A San Bernardino City Council member went on trial this week accused of secretly recording the city's police chief and a police sergeant during meetings in 2024, with prosecutors and defense attorneys offering sharply different accounts of what happened inside a police headquarters conference room and a nearby coffee shop. Treasure Ortiz, who represents Ward 7, pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor counts of violating California's eavesdropping law.
San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Carlo DiCesare delivered the prosecution's opening statement in San Bernardino Superior Court, arguing that Ortiz violated California's two-party consent law by recording conversations with Police Chief Darren Goodman and Sergeant Jose Loera without their permission, according to the San Bernardino Sun. DiCesare told jurors they would be able to listen to both recordings and confirm the prosecution's account, and prosecutors contended that consent was never explicitly given by the parties Ortiz recorded. Ortiz made no statement indicating the conversations would be recorded and did not ask the participants for permission, according to the newspaper's account of the prosecution's case.
Ortiz's attorney, Peter Schlueter, pushed back in his own opening statement, questioning whether the recordings were even confidential under the law and arguing that California statute does not require oral consent or a verbal request before recording. That distinction sits at the center of the case: California Penal Code Section 632 prohibits intentionally using an electronic device without consent to eavesdrop on or record a confidential communication, but the defense is expected to argue the settings and nature of the conversations do not meet that legal bar.
Two Meetings, Two Very Different Settings
According to the newspaper's reporting, Ortiz met with Chief Goodman at San Bernardino police headquarters on August 29, 2024, inside a conference room accessible only with a key card and containing no cameras or recording equipment of its own. Two weeks earlier, on August 15, 2024, Ortiz met with Sergeant Loera for one hour and 19 minutes at DJ Coffee Shop at 265 E. 40th St. in San Bernardino, in a booth described as 12 to 16 feet from other patrons.
The recordings reportedly concerned discussions about police searches of a law enforcement database for information about Ortiz herself, a dispute that predates the criminal charges and has fueled much of the political conflict between Ortiz and city leadership. During those meetings, Ortiz also raised criticism of police procurement practices and, according to the Sun's account, alleged cash bribes from city contractors.
A Database Search At The Center Of A Federal Lawsuit
The recordings trace back to Ortiz's allegations that Steve Desrocher accessed the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or CLETS, in March 2020 to look up her criminal history. CLETS connects public safety agencies to criminal histories, driver records and other databases. California policy requires all agencies subscribing to CLETS to report related misuse investigations and any disciplinary action to the California Department of Justice, according to the California Courts' Policies, Practices and Procedures. State oversight rules treat CLETS misuse reporting as a serious obligation: the California Department of Justice said in a 17 Apr 2018 information bulletin that it would proactively enforce the requirement to report misuse. Ortiz has claimed the searches were intended to discredit her ahead of her city council campaign, and her federal lawsuit alleges the database search coincided with critical comments she made about then-Mayor John Valdivia on March 4, 2020, including remarks about his alleged sexual harassment of city staff.
The city has rejected Ortiz's claim, a position it took as far back as May 2025. Reviews conducted by the San Bernardino Police Department, outside counsel Larson LLP, an independent investigator, and the District Attorney's Office each concluded that no improper CLETS search occurred outside standard law enforcement protocols, according to Inland Empire Community News. Ortiz's federal lawsuit nonetheless alleges Desrocher acted outside the scope of any official investigation, and that case remains active: U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled on August 18 granting in part and denying in part the city's motion to dismiss, giving Ortiz 21 days to file a second amended complaint, per PacerMonitor court records. Ortiz filed the underlying federal complaint, Case No. 5:25-cv-03045, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 5, 2025, naming the City of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino Police Officers Association, and multiple current and former police officials as defendants.
Censure, A $2 Million Claim, And A Council Seat Under Fire
The criminal trial is only one front in a broader standoff between Ortiz and City Hall. The council voted unanimously to formally censure her on April 1 following a roughly three-hour hearing, concluding she violated municipal code standards by making false claims and covertly recording police officials, according to Hey SoCal. That censure followed an outside investigation by special counsel Larson LLP, the same firm that delivered a cease-and-desist letter to Ortiz on February 27, instructing her to stop using city seals, insignia, and municipal resources for personal legal matters and alleging her conduct had created a hostile work environment.
At a May 2025 City Council meeting, Mayor Helen Tran read a statement calling Ortiz's related $2 million claim against the city frivolous, dishonest, and an attempt to swindle San Bernardino. Ortiz has said she intends to pursue that claim regardless. Despite the censure and the criminal charges, Ortiz remains a sitting San Bernardino City Council member, having won the Ward 7 seat in the November 2024 general election with 55.78% of the vote, defeating former City Attorney James F. Penman, 3,929 votes to 3,115.
An FBI Chapter Adds Another Layer
Adding to the case's complexity, Ortiz reportedly worked secretly for the FBI from 2022 to early 2025, work that involved an investigation into alleged bribery and corruption, according to the Sun's reporting. Authorities have not revealed further details about that probe. Chief Goodman took the stand during the trial as proceedings got underway this week, with testimony expected to continue through Thursday.
The criminal case, filed by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office as Case No. 2026-00-0000627 on January 8, centers on whether Ortiz violated Penal Code Section 632. A first-time misdemeanor conviction under that statute carries a maximum penalty of up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,500 per violation. California law also includes an exception, under Penal Code Section 633.5, allowing secret recording of a confidential communication if done to gather evidence reasonably believed to relate to specific serious crimes — a provision defense attorneys in eavesdropping cases often invoke when clients say they were documenting misconduct. Whether that exception applies to Ortiz's recordings is expected to be a key question for the jury as testimony continues.
