Former Undersheriff Jim Peterson (left) is facing serious allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation from former Search and Rescue spokesperson Valerie Walston

Paul Wellman (file)

Former Undersheriff Jim Peterson (left) is facing serious allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation from former Search and Rescue spokesperson Valerie Walston

Undersheriff Jim Peterson Retired Amid ‘Sexting’ Scandal

Former Search and Rescue Volunteer Valerie Walston Files Claim Alleging Harassment and Retaliation

Friday, November 22, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

When Undersheriff Jim Peterson suddenly retired last month from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, after more than 30 years as a respected lawman and two-and-half years as Sheriff Bill Brown’s second-in-command, there was little fanfare and even less explanation. The official statement from his department was that he left for “personal reasons.” He gave Brown his notice on October 14, notified staff via email on the 15th, and was gone by the 16th.

However, a claim filed with the County Clerk’s Office the afternoon of Friday, November 15 — the first step in the process toward a civil lawsuit — may explain Peterson’s quick and unceremonious departure. Valerie Walston, a former spokesperson for the all-volunteer Santa Barbara Search and Rescue Team, is alleging that Peterson made aggressive and unwanted sexual advances toward her (which she relented to out of a reported fear of losing her job), that he promised to get her promoted if she slept with him, that she was actually demoted then relieved of all Search and Rescue duties when their relationship ended badly, and that the Sheriff’s Office failed to properly investigate the ongoing harassment.

The allegations are laid out in a shockingly explicit 17-page document drafted by Walston’s attorney, Garry Tetalman, who declined to discuss the matter when contacted, instead requesting without explanation that The Santa Barbara Independent delay the article for “a couple of weeks.” The claim is for “well in excess of $10,000,” according to its cover sheet. (Any amount less than $10,000 would be handled by small claims court.) Though the document is available to the public, The Independent has decided not to disseminate it because of its overly graphic and lurid nature.

During an initial conversation with Walston on Monday, she avoided questions about the circumstances surrounding Peterson’s retirement and expressed surprise at the suggestion he had engaged in inappropriate conduct with a member of the department. She also claimed she was still the Search and Rescue team’s Marketing Officer. Walston has not returned multiple calls and emails for comment since then. Those with knowledge of the affair, but who are not authorized to speak to the media about it, say Walston was actually the aggressor in the relationship, that she pursued Peterson so he would promote her.

County Counsel Dennis Marshall said his office is currently looking into the case but can’t talk about pending litigation. “Stay tuned,” he said, noting such complaints are inherently one-sided. Peterson’s attorney, Chris Kroes, said he was unable to comment at this time.

And Sheriff Bill Brown issued this statement to The Independent on Friday: “The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office holds all of its members to the highest professional standards. As soon as allegations of sexual harassment were brought to my attention I initiated an internal affairs investigation that was led by a respected, independent investigator from outside our organization. The narrative attached to the plaintiff’s tort claim is an incomplete representation of what transpired when compared to the results of our investigation. Due to the threat of a lawsuit, I am unable to comment on any specifics at this time, but if the matter proceeds to litigation, the rest of the story will be told.”

Sheriff Bill Brown (left) and former Undersheriff Jim Peterson
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman (file)

Sheriff Bill Brown (left) and former Undersheriff Jim Peterson

11,500 Shades of Grey

After a background check and five months of training in 2010, Walston — a self-described “city girl” — became a certified member of the Search and Rescue team (SAR), and was eventually named its chief spokesperson. Before that (according to her online résumé), she had worked as a freelance publicist and social media consultant, a press secretary for Senate Candidate Bill Jones, a communication manager for the University of California, and briefly as a freelance producer for Fox News and a deputy press secretary for the Republican National Committee.

She attacked her new SAR job with an enthusiasm — wearing her uniform and gear to official functions and peppering the community with media releases and Facebook posts — that both impressed and annoyed her colleagues. (She even authored a piece for this newspaper as part of this search and rescue cover story in August 2011.) So it was of little surprise when, in October 2012, Walston put in an application to become the Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer (PIO), “which was her dream job,” according to the complaint. “For Ms. Walston, everything took a turn for the the worse once she met the then Undersheriff Jim Peterson,” it reads.

That introduction took place on October 31, 2012, during the Isla Vista Foot Patrol’s Halloween operations. Peterson told Walston he knew she had applied for the Sheriff’s PIO job and that he thought she did “very well” during her mock TV interview. They would talk several more times that night. Three weeks later at the annual SAR dinner in Buellton, Peterson told Walston she “looked beautiful,” but later explained she didn’t get the PIO job. Walston said she broke down in tears and walked out of the event.

The next day, Walston emailed Peterson to apologize for crying. This started a flurry of emails back and forth that began professionally enough but then reportedly descended into subtle flirting and outright sexual advances. “I hate it when my mind begins to wander…” Peterson wrote, among other innuendos. “Sounds to me that there are 32 lucky guys out there,” in reference to the 32 male SAR volunteers. Peterson then asked for Walston’s personal cell phone number so he could text her a photo of the San Francisco 49ers. (They had discovered they were both fans of the Bay Area football team.) Thinking it was somewhat strange, Walston nevertheless decided to oblige because “she believed that if she was friendly with Mr. Peterson, he would be a good ally to have in her corner.”

Over the course of the next 10-12 months, Peterson and Walston exchanged over 11,500 text messages, the claim alleges. Attorney Garry Tetalman stated all of the messages have been obtained by the Sheriff’s Office, and that his office has copies, as well. In an early correspondence, Peterson reportedly told Walston that he intended to run for the County Board of Supervisors, and that he planned on retiring from the Sheriff’s Office in the spring of 2015. Soon thereafter he asked her “to speak French to him.”

In the complaint, Walston says she told Peterson their exchanges were inappropriate, that she was in a committed relationship, and that he was a married man and her supervisor. Peterson responded that she should use a “safe word” if he started to cross the line. They decided the safe word would be “Bill Brown.” Peterson also reportedly wanted them to refer to each other as “Christian” and “Anastasia” (the two main characters from the novel Fifty Shades of Grey) and asked Walston to to keep their texting a secret.

After more back-and-forth throughout November 2012, Walston — reportedly fearful that if she did not engage in the banter that Peterson would “become angry with her” and do something to hurt her career — “made the decision to humor him” and texted that she “could let her guard down a little.” At this point, the claim alleges, the messages from Peterson became “extremely sexually explicit.”

The day after Thanksgiving, Walston informed Peterson that she was going to apply for the PIO position again. “Just don’t hold it against me if I apply with the [Sheriff’s Office] again,” she wrote. “(Hell, maybe it’ll help haha.)” The claim states Walston was referring to what she thought was an innocent friendship. Peterson responded: “It will definitely help.” Walston answered back: “Then I’ll have to be even nicer!” Again, the claim states, “Ms. Walston was referring to maintaining a platonic friendship with Mr. Peterson. She had no intention of engaging in a sexual relationship with him.” A few days later, Peterson asked Walston if she would like to go on a walk with him. Walston suggested they go to dinner instead.

Later that week, Peterson reportedly texted Walston pictures of himself “in different states of arousal” and asked that she send him photos back. “Ms. Walston complied, not wanting to upset him given the fact that he was clearly drunk,” the claim states, repeatedly asserting that Walston only went along with Peterson’s requests for fear of professional retaliation if she didn’t. “She clearly knew that she had lost complete control over the situation and had to do whatever Mr. Peterson said or risk losing the one job that she loved and any potential for career advancement,” it says. Walston reportedly reminded Peterson over and over that she had a boyfriend (another Sheriff’s Office employee) and that Peterson had his family to worry about (including a son who works in the County Jail as a Sheriff’s Custody Deputy).

At one point, Peterson texted, “My wife and I have an arrangement and understanding. Hahahaha.” He also said he had a vasectomy and that he was “pretty sure” he did not have any children he did not know about. Walston asked Peterson if “she was the first girl at the SBSO he liked,” the complaint reads, “and he responded in the negative indicating that he had done this in the past.” Attorney Tetalman states in a footnote after this entry: “We are aware that Mr. Peterson has had affairs within the SBSO in the past and yet was not reprimanded for this behavior. Should this matter go to litigation, we will be investigating this further.” Tetalman further alleges that, “[O]ther Sheriff’s Office employees began to notice that Mr. Peterson had a thing for Ms. Walston.” They reportedly advised her that Peterson was not to be trusted and that she should keep her distance from him.

In early December, Peterson asked Walston to delete their text messages, later suggesting they meet at the FedEx Kinko’s parking lot on Hope Avenue to discuss the PIO position. “Ms. Walston felt that this was weird but decided to go along with it,” the filing states. There, Walston asked why Kelly Hoover had been hired as the PIO over her, and wondered aloud if her and Peterson’s relationship had hurt her chances. He told her it hadn’t, and that he could indeed help her with her career. They took a picture together and parted ways.

Two weeks passed before Peterson and Walston rendezvoused again, this time in the parking lot of the Santa Ynez Apartments in Isla Vista. They talked more about the PIO position and drank wine together. The next day, Peterson reportedly ordered Walston to delete their text messages, which she didn’t. Shortly thereafter, they went to go see a production of West Side Story in Los Angeles, met again in the Kinko’s parking lot to drink mimosas, and arranged to see each other in the Costco parking lot in Goleta.

By Paul Wellman (file)

Valerie Walston (center) with two Search and Rescue team members

Hot then Cold

By the end of January, the complaint asserts, the pair were meeting regularly in other out-of-the-way locations where they would “kiss, grope, and fondle each other.” The claim goes into great detail on these encounters, describing Walston as an unwilling and powerless victim. Walston’s attorney said she started seeing a psychiatrist around this time who prescribed anti-anxiety medication, that she had broken up with her boyfriend, and was starting to pull away from friends and family. “She loved her job so much and really wanted to advance her career with the SBSO,” he wrote, “but realized that the only way that this was going to safely happen had nothing to do with her merits, but rather if she complied with what Mr. Peterson demanded from her.”

More of these “dates” occurred over the next few months, mainly in the back of their cars. On April 26, during the California Undersheriff’s Conference at the Fess Parker Doubletree hotel, Walston met Peterson at his suite. Then on July 28, 2013, at a dinner with Sgt. Sandra Brown and another SAR member, Walston was told Peterson had lied to her about the PIO position (about what exactly is unclear), and later that evening, Walston forwarded Sgt. Brown several of the nude photographs Peterson had sent her. Sgt. Brown, who is running against Sheriff Bill Brown in next November’s election, informed Walston she was contractually obligated to report Peterson’s actions to her supervisor. She did so, and an investigation was launched into the affair.

Walston told Peterson about the pending inquiry, to which Peterson reportedly responded, “Well, I’m fucked.” Between August 2 and September 23, Walston was interviewed a number of times by Sheriff’s officials who also downloaded the texts from her phone, including exchanges with SAR member Stephen Allcott. Walston’s attorney says her communications with Allcott were outside the scope of the permission Walston had given.

In early September, the decision was made to eliminate the Search and Rescue PIO position, and that all of the group’s communications would go through current Sheriff PIO Kelly Hoover. Walston was made SAR’s Marketing Officer at that time and told any information she distributed needed to be approved first. On October 22, both Walston and Allcott — a 27-year veteran of the team — were relieved of all of their SAR duties.

“Ms. Walston’s ‘termination’ on October 22, 2013, was clearly pretextual due to the fact that she was forced to engage in a sexual relationship with Mr. Peterson,” the claim’s narrative concludes. “Finally, as a result of everything that has happened, she has also been blackballed in the community and lost everything that she had held so dear to her.”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Wow. Peterson's departure from the Sheriff's Department was so abrupt I knew there had to be a backstory. His resignation/retirement/whatever just didn't happen the way they usually go down.

It's sad to read about this kind of he said-she said behavior on such a grand scale. I wouldn't be surprised if the voters remember all of this at election time.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stupid is as stupid does, on both their parts. No sympathies for either of them; but she has all the cards to play in this one.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry but as one who was sexually abused as I child I take great exception to a grown woman who drove to multiple trysts and is now crying "foul". She made her choice...her job/advancement was more important than her dignity or doing the right thing that she claims she identified several times over the course of this fiasco. They're both guilty in this and I hope she doesn't get a windfall. Mimosas should go great with this bitter pill.

kssh (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone is going to have opinions about this. The fact of the matter is that preying on one's subordinates is never okay.

ooshea (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ooshea is right. She may be a grown woman, flirting with a superior or whatever, but he's still in a position of authority and she's the subordinate. And how many more women are we going to hear (or see) about? Weinergate Santa Barbara-style: Petergate! How long has management known this guy is a slimeball, and still promoted? This could cost the taxpayers lots of moola.

99russelld (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I imagine the County will want to pay out some money to make this go away as quickly and quietly as possible, and much cheaper than going to trial. We'll see.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She spent plenty of non-working time with him as well, so this was not a hostile workplace that prevented her from taking protective action.

Government employment is loaded with whistle-blower statutes to protect her at any intermediate point in this sordid affair. Bogus to claim she could not exercise her rights out of fear of retaliation, prior to the "unfortunate" breakup.

Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned, my boys. Always keep this in the back of your mind, or where ever else you do your thinking.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Both were somewhat talented individuals who should have had the ability to hold a "moral compass." So sad that apparently the amour and lack of ethics were possibly, more than either could manage.

SpankyMcGraw (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry but only one of these two was serving as the Undersheriff, 2nd in Command, paid a huge salary, in a position of power, where the exercise of good judgment is paramount. so it's not "he said-she said"- it's wow how
was this man allowed to remain in this position acting in the
manner he did.

whosecityisthis2012 (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good thing it happened now rather than later, when he could have been Brown's successor. I wonder how many other times he has used his position for personal reasons? This type of person is no different than a sexual predator, or a violent predator, they get off by abusing what is within their power to abuse.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we are all basically in agreement. The only new direction I want to take this is is by asking why the figure of $10,000? I know, it says "well in excess of" but I'm just curious.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ohhh come on whosecityisthis2012 , the idea that she is an innocent victim is ludicrous, she had plenty of power in this situation as well, and to not see that is naive. Power comes in many forms ( not just a high salary ) , she is a beautiful woman. Sadly they both loose as a result of their actions though, and taxpayers end up paying out.

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Victim Inc. rides to the rescue again: doing no one any favors.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez i double checked but nope, i never used the word victim. Only question is who was acting in his professional capacity on duty and in a position of power. Some public or private employees might be terminated forthwith for sending one let alone 11.000 sext messages. Sounds like this wasnt an isolated incident. And thats all i have to say. Movin on from this train wreck of a story,

whosecityisthis2012 (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2013 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what happens when two employees screw up. First thing, both these people are employees of the County. We pay their wages with our taxes.

Peterson looks like some guy caught in a dead end relationship, apparently not wise enough to knock this off, and put his prolific texting talents to good use on some e dating website, would have done him good to find someone like him that would have accepted him for who he was no strings. But no he kept on pumping nickels into the slot machine convinced one day he was going to pull that handle and hit the jackpot. Men in this same position take note of my advise. Please!

Then we have her, talented young and on her way up, clearly when you look at the pictures, Peterson is older and she is surrounded by young healthy men in the prime of their lives. Obviously she was creeped out and didn’t want to “do” some older married guy with kids. But for unknown reasons she allows this unhealthy and unprofessional relationship to advance. Youthful confusion, or grasping for that brass ring. Nobody knows but her. Its strange that in a County populated with nearly half a million people she couldn’t round up one single competent person with the proper advise. This could have been easily handled by a professional advisor.

Then its discovered by “the Boss” and its over and they are both packing their bags, as they should be.

Youthful ignorance and the usual bad advise one gets from those fair weather friends gets the better of her, she sues, she could have just walked away, but if she thinks she is blackballed now, this law suit will follow her for the rest of her professional life. She had the better part of her life left to start over, pull a geographical, relocate, and being wiser the second time around would have been able to avoid these kinds of snags. And with her talents would have very likely made it. But now the law suit, a short term reward, that is surely going to be the guarantor of many unhappy results in the future. The attorneys assertion that this was pretextual, kind of stretch, she wasn’t in custody, or detained, she was an employee, and the accused was a fellow employee. But hey if the attorneys do their job and I think they will, she will walk off with a fat check, not the jackpot either party wanted.

Oh well, just another unwanted distraction from the disastrous fiscal state the County is in.

eddiep (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow for this story! Both of these are low-lifes and seem to deserve each other. The ones who are getting screwed are the county taxpayers. Probably both of them are now getting severance pay from the county. Sherrif Brown did a poor job of choosing a second - in -command and we outside the closed circle of LEOs can but guess at the morale within that department.

at_large (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How does a guy stupid enough to text naked pix of himself end up undersheriff. How low is that bar.

As for dipping his pen in company ink, happens the world over. And she should get nothing.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The best comment string on a story I've ever read. Every comment is right on point. Neither of these two people are innocent, but Peterson absolutely crossed the line in his advances and actions. Walston also, as she made the decision to go forward with the affair, and when it no longer suited her desires for personal and professional advancement, made it public. Shame on both of them for allowing their personal desires to cloud their better judgement. As many have already said, now the county taxpayers are the losers here.

A wise police chief once gave some sage advice to his young new hires; "Mind your reputation, because that's all you have in the end. Be careful of the three 'B's: Booze, Broads, and Bullets, they've brought down many a good cop."

SBLover35 (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ironic, this gal allegedly trained in S&R could not lift a finger to rescue herself?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tough call. Was she sleeping her way to the top, or was he sleeping his way to the bottom? Her fit of pique timing and choice for exposure tells a lot about her own motivations. His were like Clinton's; a crime of opportunity.

Dead end career moves for both of them. Don't care to waste any more taxpayer dollars on either of them. But we will.

How will this affect the county's legal liability insurance policy rates? Her attorneys will certainly go for the policy limits …… well in excess of $10,000.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Walston is either insanely stupid or really greedy. Either way, she'll never work in PR again... No one in their right mind would hire her.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The most troubling thing to me about this is how a man with such a debased and flawed moral character, incredibly bad judgment, and obvious sub-par level of intelligence got into such a high position in law enforcement. We are in trouble as a society if we are relying on intellectually impaired narcissistic sociopaths to protect us from the intellectually impaired narcissistic sociopaths.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Narcissistic sociopaths get elected at all levels of our government, from top to bottom. It is in fact a job qualification.

God protect our system of checks and balances and over-reaching power grabs by those sworn to uphold the law. At all levels, both local and national. Our nation's Founders were wise. They knew about narcissistic sociopaths back then too.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@ Bill- Anything under $10,000 goes to small claims, and this case is going for the big bucks, so it has to be over $10,000. I wonder if there has ever been a case where two people like this have sued a gov't entity (i.e. County of SB) they work in, just to get a settlement and split it in the future once they are out of the public eye? Either a great fiction or a fact stranger than fiction.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the bottom of the thread to the top... I think Eckermann has a major point here, Iamsomeguy has no reason to be commenting, he's just name calling. Foofighter has some good insurance questions and the first comment is correct, she has cards, eddiep has his head in the right place, taking an approach from both sides. Az2sb's thinking that we could have seen this down the road is plausible, the use of power and influence can be a huge psychological factor. Whosecityisthis2012's first comment makes the most sense of their comment string. Spanky takes the most non-confrontational and non-aggressive approach, this comment stuck out the most of all. 99russell and ooshea bring up very good points about positions of authority. Legendaryyeti is right about election time, how did the #1 guy not know about the #2 guy and his history

EVERYTHING ELSE JUST SEEMS TOO NEGATIVE TO READ, in addition to wandering away from what the story here says.

oh_snap_sb (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicans and sleaze. Nothing new to see here.

JayB (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As usual, Eckermann makes a good point. I'm sure Mr. Peterson didn't exhibit the signs of narcissistic sociopathy early in his career.

I was struck by his pretty rapid rise to the #2 position within the department, so I figured he was very good at not doing anything controversial out in the field, taking tests and oral boards, schmoozing his superiors, being in the right place at the right time, and working on the right political campaign[s].

He also exhibits well-honed instincts in self-protection. I note that his response to the investigation was to quickly resign and walk away from the mess. I don't have a dog in this fight, but IMO this says a great deal about the truth of many of these allegations.

Did I read in the story that Mr. Peterson planned a run for County supervisor in a few years? Well, if so and he actually runs for office, that's chutzpah!

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like some attorney is now handing out plausibility score cards - beats the expense of running a mock trial to test the evidence.

If I were on the jury and listened to the "evidence" presented here so far, I'd let her play her power imbalance card and award her one dollar in damages.

S&R gals don't come across as helpless victims; in this case she comes across more the predatory vixen. But one dollar for a TKO. My final offer.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The one who should sue is Bill Brown, 'cause his re-election just went bye-bye. Deservedly so, for the fish always stinks from the head...

I, for one, want my money back if this tom-foolery is what we pay salaries for.

Beachgirl77 (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Won't affect Brown if he did the right thing after being notified. If that were the case, there wouldn't be many CEO's walking around.

formersbso (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)


From the bottom of the thread to the top... I think Eckermann has a major point here, Iamsomeguy has no reason to be commenting, he's just name calling. Foofighter has some good insurance questions and the first comment is correct, she has cards, eddiep has his head in the right place, taking an approach from both sides. Az2sb's thinking that we could have seen this down the road is plausible, the use of power and influence can be a huge psychological factor. Whosecityisthis2012's first comment makes the most sense of their comment string. Spanky takes the most non-confrontational and non-aggressive approach, this comment stuck out the most of all. 99russell and ooshea bring up very good points about positions of authority. Legendaryyeti is right about election time, how did the #1 guy not know about the #2 guy and his history

EVERYTHING ELSE JUST SEEMS TOO NEGATIVE TO READ, in addition to wandering away from what the story here says."

oh_snap_sb (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 11:35 a.m.

Critique me, critique me!

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People ….people …. can someone get a left-over critique out for dolphin?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's this going to cost us taxpayers when it's all over?



When will the City & County wake up & smell the corrupted coffee in this place?

Barron (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1. More
2.The corrupted coffee is Starbucks; bitter as all git up.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting, Ms. Walston is listed as a supporter of Sandra Brown's on her campaign website.

goletaguy (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2013 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JayB writes; "Republican and sleaze. Nothing new to see here."

JayB, your ignorance is showing, or at least you should clean your bathroom mirror.


If you are going to post/blog about facts at least be fair or you will be labelled or called out about being what you are, A PARTISAN LIBERAL HACK WITH AN POLITICAL AGENDA...

Priceless (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So now this run of comments is going to try and move some of the blame to Sergeant Sandra Brown? I read the article and believe she was the only one in the department who did the right thing. She could have taken the information on Jim Peterson and done a number of things with it, but she chose to follow policy, WOW what a concept!!! I noticed that Sergeant Brown has not gone to the media and has been nothing but professional, so GOLETAGUY-tell Bill nice try but he owns this one – no conspiracy here. I for one am glad she is running after reading this article. If even half of this is true there are some serious questions about what Sheriff Bill Brown has allowed to go on in the department.

sbprius (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You just made goletaguy's comment more relevant. Not that Sgt. Brown did anything wrong or intentionally learned of and reported the incidents, but it will be used by folks like you who will turn it into a political issue. It's a sad situation and being a fortune teller is not a requirement for the Office of Sheriff or any other CEO position. Chill out - this was a sad episode between TWO human beings that will affect their personal lives for a long time to come.

formersbso (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Probably not as much as it is going to hurt the county coffers.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Politics?? Here is the quote, "Walston forwarded Sgt. Brown several of the nude photographs Peterson had sent her." It is Sgt. Browns responsibility to tell Walston what her responsibility is. That's what leadership is. Bill Brown on the other hand tried to hide it from the members of the Sheriff's Dept and the public by telling his employees what a great leader Peterson was and not advising the public what was going on.

Bill Brown is a typical politician trying to save his own hide while trying to fool the public. It is truly time for change at SBSO…...

Priceless (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

formersbso is right. This is a sad and albeit stupid situation between two adults. Both are culpable. But suing makes her the instigator and a target.

She is no victim of anything other than her own misguided, potentially demented judgement. From what I read, she met with him dozens of times over months... They both knew exactly what they were doing.

This is the tale of scorn and spite.

For her to take this public and sue is ridiculously stupid and shortsighted. By taking this public and suing she's ruined her career and her reputation, his career and reputation and well beyond...

A tale of stupidity all around but one with all the right plot lines. Power, sex, politics, small town love affairs. Sure makes for great fodder.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As crude as this little dalliance was and disruptive to internal command and control, is there any proof Peterson was not adequately doing the rest of his job?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Poor, poor, repubicans gotta pay more money out in their taxes...

Byrd (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you sure you want to leave the impression only Republicans are working and/or successful enough to be taxpayers? Stick with the Republicans, is all I can say.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Walston is hardly a kid who suffered from "youthful ignorance, eddie! She's in her late 30's and should certainly have acquired some life skills in that time.

Excellent job, dolphipod14! A++

kssh (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Walston is not an innocent in all this. She appears to be just as immoral, narcissistic, and stupid as Peterson. However, Peterson being in the superior position in the employment relationship holds more responsibility for proper behavior under the law. As a career law enforcement officer, he should have known that. And Foofighter, regardless of how well or how poorly Peterson did other aspects of his job, someone who would cheat on his or her spouse and violate internal policies regarding sexual harassment, has neither the moral fiber nor the discipline to follow the law that should be required of any and all law enforcement officers.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Priceless, you left out Barney Frank and, sorry, JFK's numerous dalliances...which just proves human nature trumps political party affiliation. And 46 posts about this prurient BS between these two? Yes, it'll cost us all more, that's for sure, lawyers etc.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's costing the INDY bandwidth.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Repubicans are wussys.

Byrd (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Byrd, you forgot to blame George Bush!

Looper (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peterson preyed on Walston, that much is clear. He initiated the sexting, she wasn't interested and repeatedly told him so, and that wasn't good enough for the man with a great deal of power over her. He ordered her around, and for those of you who keep saying that she could have stopped it, it's not that easy when you're being hunted by a predator.

ooshea (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, is that building a prejudicial scenario. But that will be for the jury to decide when all the facts are presented to match up with the emotional defense.

Gosh, you mean to say all the whistle blower laws, the civil rights protections and hostile workplace regulations are 150% bogus? Good to know. Turn back the clock before the women's movement is all I can say. They haven't gained an inch. Not a single defense from predatory bosses. Who knew.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Women in Santa Barbara, you never have to feel alone if you have a "predatory boss". Confidential services are always available for you at the SB Rape Crisis Counseling Center. And have been for years.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

County of Santa Barbara workplace harassment policies and FAQ:

EEOC also has offices in Santa Barbara - sexual harassment and a hostile workplace are a federal offense.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps mutual? Remember, the tort release that the story is based on only gives one side of the story.

formersbso (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

California Employment and Fair Housing offers additional protections against sexual harassment in the work place.

If these statutes are not working, contact Das Williams and Hannah-Beth Jackson and explain why with all these statutory protections in place, someone today still becomes a victim of a "predatory boss".

What are the roadblocks to the laws already on the books that have been in place now for decades to protect women in the workplace? Let them know and tell them to remedy the weaknesses.

Hannah-Beth Jackson champions herself as a woman's rights activist. If she has dropped the ball and predatory bosses still control the workplace, then she has her work cut out for her if she wants to keep her title as protector of the downtrodden and the most vulnerable amongst us. (Unless you are a fetus, but that does not apply to the present case.)

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 24, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bryd & JayB,

Your juvenile attempt at linking "Republicans" into this story just shows how ignorant you two are. What does politics have to do with "Sexting" and/or bad behavior?

The story is about two idiots one volunteer and one 2nd in command of a Sheriff's Dept.. These two have brought another black eye to this agency. There are many, many good people in that organization. I have talked to many and they are embarrassed at what has transpired for several years.

That organization has been run by a narcissist who does not care for its people. He speaks well in public but if you were to ask the ground level people they would tell you it is Bill Brown that has dumped on this agency. Bill Brown is all about himself and will step on anybody that gets in his way. HE WANTS HIS NAME ON A BUILDING.

Bill Brown was the one that promoted Peterson to 2nd in command because Peterson was a "Yes man" according to insiders.

You people want "Change" vote Bill Brown out in June 2014 and change the regime of narcissists in this county. There are several others in the Board of Supervisors whose time has come as well. Complaining about someone then continuing to vote for the same idiots gets us deeper in the toilet. Vote them all out this June…..

Priceless (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

partly agree, Priceless, and SBCSAR [SAR] is a terrific outfit, skilled, helpful, and these good men and women don't need this garbage [now 58 posts].
Let's ask Ben Bycel in his ethicist column to speak to a hypothetical in this sort of case [not THIS case, though].

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)


You are right about SAR, I forgot to mention their black eye as well. My bad. These people give hundreds of hours of their own time to give back to the community to help others in need.

Unfortunately, there are bad apples in every profession public or private even some on commenting on this post….

Priceless (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Moral litmus tests for private lives as a public job requirement must be applied across the board with discrimination, eckermann. How do you propose doing this?

Easy to stand in moral judgment after the fact, but if Peterson was conducting his public job without reproach, how were you going to flush him out on his private morality decisions, and everyone else who works in LE.

The question posed was whether Peterson had shown evidence of dereliction of his public duties in any objectively corroborated fashion, or did this private affair spill over into his public duties that can be verified by standards applied and enforced on all public personnel.

I am in agreement that we need high moral standards in LA and just about every where else in life. The curiosity is how we get there in today's free-wheeling climate of anything goes as long as you don't get caught. Let alone who defines the moral standards in the first place.

Somehow it seemed easier a few decades ago when there was a sense of common understanding about morality; but that is no longer the case. How do we live with that today?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so foo seems to be writing from LA or with an LA lens... ha

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter also seems convinced that this case will be going to a jury. I'd be very surprised if it gets that far. I expect the County will ultimately pay out some money to make the case go away as quickly and quietly as possible. Mr. Peterson has already resigned, so I think the administrative actions that can be taken against him are pretty limited.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Walston has volunteered with search and rescue since at least 2010, it looks like. KEYT did a story on search and rescue last year I think, and they work really hard, hundreds or even thousands of hours a year, and ask for nothing in return. Obviously, Walston's agenda was to help people, not climb some ladder. I don't htink anyone would be willing to work that hard, that much, for three or four years, !!! for free !!! just to climb a stupid ladder.

JCammie (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this case will not get to a jury either. She is not a convincing plaintiff right off the bat. Juries apply their moral prejudices too, often in lieu of the "evidence".

Yes, more than a few typos in my prior post. Consider them corrected. LA values sadly have infiltrated LE and just about everything else. I like SB better when it was geographically part of Northern California, in its demographic focus. But that was back when we also had a sense of common shared values.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Foofighter, I don't believe that we are dealing with any difficult moral ambiguities here. If a person makes a promise of marital fidelity and then breaks that promise then the person is a liar and a promise-breaker. I don't know any system of ethics in which that would pass muster as a moral act. Secondly, with regard to job performance, people in superior employment relationships are not supposed to engage in romantic pursuits of their subordinates. That comes right of supervision 101 and every workplace policy manual I ever saw. If these were two single deputies who had an affair that went bad, I would shrug it off as poor judgment and romance and not make the severe judgments that I did on these posts. But this circumstance is very different from simply a romantic entanglement that went bad.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm...I think the undersheriff was probably complicit in having an affair, but GEEZ people nobody sees the VOLUNTEER unpaid SAR Watson as complicit too? She was worried about her "job" really? According to the website, it's volunteer and unpaid. People keep saying that she feared for her job? Go somewhere else and volunteer. Puhleeze, she couldn't say anything for fear that'd she lose her unpaid volunteer position? How many times did she meet him and her boyfriend was in the department too and she never said anything to him? I'm usually understanding of a defenseless woman, but something stinks here. I'm sure new things are going to come out. I smell a rat. It's not the days of Anita Hill anymore. There are checks and balances to these things...oh I'm scared of him so I'm going to go drink in a parking lot with him and I'm really scared so I'm going to go all the way to L.A. and go see a play with him??? It takes two to tango. Seems like she wants a payout since she doesn't seem to have any paid position anywhere....

carpbythesea (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eckermann, if you can't answer a direct question with a direct answer you are going to irritate juries as well. Best to settle for what ever nuisance value you can get out of this.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

See, this is why I don't like giving the government nice things.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eckermann, Marriage is between two adults, its construct and boundaries are between those two people, and them alone. Your morality and religious beliefs are not everyone's, nor are they the rule of law. So your morality argument is irrelevant.

This is the lawsuit of a woman scorned and upset she didnt get what she wanted. She may win some money but she'll never ever work in this town again. No one I know would ever hire someone with such poor judgement and worse, a sue happy trigger finger. What would have happened if she had gotten the job? Would one of her colleagues have ratted these two out? Seems like a likely scenario considering her wants and his position and past...

As far as I am concerned she is as culpable as he and therefore deserves nothing. In addition she was not qualified for the job she "dreamed" of any more than she is qualified to play the victim here... she is the very epitome of why many men do not want to hire women at all...

Stick that if your feminist pipe ladies...

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oops, your anti-female venom is showing, someguy!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When good talent and skills go to waste. Both had awesome careers yet chose to REALLY screw that up. And all for what? Pathetic.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Carpbythesea. I read a lot of crappy comments and finally almost at the end, someone said what I was waiting to hear. VOLUNTEER! how do you get fired or promoted as a VOLUNTEER? Gee is she going to sue for 10 times her salary of NOTHING? She let herself stay in this position in hopes that it would bear fruit. Hopefully a jury review her moral turpitude.
I would like to add that this cop obviously has the social graces of a high school football player. How could he be so DUMB as to not think he was setting himself up for the fall? He was too bitchen to completely ignore all of the sexual harassment seminars given to all county employees? Saw the word narcissist used in further up post. Have to agree. Seems to be a lot of these stories about cops run a muck are the same. Maybe they know how to control a situation with suspect but many it seems have no clue how to carry on normal relationships with the opposite sex other than to try to used their badge to get some.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

how does one go from director of broadcasting at the Cato Institute to volunteer SAR member in santa barbara? interesting career path ms. walston had taken prior to this scandal. should be fun watching this fiasco play out

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iamsomeguyinsb - so by that reasoning, no man should be hired in this town, either. That is point 1 that is illogical. Point 2 is that not all women are like Walston. On a very superficial level, I have never seen anyone pose the way she did for photos. The majority of working women in this town do valuable work - sometimes better than men. So, I would say you need to look through better glasses.

And as a woman, I would like to add that she could have stopped this at anytime. There are many men who will take any chance they get (a reason to not hire any men? no, just not some) and women need to see them for what they are. I have certainly rebuffed plenty. I would also never want to get a promotion based on anything but my work efforts - otherwise it is not valid. Her performance is a reflection of her values, and hers alone.

Always judge the individual, not the group. Otherwise I could easily dismiss all men as jerks from some of those have acted that way.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Show of hands for all those who have ever been sexually preyed on by the #2 person in a high-profile department. Show of hands for those who have ever been cheated on after years of marriage only to have it splashed all over the media and have trolls like you weigh in with your myopic opinions. Show of hands who have been so torn apart publicly that you'll never work in this town again. Oh, none of you? Then shut up.

JCammie (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha, you've never been abused before, I assume. You can't just "stop this at anytime." She was preyed upon by a man who very clearly had an agenda with Walston and would do whatever he needed and wanted to get it. There's no stopping a trainwreck when your predator has you tied to the rails. And meanwhile Bill Brown just let it happen.

ooshea (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good points both parties should have thought about ahead of time. Can't cry foul now.

What do they say about an ethical person: Someone who does the right thing, even when no one is watching.

The timing of her exposure of this affair and to whom paints her as a vindictive person; not an abused person. Otherwise, she would have done something far earlier and in proper channels. Juries have to go with their hunches, when they put the facts in testimony together for a verdict.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vindictive, really, foo? Last I checked, retaliation was illegal.

ooshea (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JCammie, I wish everyone would read your last comment before posting more nonsense on here. All I see here are opinionated trolls with little to go on so it has digressed to story generating. Ooshea has a good point that predation has no limits and rarely decreases, very much the opposite, VICTIMS become increasingly fearful of a predator's actions leading to further harassment.

It seems as though everyone on this thread suffers from schadenfreude, those of you too into these posts to know or look-up, it's a feeling or sense of satisfaction that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people. Most of the posting on here is disturbing and very hurtful and disgraceful to any woman that is currently or may go through a difficult situation such as this in their lifetime (this isn't the first nor the last time that a female will be taken advantage of and used, unable to properly defend herself). Think about the psychological effects behind sexual coercion, assault and rape before posting.

Anybody else see how hurtful victim-blaming on here could be to past, present and future victims of crimes against women? These opinions are absolutely disgraceful.

oh_snap_sb (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2013 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)


You must be new to this website blog and comment section. There are many trolls that post here. Most of their postings are false, opinionated, done to harm others, defaming, ridicule, most of the time have no clue as to what they are saying or claiming, bring politics into something that politics isn't involved, ridicule a whole organization or business because of a few miscreants etc., etc., etc….

That is what occurs when one is continually blaming others with vile postings and is anonymous. So, if you are irritated by what you see here you better stop reading these comments...

Priceless (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh please. I love women. I respect women but I hate women (and men) like Waltson. People without integrity or scruples but a whole lot of moxie. She obviously has no shame.

This isnt a single instance of insubordination. Its a clear cut case of a woman trying to sleep her way into a job and taking full advantage of a man's weakness. He was played. And it cost him far more than one can measure in a lawsuit.

Those of you who race to her defense are showing your prejudice and your ignorance. While I'd certainly give her the benefit of doubt if this was a result of a few sexual incidents, I cannot give her any credit when she was a willing party if not the instigator of the entire fiasco. A fiasco that went on for a long time with two willing parties! Both of whom are idiots of the highest order.

To sue and to ruin both of their careers is the mark of stupidity, desperation and denial.

Women like her who cry wolf, are the reason that so many people (men and women) distrust these accusations. She didnt get what she set out to get (a promotion) and so she cries foul... And now she rightly faces the public blow back from years of bad judgement and poor execution. Racing to her defense is not supporting justice, its pure prejudice.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Trolls? Oh come on now. You can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. iamsomeguy nailed it too. These two both have jobs, or volunteer positions that are way within the public eye and they both knew it. The poor decisions they have made will adversely affect lives other than their own. If I were this gal's boyfriend I would be thinking twice about her trustworthiness vs her career aspirations. Bad moves. I think Brown did the right thing and handled it. Maybe Sanchez should take note.

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Should all of the protective resources for women facing sexual harassment in the workplace now be abolished, since they have done nothing to prevent or provide an escape route for a woman caught in this similar scenario?

Can you show us one instance when those protective regulations and recourses actually did what they were intended to do?

Or does a woman today still have to suffer in silence, put up with the predatory actions of a superior and feel 100% victimized …until something else finally causes this woman to escape this workforce harassment situation?

I am serious. You need to bring this to the attention of Sen Hannah-Beth Jackson that women today are still being abused unconscionably in the workplace with zero hope of recourse. That was not the way it was supposed to turn out.

All the laws and regulations and review agencies set up to protect women in the workplace apparently employ people to do nothing it appears from the excuses still being presented here.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Yes trolls. I can stand whatever is thrown my way. At my place the kitchen is always hot debating misfits. Just because ones position is in the publics eye does not give one the right to opine based on your ignorance on facts you have no idea what is right or wrong. Your opinions mean nothing in the big world. You can write, slam, defame, criticize and name call all you want. At the end of the day all trolls scurry back to their holes and await another day or scandal to blog about…….

Priceless (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anybody notice that Sheriff Bill Brown was told of this before August and Peterson didn't resign until October 16th? During that period Peterson remained on the job instead of being placed on admin leave. How many deputies did he stand in judgement of during that time? Not to mention all that time he was playing the role of Undersheriff Jim "Anthony Wiener" Peterson.

What's worse is that Bill Brown is well known to be the absent Sheriff. Always politicking around the state instead of taking care of his own house. Guess who's been in charge during all that time?

Goes to show the Sheriff's Department is more of a political peyton place than a law enforcement agency.

Validated (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Bill Brown needs to go around the state to bring back money for the North County jail, I say go for it. Yes, politicking around the state is what a good Sheriff does and I am glad he is keeping a high profile at the state level.

If no one know about the private dalliances of an underling since the alleged victim refused to avail herself of the multiple ways to report this, how do you suppose the head guy was supposed to know about this?

Sounds like he did what needed to be done in good order. And get that North County jail, Mr Brown. Any way you have to do it.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 26, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait a minute.

The Santa Barbara Undersheriff, who works in Santa Barbara, gets a suite at the Santa Barbara Doubletree to attend a conference?!

Could we drop the sexting drama and look into SBSO travel and conference expenditures, please?

RyanOSorress (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agree Ryan -- LET'S LOOK AT BILL BROWN'S, SANDRA BROWN'S, and other brass in Sheriff/SBPD/SBFire who routinely do this sort of stuff! This really is the story, not the tawdry affair besmirching both parties [87 comments 'cause somebody got hot?]!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

11,500 sexts works out to about 30 per day!
I wonder how many were from home? From the SBSO office? From a SBSO vehicle?
The only person who could comment that much per day would be "foofighter".

Looper (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This scandal does raise legitimate questions about Sheriff Brown's tenure and how he runs the department. Peterson was Brown's second-in-command of the entire operation. I would say that an undersheriff who has time to chase women not his wife and drink mimosas in parking lots doesn't have enough real work to occupy his time and should have been shown the door long ago. Or maybe Peterson was ignoring his real work while he was chasing women and drinking mimosas in parking lots.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

this is at Bill Brown's doorstep, but his challenger Sandra Brown is also involved. The 1% of the Sheriff's Dept., ethically challenged?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr Dan, I don't know why you keeping bringing Sgt Sandra Brown into this. She's not a politician or an administrator. She's a cop. She's the coroner. She was a volunteer SAR. And when she found out what was going on, she reported it when many others did not. She did the right thing.
Even the undersheriff's lawyer said that his behavior has been going on for many years and he was promoted nevertheless.

Looper (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

accept my error, Looper. Nothing against Sgt. Brown. However, she's been working in this corrupt atmosphere, she's female, the many allegations are that Peterson's been up to this for years [he admits it] ...where was the highest ranking female in the hierarchy when all this was coming down?
Thus, nothing so bad, but we're supposed to think about electing her to replace her boss? Don't think so.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shame on both of them.
Common sense and morals seem to have fallen by the wayside here.
If the story is true, Peterson's behavior is reprehensible, at the same time; how gullible can one be?, Feeling "pressured?" How about securing a job on your own abilities to DO the job? These are adults and I'm sorry, in my opinion, there are no victims here, just two adults using extremely poor judgement!

hrmom (anonymous profile)
November 28, 2013 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A few things are pretty clear...

-Only a jury's opinion will matter in the end.

-They're both adults and responsible for their own behavior, but Peterson was a very powerful and influential person conducting himself in a manner with complete disregard for the position of leadership he held.

-The only way Peterson could have sent that many texts was to have done so at work.

-If it comes out that Jim Peterson has any sort of history of similar acts then Sheriff Brown is completely responsible for his Undersheriff's behavior and showed a lack of leadership in promoting him.

-Sgt Sandra Brown could have went straight to the media with a press conference playing gotcha politics, but she did the right thing within policy and common decency. Peterson was investigated BEFORE it was brought to light.

-This is a huge stain on the sheriff's department reputation.

This certainly effects my decision on election day.

Validated (anonymous profile)
November 28, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like Sandra Brown as a female employee more likely was in a position to know about this alleged history of men behaving badly in her department, yet did nothing herself about this until it became politically expedient to do herself.

It is far more believable she would have been in the rumor link as rank and file than the CEO at the top would be privy to all this long-standing in-house gossip.

Looks like a second exploitation is going on with the Sandra Brown forces using this for political gain. Hopefully Sandra Brown will have more to run on than this because this only stinks of a lot of unclean hands, hers included.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2013 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well i have a few tidbits for your comments, 1st their both in the 40s not she some young 20s/30s victim, she graduated in 87 and him in 83 so there,
Next i have personally met this women recently and i thought it was very arousing the way she engaged with me. I felt i could have sex with her on the spot, she was beautiful, smelled amazing, pretty feet, great boobs peering out of her dress, eye contact the whole 9 yds.and this was in the middle of all this happening this past summer, so she is obviously capable of holding the attention of more then 1 man at a time.The dishonesty to her alleged boyfriend could be in question. they call them sirens they lure you in and then suck the life blood from ya.Don't get me wrong the Sheriff is definitely in the wrong being married and all but shes no victim, there are plenty of women like her out there, but she was HOT !! lol

cappy (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cappy, maybe she just want to be friendly to you. I tried to get frendry with another dolphin and he was very rude so I tell him "I wish to make friendship wit U, I don't wanna do da SEXY THING and slip my flipper into your blowhole".

U very paranoid 1 2-day.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: