What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, Santa Rosa, CA (2026)

The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office is dedicated to providing the members of our community with a safe place to live by holding the guilty accountable, protecting the innocent, and preserving the dignity of victims and their families. The purpose of this discussion is to present information relevant to the stated purpose of this site, regarding matters of public interest in the County of

Sonoma. We encourage you to submit your comments, but please note this is a moderated online discussion site. Please note that the comments expressed on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of the District Attorney's Office, its officers, agents, affiliates, or employees. If you have any questions concerning the operation of this online moderated discussion site, please contact us at 707-565-2311. By posting anything to this site, you agree to the following terms:

Users will treat others with respect. Users warrant that they own or have permission to post the information contained in their postings, including but not limited to video, photos, or digital reproductions and that no copyright or trademark infringement has taken place due to posting it on this site. Further, the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by users on this site is correct, and disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. Postings are intended for public view and any personal information posted constitutes a waiver of any rights to privacy or confidentiality. Once posted, the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office reserves the right to delete submissions that contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or comments that promote, foster or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation. Further, the [Local Agency] also reserves the right to delete comments that are: (i) spam or include links to other sites; (ii) clearly off topic; (iii) advocate illegal activity; (iv) promote particular services, products, or political organizations; (v) tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; or (vi) infringe on copyrights or trademarks.

05/26/2026

Countywide Organized Retail Theft Operation

On May 20, 2026, Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (RPDPS), Sonoma County Sherriff’s Office (SCSO), Windsor Police Department (WPD), Santa Rosa Police Department (SRPD), Petaluma Police Department (PPD) and the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Investigator’s Office participated in a countywide Organized Retail Theft (ORT) enforcement operation alongside allied loss prevention officers.

The following arrests were made by RPDPS:
Adrian Perez-Zamudio was arrested for:
◾Penal Code § 459.5(a) – Shoplifting – Misdemeanor
◾Perez-Zamudio was issued a citation to appear
Enedina Dominguez was arrested for:
◾Penal Code § 459.5(a) – Shoplifting - Misdemeanor
◾Penal Code § 666.1(a)(1) – Petty Theft with Prior Convictions - Felony
◾Health and Safety Code § 11364(a) – Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Misdemeanor
◾Dominguez is being held without bail

The following arrest was made by SCSO and WPD:
Michael Broach was arrested for:
◾Penal Code § 459.5(a) – Shoplifting - Misdemeanor
◾Penal Code § 666.1(a)(1) – Petty Theft with Prior Convictions - Felony
◾Broach is being held without bail.

SRPD made two arrests, however, their investigation is ongoing and the names will not be released at this time.

Organized retail theft is a serious problem that affects both public safety and businesses. These crimes can lead to major financial losses, put employees at risk, and drive up prices for customers. Many of these thefts are carried out by organized groups that steal items to resell online, through third-party sellers, or through illegal resale operations.

The goal of this enforcement operation was to identify and stop people involved in retail theft, break up organized theft rings, recover stolen merchandise, and pursue criminal charges against those responsible. Investigators focused on crimes such as shoplifting, burglary, possession of stolen property, fraud, and conspiracy.

This operation was a team effort involving local retailers, loss prevention staff, and partner law enforcement agencies. By sharing information, conducting surveillance, and coordinating investigations, agencies worked together to reduce repeat thefts and help protect businesses and the community.

For questions regarding this operation, members of the public are encouraged to contact
◾Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Detective Sergeant Quinn at (707) 588-3514.
◾Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Specialist Emily Fuller at (707) 565-3941
◾Santa Rosa Police Department Public Information Officer Sergeant Patricia Seffens at (707) 543-3634

05/19/2026

This , be aware of red flags and know your rights!

05/01/2026

The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office is aware of public statements by Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) claiming the April 30, 2026 appellate decision in People v. Hsiung recognizes a right to use the necessity defense to justify trespassing onto private agricultural property. That claim is incorrect.
The Hsiung decision arises from criminal convictions following a jury trial in Sonoma County Superior Court in 2023, where Mr. Hsiung was convicted of conspiracy and trespass-related offenses for his role in organized protest actions at Sonoma County agricultural farms in 2018 and 2019, by the vegan animal rights group, DxE. Those incidents involved DxE activists entering private property without permission, interfering with operations, and removing animals. The Court of Appeal reviewed those convictions and addressed limited legal issues about what evidence the jury should have been allowed to consider. It did not create any right to trespass.
In fact, the court rejected the necessity defense. It agreed with the trial court that the conduct was not an emergency. The actions were planned, coordinated, and deliberate, not a response to immediate harm.
The Court also emphasized California law already provides a lawful way to address suspected animal cruelty. Individuals can file a sworn complaint with a judge, who can issue a warrant for law enforcement to investigate. The court noted in Mr. Hsiung’s case there was no evidence this process was used before the trespasses occurred. That is critical because the necessity defense only applies when there are no reasonable legal alternatives. Here, there was one, and it was not used.
The limited reversal in Hsiung had nothing to do with authorizing trespass. The court ruled only that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether Mr. Hsiung believed his conduct was lawful, even if that belief was mistaken. That is a question about a defendant’s state of mind, not a determination the conduct itself was legal. It does not create legal justification for entering private property or interfering with lawful businesses.
District Attorney Carla Rodriguez stated:
“The Appellate Court unequivocally held that ‘necessity’ is not a legal defense to Mr. Hsiung’s actions. To be clear, all future trespassers are on notice that so-called “open rescues” are not justified under this legal theory, and any claim to be “mistaken” about the law is no longer credible.
At best, DxE’s public statement about the appellate decision is a misunderstanding of the law; at worst, it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Hsiung opinion addressed a narrow issue about whether a jury should be able to consider a defendant’s honest but mistaken belief about the law. They felt that the jury should have heard this information, and I respect their decision. With one conviction remaining, we will decide the best path forward after reviewing the record.”
The District Attorney’s Office respects lawful protest and the right to advocate for changes in law or policy. Strong beliefs do not create a legal right to trespass, interfere with regulated industries, or take property.

04/30/2026

SANTA ROSA MAN AND REPEAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDER SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR MAXIMUM TERM ALLOWED BY LAW
Defendant Aaron Perez-Gonzalez, 29 years old of Santa Rosa, was sentenced today by the Honorable Laura Passaglia to serve five years in state prison, the maximum prison term allowed by law, after pleading no contest to domestic violence with a prior conviction and committing a new act of domestic violence while awaiting sentencing.
District Attorney Carla Rodriguez stated, “Domestic violence is not a private matter. It is one of the most persistent and dangerous forms of violence in our community. It destroys lives in ways that extend far beyond any single incident. When offenders repeatedly ignore court orders and continue to harm the same victim, as happened here, it underscores exactly why accountability matters.”
On February 5, 2025, law enforcement responded to a report that Perez-Gonzalez had assaulted his girlfriend. The victim reported he slapped her multiple times and later punched her in the mouth, causing a laceration. Deputies observed visible injuries to her face and lip consistent with her account.
On June 11, 2025, just five days after pleading to the February 5th offense and while awaiting sentencing in that matter, Perez-Gonzalez again attacked the same victim. During an argument about the pending case, Perez-Gonzalez struck her in the mouth and later pushed her with such force that she fell face-first onto a curb. The impact caused facial trauma and a concussion.
At the time of this second assault, Perez-Gonzalez was subject to a no-contact criminal protective order. Evidence showed he not only violated that order but also attempted to pressure the victim to have it lifted.
This case did not occur in isolation. Perez-Gonzalez has a prior domestic violence conviction stemming from a 2019 incident in which he struck a different victim, caused facial injuries, and strangled her to the point of restricting her breathing. He pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge in that matter and performed poorly on probation, which was terminated in July of 2023.
Judge Passaglia imposed the maximum term of prison allowed by law after considering Perez-Gonzalez’s history of domestic violence, his failure to comply with court orders, and the increasing severity of his conduct. Judge Passaglia specifically noted that at every single opportunity Perez-Gonzalez had been given at rehabilitation, treatment, or to change his ways he had “failed miserably.”
The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Matt Hobson, assisted by District Attorney Investigator Hector DeLeon. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office headed the investigation.

04/22/2026

The Sonoma County AB 114 panel welcomes all community-based programs, government entities, and schools to apply for funding pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11489.

Address

Santa Rosa, CA
95403

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm

Telephone

+17075652311

Website

https://da.sonomacounty.ca.gov/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Sonoma County District Attorney's Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Sonoma County District Attorney's Office:

Sonoma County District Attorney's Office