The Democratic Legislature clearly has a bone to pick with Bianco over his seizure of county election ballots and his conservative, MAGA-style politics. This measure likely stems from that conflict, but should be viewed outside the realm of partisan politics. The sheriff v. coroner debate represents a long-running and broader problem. Quite simply, having both positions — one that investigates crimes and the other that examines deaths and provides evidence for those investigations — combined in one office is a clear conflict of interest.
The stated reason for SB 1379: There have been an inordinate number of deaths in jail facilities in Riverside County and the courts have levied hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from the subsequent lawsuits. “Under current law, counties may consolidate the offices of sheriff and coroner,” argued the bill’s author Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside. “In Riverside County, this structure has contributed to persistent challenges regarding the deaths of individuals in custody in the county’s jails, including underreporting, inconsistent determinations of causes of death, and limited access to information for families and the public.”
Historically, King Richard the Lionheart created coroners during his very short reign to advance the interests of the king and included them in the Articles of Eyre in England in 1194. Coroners (originally called “crowners”) were created as a direct check against locally elected sheriffs, whom the crown often did not trust. The original goal was mainly financial. As the 2017 book “The Conquest of Death” explains: “The medieval coroner was a general crown official charged with pursing and protecting the financial interests of the king. … As it was recognized that the human population constituted an important resource for the kingdom, there were financial penalties for those found responsible for the death of the king’s subjects.”
In modern America, there is a reasonable concern that when the sheriff and coroner rest in the same person that foul play by law-enforcement officials might be brushed to the side. Sheriffs’ deputies, for instance, operate jail facilities in many California counties. Critics fear that a sheriff might not hold his deputies to account. This relates back to the issue of an entity policing itself, which is problematic at best and, at worst, offers no check on the process at all.
A number of scandals have highlighted this concern, For instance, in 2018 San Joaquin County’s top medical examiner alleged sheriff’s interference. Per the Sacramento Bee, he claimed that doctors were “pressured to classify officer-involved deaths as accidents rather than homicides.” Senate Bill 1303 that year would have separated the offices for larger counties, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it. In his veto message, Brown cited local-control issues: “This decision is best left to the discretion of local elected officials who are in the best position to determine how their county offices are organized.” That’s also a point made by opponents of this year’s SB 1379.
Nevertheless, when the sheriff and coroner are in the same office, sheriffs’ officials have the incentive to manipulate death figures and improperly classified death reports. There’s also a concern that sheriff/coroners might put their finger on the scale of a murder investigation that they are handling. Those justifying the consolidation of sheriff and coroner point to fiscal efficiency and streamlining of duties, but I’d argue that in such important matters impartiality is more important than cost savings — and they should be separated even if it requires a state mandate.
Only three other states have the combined offices of coroner and sheriff: Montana, Nevada and Hawaii. Montana and Nevada specifically allow this consolidation in rural counties, presumably for cost savings. Several states including Idaho, Indiana and Alabama specifically mandate the offices’ separation.
In my view, this narrow bill should not have been created as a direct reaction to Bianco, however justified based on conditions in the county jails. The matter should be handled in a blanket statewide statute mandating the severing the office of coroner from the office of sheriff. The circumstances in Riverside might merit this action, but the issue needs to be corrected everywhere given the importance of fairly determining whether a death was from natural causes or homicide.
Actually, all three positions — sheriff, coroner, medical examiner — should exist separately in each county to assure the application of best practices. Certainly, the added position will increase costs in most places, but the matter is one of principle. If the cost of having a coroner or medical examiner is too great for some small counties, perhaps one coroner and medical examiner could operate in several small counties jointly — but the county sheriff should never be in charge of such medical inquiries.
Coroners typically are elected positions, while medical examiners are almost always appointed. The latter always are physicians and can provide more detailed examinations based on toxicology and forensic autopsies. There’s overlap, but the two positions have distinct authority. For instance, coroners have the legal authority to call an inquest into a death if they suspect foul play. The goal should be to provide the maximum checks and balances when determining the cause of anyone’s death.
So while I applaud the Legislature’s willingness to take on this issue, it needs to expand its scope to the basic separation-of-powers principle and look beyond narrow concerns centered on partisanship.
Michael Warnken works on court cases relating to representation and other similar issues. He is an advisor for the nonprofit Citizens Rising.