Counties with less than 15 percent of their ICU beds open and
available will be subject to the order, according to Newsom, requiring
the closure of nearly all nonessential businesses for at least three
weeks.

Retail stores in areas affected by the order will be allowed to
remain open at 20 percent of their maximum indoor capacity while most
other nonessential businesses like hair and nail salons, restaurants,
wineries and fitness centers would be required to close both indoor and
outdoor operations.

Schools that have already reopened in-person classes will be allowed
to continue and such decisions will be left to county officials, Newsom
said.

“We do not anticipate having to do this again, but we really all need
to step up, we need to meet this moment head-on and we need to do
everything we can to stem the tide, to bend the curve and give us the
time necessary … to get those vaccines in the hands of all
Californians,” Newsom said Thursday in a briefing announcing the new
order.

The stay-at-home order will be enforced at a regional level rather
than by county, as the state’s pandemic-related health restrictions have
been enforced for much of the year.

The regions include the Bay Area, greater Sacramento, Northern
California, Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. The counties
in each region will be placed in the appropriate tier of the state’s
pandemic reopening system, based on their case and test data, once they
have reduced their ICU patient populations.

Four of the five regions are likely to pass the 15 percent threshold
in the coming days, Newsom said, while the Bay Area is on pace to have
less than 15 percent of its intensive care unit beds available by
mid-December.

The formal details of the order come just days after Newsom and state
Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said California’s
hospital and ICU systems were on track to be overwhelmed, and in some
cases entirely full, by Christmas.

Ghaly said Thursday that the state’s rate of transmission has
increased four-fold over the last six weeks and limiting movement and
social mixing and interaction throughout the state will be key to
curbing the current surge.

“It isn’t about single sector-by-sector and where is that spread
happening,” Ghaly said when asked why some businesses that may not be
responsible for spreading the virus will still be subject to closure
under the order.

“We know that by reducing our overall movement and mixing for a short
period of time, we can get the gains that we need to bend this curve,”
he said.

Newsom framed the order as part of the “final surge” of new
coronavirus cases as the statebegins to receive hundreds of thousands of
vaccine doses in the coming weeks.

The state is expected to receive its first shipment of roughly
327,000 vaccine doses from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer between
Dec. 12 and 15 with more doses of vaccines made by pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies like Moderna and AstraZenica expected in the
first quarter of 2021, Newsom said.

Given that the state’s first tranche of vaccine doses amounts to
enough for less than 1 percent of California’s population, Newsom said
the state’s working group overseeing vaccine safety and distribution has
separated the first vaccine recipients into three tiers based on risk
of contracting the virus.

Hospital workers, nursing and assisted living facility workers,
paramedics and other emergency service personnel and dialysis center
employees will be in the first tier to receive the vaccine’s two doses,
according to Newsom.

The other two tiers include in-home health care workers, primary care
clinic workers, laboratory workers, dental health clinic employees and
pharmacy staff not working in higher-tier settings. Newsom said the
state will also make a concerted effort to ensure the vaccine is
available to every resident of the state, not just those with means.

“Help is on the way,” he said. “There is a light at the end of this tunnel.”

The state of California extended income tax deadlines for some small businesses and will issue some $500 million in relief grants to help small businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday.

The state will extend the income tax deadline by three months for small businesses that are filing less than $1 million in sales tax, according to Newsom.

Companies filing up to $5 million will have access to existing interest and penalty-free payment agreements while larger businesses can access interest-free payment options.

According to Newsom, the deadline extension and penalty-free payment options will save small businesses billions during the pandemic.

“We have to lead with health to reopen our economy safely and sustainably while doing all we can to keep our small businesses afloat,” Newsom said.

Small business owners will also have access to grants of up to $25,000 to help prevent them from closing, according to Newsom. The COVID Relief Grant program, totaling $500 million, will distribute funds to eligible small businesses by early next year.

Some 4.1 million small businesses operate in California, employing 7.2 million workers, nearly half of the state’s workforce, according to Newsom.

“By providing potentially billions in immediate relief and support, our small businesses can weather the next month as we continue partnering with the legislature to secure additional funding and investments in small businesses in the new year,” he said.

A current Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputy with a history of excessive force complaints was the principal officer named in a civil rights lawsuit settled by the City of Vallejo for $750,000 this week.

Attorneys for Carl Edwards sued the City of Vallejo after Spencer Muniz-Bottomley and three other Vallejo police officers severely beat Edwards in July 2017 after allegedly mistaking him for a suspect.

In October 2018, the Vallejo Times-Herald reported that Bottomley was no longer employed by the Vallejo Police Department. Bottomley has been employed by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office since 2018.

When asked whether any use-of-force complaints have been filed against Bottomley since he joined the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, spokesperson Misti Wood told the Bohemian, “The Government Code prevents us from releasing information from Deputy Bottomley’s personnel file.”

Senate Bill 1421 is a state law that requires agencies to release some records from an officer’s personnel file if they are involved in an officer-involved shooting or use of force resulting in great bodily injury or death; Wood said that Bottomley has not been involved in any incidents that meet those thresholds.

Court documents reveal that a judge in Edwards’ case against Vallejo granted parts of Edwards’ motion for the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office to turn over Bottomley’s application for employment as well as any subsequent or prior complaints against the officer.

Michael Haddad, Edwards’ attorney, told the Bohemian that those documents were released confidentially and are not available to the public. Still, he added, Bottomely’s track record is troubling.

“Based on the cases I’ve handled against him, seeing how he operated in Vallejo, I am concerned for the residents of Sonoma County that he may encounter,” said Haddad.

According to a recent job posting provided by Wood, the agency’s background check process includes an assessment of prior work history, verifying educational experiences, court reports, public records searches, and more. The process can take three to five months and includes gathering a significant amount of information from candidates and speaking to former employers, friends, family members, as well as polygraphs. Deception is grounds for disqualification, even after hire.

Another part of the job posting states that applicants “shall not have been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state or in any federal jurisdiction.”

The Vallejo incident involving Edwards began when a mother called 911 to report that a man dressed in black jeans and a white tank top was shooting rocks from a slingshot at her sons. The caller told officers Mark Thompson and Bret Wagoner that Edwards was not the suspect, but the officers radioed to Bottomley to go contact Edwards, describing him as a man wearing brown pants and a gray shirt. Body-worn camera footage reveals that Bottomley approached Edwards as Edwards repaired a fence on his property and almost immediately placed him in a chokehold.

The other officers then joined Bottomley in beating Edwards as he lay on the ground. At one point, as they move to place Edwards in handcuffs, an officer says, “If you have to break, break it,” referring to Edwards’ arm.

Edwards sustained a fractured nose, multiple lacerations and contusions, and injury to his shoulder. Haddad said, “I’ve been doing this almost 30 years and I can count on one hand the cases I’ve seen where someone got beaten up as badly as Carl did, especially when they were totally innocent.”

Bottomley is the subject of at least three other excessive-force complaints filed during his time as an officer in Vallejo, where he was employed from July 2015 until 2018.

The most high-profile case took place in March 2017, when Bottomley was filmed beating Dejuan Hall, a 23-year-old homeless man who was shouting, “I am God,” before and during the encounter.

Haddad also represented Hall in a civil rights case filed against Bottomley and the other officers involved. In a rare occurrence, city officials settled the case for $75,000 before it advanced to a lawsuit.

Haddad told the Vallejo Times-Herald, “This usually indicates the city realizes there is a significant liability.”

As of June 2019, despite the settlement in the civil rights case, Hall was in county jail awaiting a trial stemming from the incident, for which he was charged with resisting arrest and trespassing. His criminal lawyer Amy Morton told the Vallejo Times-Herald, “Mr. Hall is in custody because he has no place to go. He’s not a danger, just gravely [mentally] disabled.”

In April 2016, Bottomley and four other officers allegedly kicked, punched and struck Derrick Lamoris Shields with flashlights while he was lying face down on the ground.

The case alleged, “As a result of the police beating, plaintiff lost consciousness, experienced bruises all over his body and spine, swollen face, fractured jaw, abrasions, and broken teeth.”

Shield’s lawsuit was dismissed from court in November 2017 after the court could not serve documents to Shields, who failed to provide a change of address.

In August 2015, officers answered two calls for a welfare check on Jimmy Brooks, whose mother reported he was feeling suicidal. According to Brooks’ claim, he saw officers approaching his home and felt unsafe. He walked towards his mother’s house and hid under her porch for two hours. When he regained a sense of safety, he emerged from the porch and was swarmed by a group of officers who struck him with batons.

According to the complaint, “Plaintiff Brooks was then arrested and at no point offered medical treatment for his injuries. As a result of the [officers] use of excessive force, Plaintiff Brooks suffered a fractured right ankle and fractured right fibula. Plaintiff Brooks also received several stitches to mend lacerations on his legs and upper body.”

Bottomley was one of seven officers named in the case, though at the time it was settled for $50,000, his name and two other officers’ names had been removed.