Jacobs is facing felony charges after Long Beach police said they found a small bag of cocaine tucked inside his sock while he was held at a jail following an arrest in March 2025. Jacobs has pleaded not guilty to the charge of bringing a controlled substance into a jail, which could carry a sentence of up to four years in prison.<\/p>\n
At issue is the arrest that landed Jacobs in that cell in the first place \u2014 which Sanders argues in court filings was based on misrepresentations of now-former Long Beach police Officer Erik Suarez.<\/p>\n
According to the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, Suarez resigned from the Long Beach Police Department in June.<\/p>\n
In a filing made Sept. 8, the defense attorney said an investigator discovered that Suarez had been convicted of a misdemeanor<\/a> in the beating of a man outside a Waffle House in Marietta, Georgia in 2019. He had initially been charged with felony assault.<\/p>\n At that time, Suarez had served on the Long Beach force for two years.<\/p>\n LAist attempted to contact Suarez by calling a phone number connected to him in public records. A man who answered said he was not Suarez, but asked what the story was about and said he would check with Suarez about contacting LAist.<\/p>\n In a recent court filing seeking more information about Suarez\u2019s conduct, Jacobs\u2019 defense asserts that the Long Beach Police Department knew about the conviction, but never disclosed this information to defendants or the Los Angeles County District Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n That\u2019s information Jacobs\u2019 attorney argues was potentially exculpatory, and that withholding it amounts to a major violation of criminal defense laws. In the landmark 1963 case Brady v. Maryland<\/a>, the U.S. Supreme Court established that law enforcement has a legal responsibility to disclose such information to defendants. In Jacobs\u2019 case, for example, the Sept. 8 filing said information about Suarez\u2019s arrest and subsequent conviction could have been used to impeach him as a witness, as well as in other cases Suarez touched as a police officer.<\/p>\n The Long Beach Police Department has not yet responded to LAist\u2019s emailed questions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe actions of the LBPD demonstrate a complete disregard to the danger Officer Suarez presented to the community and to the due process rights of defendants,\u201d according to the motion to force disclosure. \u201cThe concealment of Officer Suarez’s arrest and prosecution enabled [LBPD] to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez\u2019s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez\u2019s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.\u201d<\/p>\n Jacobs\u2019 attorney alleges in the filing that Long Beach has an \u201cunwritten policy\u201d to keep information that could be used to impeach its officers in personnel files protected from public disclosure.<\/p>\n \u201cThe potential systemic consequences are enormous,\u201d the filing argues.<\/p>\n Summer Lacey, the criminal justice and police practices director at the ACLU of Southern California<\/a>, called the circumstances outlined in the case \u201cvery problematic.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNot just to the individual,\u201d she said, \u201cbut to the entire community.\u201d<\/p>\n Lacey said the information about Suarez\u2019s conviction should have been known to the prosecutors, so they could vet the reliability of the evidence presented by law enforcement, and turned over to the defense at the outset of the case.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said in an emailed response to questions that they could not comment on what information they disclosed to Jacobs\u2019 defense.<\/p>\n The District Attorney\u2019s Office said it has a \u201ccollaborative relationship with the Long Beach Police Department,\u201d and that the department does disclose material to prosecutors that is allowed under California law.<\/p>\n \u201cGenerally speaking, if our office had any such Brady material regarding an officer, we would have been legally obligated to turn that over to the defense.\u201d<\/p>\n Lacey said if prosecutors did not have access to Suarez\u2019s criminal record, the scope of people affected could be wide.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don’t know how many cases are impacted by the potential unreliability of statements from the arresting law enforcement officer,\u201d Lacey said. \u201cThis could impact people who have already pled guilty, who maybe are currently incarcerated, who are awaiting sentencing, or who are, like I said, incarcerated pretrial on other cases.\u201d<\/p>\n In an interview with LAist, Sanders said the case raises three troubling issues: There\u2019s the concealment of evidence leading to Jacobs’ initial arrest, Suarez\u2019s 2019 assault that was never disclosed, and the question of whether the Long Beach Police Department has concealed Brady material in other cases.<\/p>\n \u201cIf that’s your modus operandi, we’ve got an enormous problem here,\u201d Sanders said.<\/p>\n The underlying arrest that led to allegations about concealing an assault\u00a0<\/p>\n Long Beach police responded to the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard after a man reported being held at gunpoint, with the robber driving away in the van he was repossessing. <\/p>\n Just after 7:45 p.m. on March 18, 2025, Suarez and his partner Dylan Kelley responded to a call reporting a person with a gun at the intersection of 52nd Street and Atlantic Boulevard in Long Beach.<\/p>\n The alleged victim, identified in the filing by his last name, Ochoa, told the officers that he was attempting to repossess a black Dodge Sprinter van when someone threatened him with a gun, took the keys and drove off with the van.<\/p>\n Police later tracked down the van and detained Lonnie Jacobs and his brother, Lamar Jacobs.<\/p>\n According to court records, at the scene officers only presented Lonnie Jacobs to Ochoa.<\/p>\n Before seeing him, Ochoa stated that the suspect had braids, and body camera footage detailed in the court filing shows him gesturing to show long hair around his shoulders.<\/p>\n While looking at photos of the suspects in the van, Ochoa identified Lamar Jacobs. \u201cThat\u2019s him! With the dreads!,\u201d Ochoa is recorded saying on body camera footage.<\/p>\n Body camera footage shows Suarez confirming this description. \u201cYou said he had dreads? Can you remember if he has dreads?,\u201d Suarez asks. The footage shows Ochoa nodding to confirm.<\/p>\n But Ochoa then identified Lonnie Jacobs in person, telling officers he recognized Lonnie Jacobs\u2019 chain and ripped jeans as matching the person who pulled a gun on him earlier that night.<\/p>\n Jacobs\u2019 court filings state that body camera footage shows both he and his brother wore the exact same chain, and they both wore ripped jeans that night.<\/p>\n In an interview with a detective for the District Attorney\u2019s Office in August 2026 that is included in court filings, Ochoa said he was positive he identified a man with braids during the show-up.<\/p>\n Lonnie Jacobs is bald<\/a>.<\/p>\n Lonnie Jacobs in a still from a police body cam on the night of his arrest.<\/p>\n (<\/p>\n Long Beach Police Department<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n L.A. County Superior Court filing<\/p>\n )<\/p>\n Lamar Jacobs in a still from the night his brother was arrested. An officer is handing him a chain identical to one around his neck.<\/p>\n (<\/p>\n Long Beach Police Department<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n L.A. County Superior Court filing<\/p>\n )<\/p>\n His attorney argued this fact is inconsistent with the description and should have disqualified Jacobs as a suspect, or at least warranted more questioning. Furthermore, he alleges Suarez failed to correct another officer at the scene who questioned why Ochoa didn\u2019t see the hairstyle of the man who allegedly pulled a gun on him.<\/p>\n By this point, Ochoa had already described the suspect as having braids to Suarez and Kelley, according to the body cam footage, but Suarez did not correct the other officer.<\/p>\n \u201cHe couldn\u2019t tell by the haircut,\u201d Suarez said, adding he said \u201ceverything happened too fast.\u201d<\/p>\n Jacobs\u2019 defense alleges Suarez\u2019s response was \u201cactively misleading his fellow officers.\u201d<\/p>\n Furthermore, body camera footage also shows Suarez agreeing with another officer who expressed doubts that Lonnie Jacobs was the one who brandished the firearm.<\/p>\n A still of officers discussing the potential suspects on the night of Lonnie Jacobs’ arrest. A court filing by his defense said officers, including Erik Suarez, expressed doubts that he was the correct person.<\/p>\n (<\/p>\n Long Beach Police Department<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n L.A. County Superior Court<\/p>\n )<\/p>\n \u201cYeah I think it was him, too,\u201d Suarez said, referring to Lonnie\u2019s brother Lamar. Lamar Jacobs was never charged in connection with the case.<\/p>\n In filings to the court, the District Attorney\u2019s Office said the officers had probable cause to arrest Jacobs because he was in the van described by the witness and matched at least some of the characteristics of the suspect.<\/p>\n How that led to the Georgia case coming to light<\/p>\n Once Jacobs\u2019 defense reviewed the body cam footage, they began attempting to depose Suarez in the case. Although Lonnie Jacobs was never charged with threatening Ochoa, the arrest led to the charges of bringing drugs into a jail. If the initial arrest was illegitimate, the drug case would go away.<\/p>\n The court scheduled a hearing earlier this year to discuss the evidence, but the Long Beach Police Department told Jacobs\u2019 defense that Suarez was out of the country.<\/p>\n The defense subpoenaed Suarez through the Police Department again and on June 15, the department told the team that Suarez had resigned.<\/p>\n An investigator for Jacobs\u2019 defense searched for his address to subpoena him at home. That search, according to the court filing, uncovered the assault charges in Georgia in 2019, two years after he joined the police force in Long Beach.<\/p>\n In the motion to dismiss the charges against Jacobs, his defense argues it is \u201cplausible\u201d that Suarez resigned from the police force out of concern he may have been questioned about his alleged misconduct that led to Jacobs\u2019 arrest.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, it is also now apparent that Officer Suarez has been living with another secret that may also have propelled a decision to abandon his police officer position,\u201d the defense wrote.<\/p>\n Through discovery, Jacobs\u2019 attorney said in court filings they learned that Suarez had traveled to Georgia where he watched the Atlanta Braves beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 4-3 on Aug. 17, 2019.<\/p>\n According to an incident report<\/a> attached to court filings, a witness saw Suarez wearing a Dodgers jersey in a Waffle House, \u201ctalking shit\u201d and arguing with the victim.<\/p>\n \u201cSuarez then walked up to the table where the victim was seated and began punching him in the face until the victim was left unconscious on the ground,\u201d the filing describes. According to the incident report and other filings from that case, Suarez continued to punch the victim while he was unconscious.<\/p>\n The most recent filing from Jacobs\u2019 defense says Suarez was arrested walking away from the restaurant.<\/p>\n According to a description of the crime by Barry Morgan, a Cobb County assistant solicitor general, Suarez \u201ccaused the victim significant injuries, including orbital fracture, fracture of the maxillary sinus, traumatic orbital hematoma, and concussion.\u201d<\/p>\n A memo details injuries caused by Erik Suarez in a 2019 assault. A grand jury indicted him on two felony counts. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served a year of probation.<\/p>\n (<\/p>\n Cobb County Superior Court<\/p>\n \/<\/p>\n via L.A. County Superior Court filing<\/p>\n )<\/p>\n \u201cDefendant beat the victim while the victim was on the ground, apparently unconscious,\u201d the description explains. \u201cThis should be aggravated battery.\u201d<\/p>\n On April 1, 2021, a grand jury indicted Suarez on two felony counts of aggravated battery, accusing him of \u201cseriously disfiguring\u201d the victim and rendering his right eye useless.<\/p>\n Right before trial, Suarez pleaded guilty in November 2022 to reduced misdemeanor charges of battery, was ordered to stay away from the victim and Cobb County, and was ordered to take anger management classes. He was sentenced to 12 months, which he was allowed to serve on probation.<\/p>\n According to Jacobs\u2019 defense, \u201cSuarez\u2019s actions in Georgia triggered immediate reporting responsibilities related to his employment\u201d with the Long Beach Police Department.<\/p>\n The court filing explains that the Long Beach police manual requires officers to inform their watch commander when they are arrested by another department or under a criminal investigation.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not yet clear when the department learned about Suarez\u2019s arrest. But Jacobs’ defense argues that if the department learned of the arrest between 2019 and 2026, \u201cthis would have clearly triggered Brady responsibilities in this case and numerous others.\u201d<\/p>\n That information is relevant to the case against Jacobs, the filing argues, because \u201cit is entirely logical that the same officer who beat a victim into unconsciousness and then cavalierly walked from the scene would just as thoughtlessly arrest a man for whom no probable cause existed \u2014 concealing that the victim previously identified another suspect who possessed features irreconcilable with the defendant\u2019s culpability.\u201d<\/p>\n When does law enforcement need to disclose misconduct?\u00a0<\/p>\n While law enforcement has a legal requirement to proactively disclose Brady material that could help defendants build their case, California law exempts most police personnel records from disclosure, except under certain circumstances <\/a>including findings of unnecessary use of force and misconduct while on the job.<\/p>\n Jacobs\u2019 defense attorney, in the Sept. 8 filing, alleges Long Beach police purposefully placed evidence related to Suarez\u2019s conviction in his personnel file, where it could be protected from disclosure.<\/p>\n He wrote this \u201cenabled the agency to hide mandated discovery related to Officer Suarez\u2019s conduct from what have likely been hundreds of defendants during the nearly seven-year period between the time of Officer Suarez\u2019s August 2019 arrest and June 2026.\u201d<\/p>\n Furthermore, the filing argues \u201cthere is every reason to believe that the hiding of Brady evidence extends far beyond Officer Suarez\u2019s conduct and is the product of a long-established undisclosed policy designed to conceal Brady evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n The filing points to a June 2021 news article wherein a spokesperson for the LBPD told reporters that it does not maintain a formal list of officers whose case involvement triggers Brady disclosures, but that it \u201ccontinues to comply with its obligations to share such information.\u201d<\/p>\n By that time, Suarez\u2019s assault case was nearly two years old and, according to Jacobs\u2019 defense, had never been disclosed.<\/p>\n How to reach me<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789025667_416_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Police](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789025668_769_.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1789025670_500_.png\")
<\/p>\n