In court filings, Sanders has argued that information should have been disclosed to his client, Lonnie Jacobs, from the outset of the case. Jacobs is facing up to four years in prison on a charge that he brought a controlled substance into a jail. Sanders has argued the case should be dismissed because he alleges the initial arrest was based on Suarez misrepresenting facts and omitting evidence.<\/p>\n
Now the defense has requested information from Suarez\u2019s personnel file about both the Georgia conviction and an allegation that Suarez assaulted a man on the job in 2023. Sanders argues that information in the personnel file could show a pattern of misconduct by Suarez. In court filings, he also claims it could reveal a practice within the Long Beach Police Department to conceal incriminating information about its officers in protected personnel files.<\/p>\n
Keep up with LAist.<\/p>\n
If you’re enjoying this article, you’ll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe reasonable conclusion is that the non-disclosure of Officer Suarez\u2019s conduct and conviction is illustrative of an intentionally flawed process designed to conceal evidence that is favorable to defendants and harmful to LBPD officers,\u201d Sanders wrote in a declaration submitted to the court on Sept. 23<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWith what we’ve learned so far, every defendant charged in a Long Beach case must presume that evidence is being concealed in their case,\u201d Sanders told LAist. \u201cJust look at the lengths the department went to in order to protect Officer Suarez’s misconduct. He was arrested after violently causing serious injuries to the victim. Then just three months after being convicted in that case, he used force while on duty that the department found impermissible. Long Beach PD’s response? Send him back to the streets and block defendants from finding out the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n Erik Suarez from a photo in a Long Beach police file documenting his use of force during an arrest in 2023. <\/p>\n Suarez left the Long Beach Police Department in June and is now with the Burbank Police Department, according to records from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Burbank Police Department confirmed that Suarez was employed there and assigned to the field operations division<\/a>. The department said it could not comment on \u201cconfidential personnel records or specific aspects of an individual\u2019s background investigation, employment history, disciplinary history, or other personnel matters\u201d and declined to make him available for an interview.<\/p>\n LAist tried to reach Suarez by calling a phone number linked to him in public records. Each time, a man answered and said he was not Suarez, but that he was in contact with Suarez. This week, that man said he had no interest in passing along the reporter’s contact information.<\/p>\n Todd Vigus, an attorney for the Long Beach Police Department, argued in a Sept. 22 response to Sanders\u2019 motion<\/a> that the allegations surrounding Jacobs\u2019 arrest \u201cdo not establish good cause to search the officers’ personnel files for every conceivable form of misconduct, moral turpitude, discipline, performance deficiency, racial bias, or unrelated wrongdoing.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for the Long Beach Police Department said in an email dated Sept. 11 that they are prohibited from discussing personnel matters and internal investigations, but did confirm that the department was aware of Suarez\u2019s arrest in Georgia.<\/p>\n In response to a records request from LAist, department officials on Thursday released records from a 2023 use of force investigation that determined Suarez used “unnecessary or unreasonable force” while arresting someone.<\/p>\n That same year, the Los Angeles District Attorney\u2019s office investigated an allegation that Suarez committed \u201cassault under the color of authority\u201d but declined to press charges.<\/p>\n \u201cThe decision to decline prosecution in the 2023 matter was based on the evidence available at the time,\u201d said Greg Risling, a spokesperson for the district attorney\u2019s office. \u201cAlthough we did not know of the allegation from Georgia, the facts of that case would not have been a deciding factor in that charging decision.\u201d<\/p>\n How Suarez’s record came to light<\/p>\n When Suarez left the LBPD in June, Sanders was attempting to subpoena him for questioning about why he arrested Jacobs, who is bald, when his body-worn camera footage showed a witness describing the person who threatened him with a gun as having dreadlocks or braids.<\/p>\n Sanders attempted to subpoena Suarez twice through the Long Beach Police Department. In response to the first subpoena, in April 2026, the department said Suarez was out of the country. After the second subpoena filed June 22, the department informed Sanders that Suarez had resigned.<\/p>\n According to state records, Burbank hired Suarez two weeks later, on July 6. He\u2019d worked for the Long Beach Police Department from November 2017 until June 19, 2026 \u2014 three days before Sanders made a second subpoena attempt.<\/p>\n Still attempting to subpoena Suarez, now at his home, an investigator working for the defense of Lonnie Jacobs \u2014 the man Sanders represents in the drug case \u2014 found Suarez had been convicted of misdemeanor aggravated battery in 2022 in Cobb County, Georgia.<\/p>\n According to court records LAist obtained from Georgia, the incident took place in a Waffle House in 2019.<\/p>\n The victim told the Long Beach Press-Telegram<\/a> that Suarez threatened to kill him while beating him on the ground. The victim said he has vertigo and problems with his vision from the beating, according to the newspaper.<\/p>\n The Cobb County District Attorney\u2019s office charged Suarez with two felony counts of aggravated battery. In 2022, Suarez pleaded guilty to misdemeanor aggravated battery. He served a year on probation and was ordered to take an anger management class.<\/p>\n According to the article, the victim said he was told by Georgia prosecutors that Long Beach police officials had been informed of the charges, and was surprised to see that Suarez was still working for the police department years later.<\/p>\n Records released by the Long Beach Police Department show Suarez received a two-day suspension for bringing discredit to the department by leaving the scene of the assault without reporting it.<\/p>\n Former Long Beach Police Officer Erik Suarez received a two-day suspension after the 2019 arrest in Cobb County, Georgia.<\/p>\n (<\/p>\n Long Beach Police Department<\/p>\n )<\/p>\n Sanders argues in his filing that these details support the motion to open up Suarez\u2019s police records. In California, police personnel files are mostly shielded from public disclosure, except under certain circumstances, including findings of unnecessary use of force and misconduct while on the job.<\/p>\n Defendants who believe those personnel files may include information relevant to their case can file what\u2019s called a Pitchess motion in court. If a judge agrees with the motion, the court will have an opportunity to review personnel files and pull out information deemed relevant to the case at hand.<\/p>\n Sanders filed an initial Pitchess motion before a preliminary hearing, but the court denied his request. He filed another motion to disclose Suarez\u2019s personnel files once the defense learned about the Georgia conviction. Long Beach filed in opposition to that motion, arguing information in Suarez\u2019s personnel file is not relevant to the Jacobs\u2019 case. It is that motion that a judge is considering now.<\/p>\n What is Brady? What is Pitchess?<\/p>\n Brady v. Maryland: This 1963 Supreme Court case established that withholding exculpatory evidence \u2013 evidence that could help defendants prove their innocence or lessen their punishment \u2014 from the defense violates due process rights. The onus is on law enforcement to proactively offer this information. Brady rule violations can lead to a mistrial or, if it’s discovered after the fact, overturning a conviction.<\/p>\n Pitchess v. Superior Court: This 1972 California case established a process for disclosing police information in the state. To seek the information, defendants or their legal representation have to file a motion in court explaining what information is sought and why it’s relevant to their case. Even when a Pitchess motion is granted, courts don\u2019t often provide full access to police records, instead law enforcement turns over dates of incidents along with the names of any witnesses or individuals who submitted an underlying complaint.<\/p>\n Why this case could have broader implications<\/p>\n Sanders argues the Georgia conviction should have been disclosed not through a Pitchess motion, but proactively under Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court case that established prosecutors\u2019 obligation to disclose information that could help defendants win their case. In his motions, Sanders is asking not only for information about Suarez\u2019s conviction and potential misconduct, but for evidence that the Long Beach Police Department employs a similar tactic to hide information about other officers in their personnel files.<\/p>\n \u201cQuite clearly, there can be no safe haven within a police department that is created to facilitate the concealment of improper acts by its officers or to hide the department\u2019s efforts to protect officers from receiving deserved consequences,\u201d Sanders wrote in a Sept. 23 supplement to the second Pitchess motion. \u201cIt is a near-certainty that the department is engaging in a pervasive practice of non-disclosure.\u201d<\/p>\n On Thursday, a judge in Long Beach granted a continuance in the case against Jacobs, rescheduling the hearing for the second Pitchess motion for Nov. 12.<\/p>\n What the DA knew \u2014 and didn\u2019t know<\/p>\n Shortly after Sanders began defending Jacobs, a deputy district attorney on the case notified the defense that the DA\u2019s office investigated Suarez in 2023 for \u201cassault under the color of authority,\u201d but did not file charges.<\/p>\n In his latest filing, Sanders argues this disclosure suggests that the district attorney\u2019s office was aware of its obligations to disclose evidence under Brady and would have disclosed the Georgia conviction if they knew about it.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1790388855_414_.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1790388856_215_.png\")
<\/p>\n