A federal court made detailed findings. Now we are asking prosecutors to review the evidence and determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
To the San Bernardino County District Attorney and appropriate law-enforcement authorities:

We are asking for an independent criminal review of former San Bernardino Police Officer Sonny Aguilera following the federal court proceedings in:

Christina N. v. City of San Bernardino et al.
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case No. 5:24-cv-01593-KK-AGR

WHAT HAPPENED?
August 25, 2022 — The 911 response
Christina first encountered Officer Sonny Aguilera when he responded to a 911 domestic-violence call at the Inland Center Mall parking lot.

Aguilera was acting as a San Bernardino police officer.

Christina provided her contact information in connection with the investigation and signed a confidential victim statement.

September–October 2022 — Contact after the police encounter
According to the evidence presented in federal court, Aguilera subsequently made repeated calls and sent numerous text messages to Christina.

The federal court's findings addressed Aguilera's subsequent personal contact with Christina, his use of circumstances arising from his official encounter with her, and conduct that violated department policy.

The evidence presented to the federal court also included allegations concerning Aguilera's use of his badge and law-enforcement status during later interactions and his disabling of his body-worn camera during an encounter.

October 19, 2022 — Internal investigation begins
Christina reported Aguilera's conduct to the San Bernardino Police Department.

Investigators interviewed her and reviewed communications between her and Aguilera.

The evidence presented in the federal case included approximately 96 text messages and 40 calls from Aguilera, while Christina did not initiate calls to him.

November 2, 2022 — Aguilera interviewed
Aguilera was interviewed during the department's internal investigation.

Evidence presented in federal court concerned statements Aguilera made during that investigation, including admissions concerning conduct that violated department policy.

The investigation ultimately resulted in Aguilera leaving the department.

January 4, 2024 — Peace-officer certification
Aguilera's California peace-officer certification was subsequently rescinded/revoked.

December 2025 — Federal bench trial
Christina's civil case proceeded to a federal bench trial before Judge Kenly Kiya Kato.

The court heard testimony and reviewed documentary and other evidence concerning Aguilera's conduct and the City's liability.

2026 — Federal court findings
The federal court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning the events.

The Court found liability against the City on claims including:

negligence;
sexual battery;
false imprisonment; and
violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act.
The Court also found the City vicariously liable for Aguilera's conduct.

The federal case is a civil case, not a criminal prosecution. The federal judgment therefore does not itself establish criminal guilt.

But the evidence and factual findings are significant enough to warrant an independent criminal review.

NOW WE ARE ASKING:
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY — REVIEW THE EVIDENCE.
We are asking the District Attorney's Office to:

1. Review the federal court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

2. Review the evidence presented during the federal trial.

3. Review the San Bernardino Police Department's internal-affairs investigation.

4. Review Aguilera's statements to investigators.

5. Review the available communications, reports, body-worn-camera evidence, and other relevant records.

6. Determine whether the evidence establishes violations of California criminal law.

7. If the legal requirements for prosecution are met, take appropriate prosecutorial action.

THIS PETITION IS NOT ASKING ANYONE TO PREJUDGE A CRIMINAL CASE.
A civil judgment is not a criminal conviction.

We are not asking the public to declare Aguilera guilty.

We are asking prosecutors to independently examine the evidence and apply the criminal law.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office states that its mission includes prosecuting individuals and entities for criminal violations of the law and that its Bureau of Investigation conducts criminal investigations.

The question is simple:
When a police officer encounters a member of the public through a 911 call, and evidence later establishes serious misconduct arising from that encounter, should prosecutors review that evidence to determine whether criminal laws were violated?

We believe that question deserves an answer based on the evidence and the law.

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE.
We are asking for:

An investigation.
A review of the evidence.
An independent legal determination.

Not a predetermined conviction.

Not special treatment.

Accountability under the law.

SIGN THIS PETITION AND ASK THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO REVIEW THE CASE.