Stockton Police Officers Association - SPOA

05/12/2026

04/24/2026

The SPOA didn’t realize the council had a staffing and retention issue too!! Thank goodness we have the salary savings to help fund this.

Agenda item 16.5

https://stockton.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=48&event_id=3032

Recordnet.com
Stocktonia News

04/18/2026

Chief McFadden makes it unmistakenly clear what is already evident, that the extended stalemate and lack of a contract is eroding morale and hurting recruitment. The full April 16, 2026 presentation to the civil service commission should be viewed in its entirety.

04/12/2026

The SPOA wants to remind everyone of the following court cases…

City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, (Smith), No. S218066 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Mar. 2, 2017).

And

Sander v. State Bar of California, 58 Cal. 4th 300, 323, (2013)

Happy Sunday!

03/26/2026

The Stockton Police Officers Association will not be silent and stand idly by while false narratives are made against the officers involved in the Doray Court shooting on September 9, 2025. There is only one person responsible for what happened that day, and that is the suspect. The involved officers went to work that day to protect this community of over 320,000 people. Both officers who are known for their productivity were assigned to a violent crime unit, seeking out criminals who choose to illegally possess guns instead of being productive, law-abiding members of society.On September 9, 2025, these officers were in full uniform and driving a fully marked police car. In broad daylight, they contacted an individual unknown to the officers who was seated in the passenger seat of a car. The suspect woke up that day and decided to travel through the City of Stockton with an illegal firearm in his waistband, in violation of multiple state and federal laws. When the officers attempted to contact this individual, he made the following choices: disobey their direct orders to remain seated, fight with officers when they attempted to detain him, and during his attempt to flee offensively pull out a firearm. During the process of retrieving his firearm, he dropped it. At that moment, the suspect had an easy and reasonable option – surrender and cease his resistance. Instead, he chose a shocking and unreasonable option – to turn back and pick up his firearm as officers closed to distance to detain him. It is clear to anyone with common sense, and the video evidence, that the suspect’s intention was to use that gun offensively against the officers. Unfortunately, the suspect’s poor decisions resulted in the loss of his life.There is a false narrative being pushed that the suspect just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The suspect’s prior arrests dictate otherwise.One year before this incident, the suspect was driving in Sacramento County when he was pulled over by two Sacramento County Sheriff deputies, where he once again chose to fight with the police. He injured those officers in the fight as he tried to recover two fi****ms from his waistband.During a continued search, he was found to be in possession of a multi-burst trigger, also known as a G***k switch. Again, he was in possession of fi****ms in addition to a firearm accessory prohibited by state and federal law. Notably, he was being prosecuted for multiple felonies in Sacramento County for these crimes at the time the shooting.To claim that he was simply an innocent citizen minding his own business when he was wrongly accosted by police officers is flat out wrong and a disservice to those who seek truth in these matters.The Stockton Police Officers Association stands by the actions of the officers that day. Unlike the suspect, they operated lawfully within the context of state and federal laws. We believe their actions will be found justified not only under the law, but Stockton Police Department Policy. We are confident that an independent investigation will confirm our assessment.

For those who wish to negate the work of these police officers and their character, both officers were patriotic and joined the military to further protect citizens and to uphold the Constitution of the United States. A mission that they continue to do today.Though we sympathize and strongly believe that every loss of life is tragic, and we are certain that friends and family feel his loss, his actions alone dictated the officers’ actions that day. Compliance with the law and lawful directives by officers would have resulted in a very different outcome. To the citizens of Stockton: Know that your well-trained and highly professional officers will continue to serve you. And to the protesters: Know that your First Amendment rights will be upheld by the Stockton Police Officers Association. Though we ardently disagree with your narrative in this matter, we will absolutely uphold the rights you are guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. We ask you to act prudently and responsibly, and to cease demands for the harm and murder of the police officers involved in this incident.We also request that you uphold decorum and not interfere with your fellow citizens as they attempt to do business at the police department. Though you may think that you do not need our assistance, there are many who do, and blocking them from seeking assistance from the police department is unacceptable. Please stop dissuading and preventing victims from getting the help they need.To the Stockton Police Department officers: Know that this organization supports you and understands the difficult work that you do. We will not be silent when false narratives and rhetoric on social media or threats of violence are made against you. We know the majority of this community supports you and your mission to keep our community safe

03/03/2026

The Stockton Police Officers Association will not sit quietly while the Council places on its agenda a resolution that raises serious constitutional concerns.

Agenda Item 12.8 appears plainly designed to restrict the Stockton Police Officers Association from exercising its lawful rights. We are aware of the misinformation that has occurred in recent weeks. The practical effect of this resolution is to silence an organization that has actively sought transparency.

Over the past several weeks, the SPOA has submitted multiple public records requests to the City seeking information. We believe that “truth, trust, and transparency” are more than slogans, and we intend to share with the public the information we lawfully obtain. Transparency should not be viewed as a threat but should be welcomed.

It is also an election year. The 4–3 split on this Council is no secret, nor is the fact that some members of the minority are up for reelection and have received endorsements from public safety bargaining groups. The timing of this resolution understandably raises questions. It appears crafted to prevent organizations like ours from speaking on endorsements and public policy issues, rights clearly protected under Supreme Court precedent, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Beyond its implications for the SPOA, this resolution raises significant First Amendment concerns for Council Members themselves. It is difficult to understand why elected officials would vote to limit their own ability to communicate with constituents.

An argument can readily be made that this constitutes a content-based restriction on core political speech, the type of speech that receives the highest constitutional protection. Labor negotiations involving public employees concern taxpayer funds, public safety, and government priorities. Courts have consistently held that speech about public policy and government spending is at the heart of First Amendment protection.

Section (a) prohibits Council Members from discussing negotiations with “members of an employee organization,” a definition so expansive that it includes bargaining unit employees and even their spouses or close relatives. Public employees are constituents. Preventing them from communicating with elected officials about labor matters raises serious concern under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, a right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

Section (g)’s sweeping definition is overly broad and risks chilling lawful political association. Restrictions of this magnitude recall the very principles that animated the founding of this country. It is troubling to see a resolution that appears to curtail rights that have been protected for more than two centuries.

The resolution is also intentionally vague. Terms such as “discuss,” “meet and confer issue,” and “approaches on behalf of” are undefined. When laws fail to clearly define prohibited conduct, they create Due Process concerns. A rule that does not provide fair notice of what is prohibited or that invites arbitrary enforcement and runs afoul of constitutional protections. The SPOA, ironically, has not received a “meet and confer” on this resolution, a requirement for changes in workplace conditions.

Section (e), which prohibits discussion with the press, absent majority authorization, functions as a prior restraint on speech, particularly notable in an election cycle where public safety remains a central voter concern. Conditioning an individual elected official’s speech on approval by most of the Council effectively creates a viewpoint-controlled gatekeeping mechanism. The optics of a predictable 4–3 vote determining who may speak should concern anyone who values open government. Why hide from the press?

Legislative independence principles exist for a reason. Elected officials must retain the ability to speak freely on matters of public policy without fear that a majority will silence them for political convenience.

If the Council wishes to focus on transparency, accountability, and effective governance, there are ample opportunities to do so. Constitutional rights, however, should not be treated as expendable in the process.

02/25/2026

If you are able to assist Sgt Whelen’s family in this time of need, please click the link below.

https://porac.org/fundraiser/sjcso-sergeant-whelen/

02/25/2026

The Stockton Police Officers Association sends our heartfelt condolences to San Joaquin County Sheriff Sergeant Jason Whelen’s family, friends and coworkers. We are committed to standing by your side and assisting in any way possible. The loss of Sgt Whelen will not be forgotten.

01/23/2026

The SPOA would like to congratulate former Stockton Police Officer Nick Fogal on his swearing in at the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.

During his tenure with Stockton PD, now Deputy Fogal, served this community with dedication and pride. Deputy Fogal worked the following assignments while an Officer with Stockton PD:

* Patrol
* Field Training Officer
* Robbery/Homicide Detective
* SWAT Operator
* Fi****ms Instructor
* Strategic Community Officer
* Street Gang Enforcement Officer

As a reminder, The SPOA is still out of contract and we have to wonder if that played a factor into Deputy Fogal’s departure from Stockton. The SPOA is concerned about losing more dedicated Officers in the near future if there is not a contract solution in the near future.

We are optimistic about the police department’s recent hires; however, replacing Deputy Fogal’s street experience, street knowledge and dedication to Stockton will not be replaced.

The SPOA congratulates Sheriff Cooper and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office on their great hire.