsibilities currently handled by the department’s Professional Standards Bureau.
A key moment in the Corpus hearings came when the sheriff announced her support for an independent inspector general, surprising longtime watchdogs who have been demanding one for years.
“I realize the police shouldn’t be policing the police,” Corpus said on the witness stand.
Her reversal on the idea came after two weeks of testimony in which witnesses accused the sheriff of misconduct, bullying and an inappropriate relationship with her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. On the stand, Corpus described most of them as “liars” or “dishonest.”
Victor Aenlle, right, the former chief of staff at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office speaks to the media following his testimony at the Redwood City courthouse in Redwood City, Calif., on Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)
While most of the witnesses were included in the county-commissioned Cordell and subsequent Keker reports, it was the first time she heard from accusers in person.
“Sitting there, listening to people from my own team lie about me, made me think — if they can do that to me, what are they doing out in the community? That deeply concerns me,” Corpus said.
Fixin’ San Mateo County called her shift “welcome and overdue.”
Emily Farris, an associate political science professor at Texas Christian University and co-author of “The Power of the Badge: Sheriffs and Inequality in the United States,” said in a phone interview that sheriffs wield “extraordinary power” as independently elected officials, overseeing jails and countywide law enforcement. Though elections are supposed to hold sheriffs accountable to voters, Farris questioned their effectiveness in doing so.
“There’s no other, to my knowledge, chief law enforcement officer elected anywhere in the world,” she said. “The way elections work doesn’t actually provide the accountability mechanism they claim, because elections are low-information, the competition is controlled, and so on.”
Christina Corpus, running for San Mateo County Sheriff in 2022, rides in the Cesar Chavez Holiday Parade in San Francisco. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
Corpus’ public removal hearings exposed the seldom-examined political complexities within sheriff’s offices, echoing themes Farris explored in her book.
For example, county lawyers spotlighted text messages between Corpus and former colleague Valerie Barnes, a star witness who claimed firsthand knowledge of an alleged affair with Aenlle.
After Barnes’ testimony, Corpus’ attorneys countered that her former colleague — once a campaign supporter — had threatened to “take that b**** down” after being denied a promotion she was expecting for helping the campaign, casting doubt on her motivation. Corpus’ team argued the accusations against her should be viewed within the context of internal politics.
Several officers and union leaders testified they were retaliated against for criticizing the sheriff, but Corpus argued transfers shouldn’t automatically be seen as punitive.
While Corpus’ top brass have accused her of fostering a toxic and hostile environment, she used her first time on the stand to argue that problems at the sheriff’s office began long before she stepped into the role, describing a culture under her predecessors that rewarded donations to incumbents with promotions or favors.
San Mateo Sheriff Christina Corpus, with lawyer Thomas Mazzucco standing to her right and former U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez on her left, leaves the County Courthouse with her legal team after testifying during the second day of her two-week removal hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 19. (Ryan Macasero/Bay Area News Group)
Corpus’ legal team used the hearings to cast doubt on key county witnesses and defend the legitimacy of her personnel decisions and fraud investigations.
Beyond political costs, the prolonged removal processes carry a growing financial toll. The March special election alone cost $4.4 million, according to appropriations requests, while the Cordell report added at least $200,000.
Multiple news organizations, including this one, have requested records on the costs of Corpus’ removal, including county-commissioned investigations, legal fees and hearings, but the county has denied the requests, citing attorney-client privilege. This news organization has continued to seek the release of expenses.
County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci told this news organization that the Cordell report itself is not the legal basis for removal, but rather intended to ensure accountability.
Jim Lawrence, chair of Fixin’ San Mateo County and a former Foster City mayor, said only civilian oversight, independent of the office’s internal politics, can ensure lasting reform.
“We envision a San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office that delivers law enforcement to the highest standards, second to none — one where every resident is treated equally, and where transparency, accountability and trust are not just expected, but earned,” he said.