‘Creepy’ Deputy Faked Investigation to Stalk Influencer: Lawsuit

A fitness influencer with thousands of. followers on platforms like Instagram. and Tik Tok is revealing shilling. details about a man who she says stalked. her for months. That man, she claims, was a Riverside County Sheriff's deputy. And a new lawsuit filed in federal court. accuses him of abusing his position and. accuses the county of letting him get. away with it for far too long. We are. digging into the wildest details from. this complaint with trial attorney. Adante Pointer. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber.

29-year-old mom of two, Briana Ortega, has filed a lawsuit against Riverside. County, California, and several of its. current and former law enforcement. members, accusing them of violating her. civil rights. According to Ortega, she. met one of the county's deputies at a. family festival in the Coachella area. when he gave her young son some. stickers, right? But what should have. been a passing interaction that soon. turned into scary stalking behavior. according to this new complaint. This is.

behavior that would eventually lead to a. deputy losing his job and being. convicted of multiple crimes. Now, I'm. going to go through this lawsuit. I'm. going to go through the response from. the county. I'm not going to do it by. myself. I want to bring in trial. attorney Adante Pointer, who actually. files these kinds of lawsuits. So, it's. a great guest to have. We love having. Adante on. Adante, it's great to see. you. I will just start here. I think. it's really disheartening when we hear. about law enforcement officers who. supposed to enforce the law breaking it. instead. I mean, what kind of impact, big picture, what kind of impact does.

that have on our justice system when it. comes to trust within a community? This type of uh behavior undermines the. credibility of the police in the. community and the trust that the. community is frankly by law and. therefore mandated and required to place. in law enforcement to protect to serve. and to uphold the law. So this is a the. type of thing that makes people very. suspicious of law enforcement when the. very business of law enforcement is. built upon the trust of people in terms.

of being able to call and rely upon them. to do their job and to enforce the law. >> Okay, so let's take a closer look at the. lawsuit which was filed at the end of. August in the US District Court for. Central California. Okay, Briana Ortega. is the sole plainif, the only person. suing. The defendants are the county of. Riverside, Eric Piscatella, the deputy. at the center of this ongoing stalking. scandal, the sheriff and current. Republican candidate for governor, Chad. Biano, a second deputy named Martinez.

Moreno, and as yet unidentified. defendants named Do 1 and two. So, Piscatella, according to the San. Bernardino son, worked for the Riverside. County Sheriff's Department for 5 years. from March 2019 to October 2024. He was. reportedly assigned to court services. and patrol in Thermal. This is an. unincorporated area that's part of. Southern California's Coachella Valley. Okay, so now you have the background. You get the context. Now, we're going to. get into the criminal case against. Piscatella as well. But as we go through.

the filing, it is important to know that. the now former deputy did plead guilty. to multiple counts of misusing his. department computer access. Okay, so the. complaint's introduction gives us an. idea of the allegations. quote, "This. civil rights action arises out of the. predatory conduct of Eric Piscatella, a. county riverside sheriff's deputy, who. while in the course and scope of his. employment, repeatedly used law. enforcement resources and databases to. illegally access the personal. information of the plainif to stalk her.

and pursue a romantic relationship with. her." And Ortega claims that it all. started almost exactly 2 years before. she filed this lawsuit. Quote, on or. about September 17th, 2023, while in the. course and scope of his employment, very. important language there, defendant. Piscatella made contact with the plainif. and her minor children while Plainif was. attending a festival in the city of. Coachella through offering stickers to. the plainif's minor children. Defendant. Piscatella created an opportunity to. introduce himself to Plainif and.

obtained her name, which he later used. illegally to access her personal and. private information. According to. Ortega, the two did not exchange contact. information, but her name was all. Piscatella needed to find out more about. her months after their brief initial. contact. Hey, we're talking an. influencer right now. Let me tell you. something. If you're thinking about how. to get content seen across a lot of. different platforms, we here at Sidebar, we produce so many video clips a day. And we use a platform called Opus Clip. This is an all-in-one AI editor that. makes it easier and faster to cut,

create, and upload videos across all. social media platforms through the power. of AI. Opus clip automatically generates. B-roll. It cleans up audio, and it. refframes your videos for any platform. It is so easy to start using. Let me. show you how right now. All you got to. do is go to opus.pro/sidebar, sign up, you upload a video, and in just. a few minutes, you will have tons of. perfectly edited clips ready to go. So. whether you're making videos for Tik Tok. or shorts or Instagram reels, OpusClip. is your one-stop shop for getting your. best content seen by more viewers across. all these platforms with the press of.

just one button. And if you're. wondering, you know, how good these AI. edited videos are from OpusClip, just. look at our content here at Long Crime. Our producers have used Opus to help us. cut and share clips of some of our. biggest trials, and we get them to you. very fast. Look at Sidebar. We know our. listeners have a lot of opinions and. ideas to share and this is the most. powerful tool there is to help you edit. like a pro and grow your own audience. So give it a try for yourself. Go to. opus.pro/sidebar. to start creating your own videos today. Ortega told the LA Times that she'd. forgotten all about this guy when he.

suddenly appeared in her life once. again. The lawsuit reads on or about. January 25th, 2024, defendant Piscatella. searched for Planerfortega using his. RCSD patrol vehicles computer. Okay, Adante, let's stop right there. This is. an apparent major violation, right? All. sorts of industries that have access to. personal information, hospitals, police. department, schools, they can't use the. systems to look up details about a. person for their own use. I guess the. only defense would be there was some.

sort of legitimate purpose, but that. doesn't seem to fly. >> You're exactly right. uh professionals. in particular law enforcement are not. allowed to to use the access that. they've gained by way of their position. of trust for their own personal or. period sexual interests. And so what you. have here is you and there are actual. laws in the state of California that is. a felony for a police officer to access. police databases for their own personal. use. And that's apparently what he did.

according to the lawsuit as well as the. criminal charges which he ultimately. pled to. >> the key word there by the way is he did. right because according to Ortega it. wasn't just the actions of one bad. apple. Quote based on information and. belief defendant deputy Martinez Moreno. and doze one to two were present when. defendant Piscatella accessed the. database and neither stopped or reported. defendant Piscatella's illegal conduct. Dante, how would Ortega and her legal. team go about proving that you have.

multiple wrongdoers here? That multiple. co-workers saw what he was allegedly. doing and in step in. >> Yeah. They're essentially saying he. aided, emedded, andor encouraged him to. access these databases knowing full well. that he was doing so for his own. personal gain and interest and not for a. professional or or law enforcement. purpose. And so officers have a duty to. intervene and to report. But much like. the moniker that's passed around in. social or pop culture about no.

snitching, the same thing appeared, at. least according to this lawsuit, to held. true in law enforcement. That law. enforcement officers are loathed to turn. each other in for violating policies, their training, or the law. So the. complaint continues, quote, "Through. this illegal search, Piscatella was able. to obtain the home address of the. plainif and other personal and private. information, including her cell phone. number. Following ascertaining the. plaintiff's address, Piscatella showed. up at the plainif's residence in the. city of Lita in his patrol vehicle.

without legal cause, armed and in full. uniform. Defendant Piscatella questioned. the mother of the plainif regarding the. location of her daughter. Based on. information and belief, defendant deputy. Martinez Moreno and doze one to two were. present in the patrol car for this. interaction and neither stopped or. reported defendant Piscatella's illegal. activity. The lawsuit says Ortega's. mother was quote alarmed and concerned. but refused to tell Piscatella where her. daughter worked. Okay, Adante, in this.

kind of situation, I think they're very. keen to suggest Piscatel's armed in. uniform. that level of pressure, that. level of authority, a person might feel. they have no choice, that they have to. tell an officer what they want to know. What are a person's rights when it comes. to answering police police questions? >> Well, you know, when an officer presents. himself in uniform and armed with a gun, that is the police, that is the state, that is the government representative at.

that point in time. And so people. oftenimes feel intimidated by such a. presence. At the same time, you do have. rights as a citizen and you're not. required to answer these officers. questions. The only thing that you're. required to do is provide identification. to identify yourself. So, you're well. within your rights to not answer the. question. And if you want to know how. far your rights extend in that moment, you should be asking the officer, "Am I. free to go or am I being detained?" If. you're not being detained, that means. you're free to go and you can end the. police interaction. However, once again,

psychologically and emotionally, most. people feel that they cannot leave or. deny an officer's overtures or questions. simply because that gun and that badge. and that uniform is an awesome power and. very much intimidating. >> So, according to Ortega, after being. unable to figure out where she worked, this is Piscatella then starting to text. her directly, even though, by the way, she'd never given him her number, right? So Ortega says that she ended up. responding wanting to know where they'd.

met and he said at a festival in. Coachella. So the lawsuit says. plainfortega did not recall giving. defendant Piscatella her number nor did. she understand the nature of the text. communication. Therefore she did not. continue the conversation. However, after her sister was a victim of a crime. in February of 2024, the plainif reached. out to defendant Piscatella seeking law. enforcement assistance. Despite only. asking for law enforcement assistance, defendant Piscatella shifted the. conversation to pursue his romantic.

interest in the plainif and asked to. take her out on a date. Plainif. immediately ended the conversation and. ultimately changed her phone number for. unrelated reasons. And that is when. Ortega says things really started to. ramp up in the spring of 2024. Quote, "In the subsequent months, Deputy. Piscatel's romantic interest in the. plaintiff escalated to an obsession, leading him to routinely illegally. search the plaintiff's private. information on law enforcement. databases, including on May 31st, 2024. when it was determined defendant. Piscatella ran the license plate number.

of the plaintiff, while his patrol unit. was determined to be in close proximity. of Pliff's residence." And again, she. claims that other deputies were present. Didn't stop Piscatella from using the. information systems this way. And if you. can believe it, things apparently. according to her got even creepier. Quote, "On July 2nd, 2024, defendant. Piscatella conducted another search of. plaintiffs searching her license plate. on the California law enforcement. telecommunication system. Following this. search, defendant Piscatella once again.

went to the residence of the plainif. while armed and in full uniform entered. the residence of the plaintiff without. consent or legal cause, falsely claiming. a black man with dreadlocks had jumped. over her backyard fence attempting to. break into her residence. This July 2nd, 2024 encounter happened just 3 minutes. after pliff returned home from out of. town, which caused the plaintiff to. believe she was under the surveillance. of defendant Piscatella. Once inside the. residence under false pretenses, defendant Piscatella immediately began.

to make romantic overtures towards the. plainif, telling her how beautiful she. was without makeup and asked for her new. cell phone number because she had. changed her previous number. Plainif was. confused, scared, and uncomfortable and. began recording part of this interaction. with her phone. Okay, Adante. A lot of. this case, by the way, is based on. digital evidence, right? They can look. at the search histories using these. systems. And how important is a. recording like that? >> Very, very important. I mean, how bold.

and how creepy can this deputy be? You. know, he's using his law enforcement. database. He's using his uniform, patrol. car, and his position of authority to. hold himself out as if he's there to. protect her when it appears that he's. stalking her. and his digital. footprints. And this is something that. not just for law enforcement, but for. everyone. Your cell phone, your your. computer, your router number, all of. these different things, the apps you. use, they're all tracking not only your. location, but what you're looking at, who you're interacting with. And in this.

situation, it appears to be his undoing. because it corroborates what she's. saying as it relates to what his true. intent was, but also undermines whatever. claims he might have been making about. the classic and unfortunately uh very. much worn out excuse of, hey, there was. a black guy or someone that I'm. protecting you from that's scary and. that's why I had to be in this position. When in fact, it was all just a madeup. lie. It was fake. Does it hurt her. credibility that she maintained.

conversation with him, that she asked. for his help uh when it came to her. sister? Does it hurt her at all that her. case? >> I don't think so. You know, she's asking. for help from a member or a person of. law enforcement. Isn't that who you're. supposed to help? That's who we're. trained. That's who the law tells you to. direct your request for help in terms of. what she was looking for, finding her. sister or protecting her sister. So, I. don't think that undermines her. credibility. I think that underscores. really the problem here, which is when. you have a position of authority as a.

member of law enforcement and then you. use it for your own personal interest. and the person then needs to use you or. access law enforcement, there's a. conflict because you're no longer. serving in capacity as a professional. police officer. Instead, you're looking. to twist the two, your personal interest. in the professional capacity, and those. two are incompatible. >> Let's go back to the lawsuit. It reads, quote, "Plainif ultimately provided her. new phone number while under duress and. only for the purpose of investigating. the possible crime that had been.

committed at her home. Unfortunately, defendant Piscatella once again started. texting the plaintiff to further pursue. his romantic interest, including stating. he would steal Plainif from her. boyfriend." Plainif immediately asked. defendant Piscatella to stop messaging. her as it was unrelated to any crime. And defendant Piscatella's illegal. conduct was reported to law enforcement. So, what is Ortega suing for? Well, the. complaint lists six causes of action. Civil rights violations under specific. federal statutes, municipal liability.

for civil rights violation, violation of. civil rights for failure to train and. supervise, violation of computer fraud. and abuse act, violation of electronic. communications privacy act, violation of. civil rights under the fourth amendment. Adante, those causes of action kind of. give us a good idea of why this lawsuit. ended up in federal court instead of. state court. Which one stands out to. you? Well, you know, when you start. looking at uh the act the access he had. with the computer in terms of the. computer system and the databases, that. jumps off the page, but also here when.

you start looking at the federal civil. rights, your privacy interests and the. fact that those were violated by this. particular deputy and then uh you add a. layer on top of that and that he was. essentially stalking her. And not only. did he gain access to that information, but how that access was utilized to in. order to stalk her and to find out her. information. And so that's what is going. to be the centerpiece of this lawsuit is. his access and then what he used it for. >> And using the phrase the course and.

scope of his employment is key, right? It's not just him offduty harassing her. Why is course and scope of his. employment? Why is that phrase so. important? The course and scope of his. employment is critical to the lawsuit. because that's the tie-in, if you will, to taking it from him being an. individual person who's done something. perhaps on his off time, right? When. he's not at work, not dressed in. uniform, doesn't have his police gun, but instead, you know, just on his. personal time versus what is alleged.

here, which is that he actually did this. while he was on, if you will, company. time, while he was working as a. sheriff's deputy. And therefore that. means his employer, not just him. personally, but his employer, the county. of Riverside, is now on the hook for any. type of verdict or settlement that comes. out of this lawsuit. >> So Artego's legal team explains that. their arguments for relief, alleging. that the deputies under Sheriff Chad. Biano, they knew they could get away. with conduct like this. That's what's.

making this lawsuit so more expansive, including these different players. says, quote, "On information and belief, defendants Piscatella acted as he did, in part because he knew or was otherwise. aware there was no enforced county RCSD. policy in place to monitor and or review. his computer use and activity as a. result of established customs norms and. procedures at RCSD. Defendants. Piscatella, Martinez Moreno, and those. one and two believed that they would not. be disciplined or punished for their. conduct, and their conduct would. otherwise be ratified or condoned by.

their superiors, as similar conduct had. routinely gone unpunished, and with. offenders suffering no adverse or. disciplinary consequences. Defendant. County was or should have been aware of. RCSD deputies using the work computer. system and other law enforcement. databases to prey on vulnerable female. citizens. However, despite this, the. deplorable conditions still exist and. led to the injuries suffered by the. plaintiff. And the lawsuit blasts. Riverside County and the sheriff's.

office for allegedly having no policies. that would keep these kinds of privacy. violations from happening. Quote, "Defendant County, acting through its. administrators, management, supervisors, employees, and or agents on staff. violated their duty to protect the. private information of the plainif. thereby causing harm to the plainif. These failures include, but is not. limited to the following. Failing to. monitor, review deputy computer usage. and access to law enforcement databases. for the safety of citizens such as the. plainif. Failing to supervise and. discipline staff properly when computer.

usage policies are violated. Inadequate. training of staff on appropriate. computer usage. Failing to enforce. written policies which prohibit staff. from using departmentisssued equipment. and patrol vehicles to access private. information and pursue romantic. interests. Inadequately training staff. in behavior management. inadequately. training staff on reporting. inappropriate and/or illegal peer. conduct. And when it comes to the claim. that Ortega's Fourth Amendment rights. were violated, the complaint reads, "All. defendants violated plaintiff's Fourth. Amendment right to be free from. unreasonable search and seizures by.

improperly allowing and or accessing her. private and personal information. contained in state and national. databases without just cause. Furthermore, defendant Piscatella. entered the home of the plainif without. a warrant, probable cause, or exigent. circumstances in further violation of. plaintiff's fourth amendment rights. Now, Adante, she makes an argument here. I completely understand it. However, will it be tough to get everybody else. on the hook? Will it be tough to say, "Hey, you looked the other way. You.

didn't have the proper policies in. place. You were condoning this. You. allowed this to happen." Um, is it a. stretch? What would she need to show. here? Sure. Well, there's two parts at. least to her argument that she'd need to. be able to prove up. One of which is, as. you mentioned, that there were people. other than just this actual individual. deputy that were involved in creating. the situation andor looking the other. way and therefore encouraging and. promoting the situation. And so, she. alleges in this lawsuit that deputies. knew andor were standing by and were.

aware that he was unlawfully and. illegally accessing the database. Who. are those deputies? I think one dep. other deputy was named but you have. other two as to this point unnamed. deputies. Are they going to come forward. and admit it? Maybe they already have in. some other administrative review. And so. that's why she feels comfortable saying. that there were other deputies involved. The flip side of this too is that we. start talking about other people and the. policies in the training not being. adequate, not being sufficient enough to.

safeguard against this type of conduct. That's more objective. Either you have a. policy, either you don't. Either you. have training that instructs deputies. that they're not supposed to do this, and if they do do this, there are. consequences. Either you enforce that. type of consequence or you have not. So, that'll be much more apparent and. obvious and objective for them to prove. up. But the combination of the two is. how you wind up also pointing liability. at the county of Riverside. Because if. the sheriff's department has a culture, has a custom, has an informal policy of.

allowing this type of behavior to go. forward because you don't have the. training in place, you don't have the. policies in place, you don't have the. supervision in place, and ultimately you. have no enforcement mechanism in place. to safeguard people's data to keep women. from being prayed upon by sheriff's. deputies who access this information. through their position of trust. that is. a major issue for that employer, the. county, and the county can be on the. hook for the damages, i.e. any. settlement or verdict that comes out of. this case. Now, Riverside County, they.

filed a response. They filed a legal. answer in response to this complaint, which included pages and pages of. denials. That's typical. I mean, an. answer typically goes line by line or. paragraph by paragraph in the original. complaint and either, you know, agrees. or disagrees with what's alleged. Sometimes they need more information to. answer. But for example, answering. paragraph 24, defendant lacks sufficient. knowledge or information to form a. belief concerning the truth of the. factual allegations contained therein. and on that basis denies such.

allegations. Paragraph 24 further. contains legal conclusions and argument. as to which no response is required. And. it goes on like that for more than a. dozen pages before getting to what are. known as affirmative defenses which. could be used to justify certain. actions. Right. The county's filing. offers up 13 affirmative defense. options. Now, we won't go through all of. them, but they include failure to state. a claim, failure to exhaust. administrative remedies, statute of. limitations. Adante, talk to me about. what those affirmative defenses mean,

and the filing also claims immunity from. liability, right? They're a police. department. They're a government. Talk. to us about what those uh affirmative. defenses mean and also claims of. immunity. They can't be they can't be. >> Yeah. I mean to to the viewers, it. probably all sounds like legal mumbo. jumbo or gobblelygook. But for us who. are in the legal system, we hear those. defenses and what they've said. If you. put them all into one pot, it would say. I'm not responsible. I didn't do.

anything wrong or if I did something. wrong, I have immunity, meaning I'm. protected or I have a shield to do what. I did and you can't hold me responsible. Essentially, I have a free pass. And. that's what's very frustrating to many. people who find themselves in these. positions and people who want to level. the playing field so that there's not a. double standard for law enforcement and. everyone else because there are a host. of immunities and legal protections that. allow law enforcement to get away with. things that you and I or anyone who's. watching this would never be able to do.

And so th that's what the county and the. defendant are setting out in their legal. papers in their answer is a lot of lot. of things that sound like legal mumbo. jumbo but ultimately could prove fatal. to the lawsuit if they prevail on one or. more of those defenses. >> Now I mentioned earlier that Piscatella. did in fact plead guilty to misconduct. Okay, a crime. When Ortega made her. complaint to the department, there was. an internal investigation that was. launched and Piscatella resigned in. October of 2024. In December, he was.

charged with seven felony counts of. using sheriff's department computer. databases and networks to illegally. obtain information. And in July of this. year, he made an open plea to the court, according to the LA Times, asking the. judge to downgrade his charges to. misdemeanor. Now, the prosecution. strenuously objected to this, but. according to court transcripts, Superior. Court Judge Helios J. Hernandez. reportedly said nothing actually. happened. He never like broke into the. house or threatened her. Now, Adante,

your thoughts on that response from the. judge. >> To me, the judge really gave short. shrift and minimize what's going on. here. Keep in mind, this is not a. citizen to citizen. This is someone a. person of law enforcement who's given. extraordinary powers to arrest and have. access to different law enforcement. databases, personal private information, and then use that cloaked in his uniform. and with a gun to show up to this. woman's house unannounced with a fake. fabricated story about him fighting. crime when all he really wanted to do.

was get in her business and date her. And so for the in my opinion, I've seen. people sentenced and dealt with much. harshly, much more harshly for a lot. less. And so I think this is once again. the benefits or the privileges that are. afforded to law enforcement which in my. opinion allows this type of behavior to. continue as opposed to sending the type. of message that should be sent here for. this person for this particular sheriff. deputy and everyone else that you are. not allowed to stalk, harass, and.

essentially invade someone's privacy for. your own personal gain without their. permission or consent. >> So let's talk about this. Let's talk. about what happened. The judge accepted. Piscatella's guilty plea to misdemeanor. charges. Sentenced him to just one year. of probation. He has to perform a 100. hours of community service through a. nonprofit organization. He can't have. any contact with Ortega. His attorneys. filed an appeal in August. And despite. filing a report with the department and. eventually filing this lawsuit, Ortega. refused to testify against Piscatella.

She told the LA Times that she was. afraid of retaliation from him or the. department. A spokeswoman for the. district attorney's office told the. outlet that since Ortega refused to. testify, they weren't able to bring. other charges against Piscatellaike. stalking. The San Bernardino Sun reports. that Piscatella's law enforcement. certification has been temporarily. suspended by the State Commission on. Peace Officer Standards and Trainings. But you look at this, Adante, what do. you make of that? you know, this there's a lot of. different um issues that are raised by.

the way this ultimately played out as it. relates to uh Miss Ortega not wanting to. testify. Many people who are victims of. domestic violence, stalking, and things. like that don't feel comfortable and are. dissuaded from testifying because of the. court process. So, this is not something. that's unfamiliar or uncommon. This. happens all the time. was also true is. that district attorney's office and. prosecutors will still prosecute a case. without the alleged victim participating. by showing up and testifying. Why? Because they can use other statements.

and other evidence to prove the charges. and they therefore do not need the. victim to be a witness at the trial. Apparently, that's a discretionary. decision and this prosecutor's office. decided to abandon some of the charges. But this is why this remains to be a. problem and why it's much more thorny. when it's a member of law enforcement. because it sends a message that you'll. get a slap on the wrist. It's just a. speed bump. It's not going to ruin your. career. It's not going to send you to. jail and you'll get probation. You'll.

get some fines and you may not be able. to work as a law enforcement officer for. a while. And you shouldn't when you've. betrayed the public trust, but there's. still light at the end of the end of the. tunnel. and yeah, he'll get probation. and go home and in a year's time this. will go away. >> Let me ask you that. Is there any avenue. by which he can get a law enforcement. job again? >> Well, he right now it's suspended. In. California, you have to uh essentially. uh be have a valid license to be a. police officer. And so, right now it's.

suspended, I imagine, while probation. plays out and until this case ends up. But once it finishes, it's something. that he could petition to get his job. back, a certification back, or it goes. away because the regulatory authority. says, "You've paid your debt. That's. society, and we're willing to trust you. making uh life and death and liberty. decisions on our behalf.". >> What a case, Dante Pointer. Thanks for. coming on. Uh, you know, really. interesting civil and criminal case to. talk about. Kind of unbelievable to say. the least, but glad we're able to shed a.

light on it. We'll keep a careful eye on. how this lawsuit progresses. Thank you. so much. Thanks for having me. Take care. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your. podcast. You can follow me on Instagram. or X. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next. time. [Music].