CHP candidate charged with secretly recording sex partners

By Larry Judkins

Glenn County Observer

Why?

More specifically, many people are wondering why a California Highway Patrol recruit candidate would admit on a CHP questionnaire that he recorded his sexual encounters without his partners’ knowledge and consent.

It’s certainly fortunate that he did confess to this. After all, someone who does something so vile should not be a CHP officer.

Still, the question remains: Why?

On Jan. 13 of this year, the Orland Police Department received a telephone call from CHP Sgt. Andrew Henkens regarding crimes that are believed to have occurred within the City of Orland. These crimes were reportedly discovered during the background process for CHP officer recruit candidate Marcos Martinez, now 26.

At about 2:30 p.m., Sgt. Henkens and CHP Officer Warner met with OPD Sgt. Sean Johnson at the Orland Police Department. Officer Warner said that she had been assigned to conduct a pre-employment background investigation for recruit candidate Martinez, who lives in the City of Orland.

As part of the background investigation, in 2021, Martinez filled out a questionnaire. One question asked, “Have you ever used an electronic device to record someone without their knowledge?”

Martinez allegedly answered, “During my college years I would record with my phone the person I was having sex with without their knowledge and I kept the recording for myself.”

The questionnaire also asked, “Have you ever violated someone’s expectation of privacy by video recording them, or photographing them without their knowledge?”

Martinez reportedly replied, “I have recorded woman [sic] having sex with me without them knowing. I would show them sometimes if they would catch me in the act and would delete it if they asked.”

On Sept. 8, 2021, Officer Warner questioned Martinez further about his responses. During the interview, Martinez allegedly explained that he would meet women at a downtown Chico bar.

After a few drinks, he would invite the women to return home with him. There, without their knowledge or consent, he would record them with his cell phone while having sex with them.

Martinez reportedly claimed that he would keep the recording for himself. Sometimes, he reportedly told the investigator, he shared the recordings with his friends.

When Officer Warner asked if all the women were adults, Martinez replied with, “Mhm,” which the officer interpreted as no. Martinez allegedly admitted to still being in possession of some of the videos, which he keeps on “multiple phones.”

Officer Warner conducted a second interview on Dec. 31, 2021. During this interview, Martinez reportedly admitted to having recorded another sexual encounter with a woman without her knowledge or consent.

This encounter happened about two months earlier, after the first interview with Officer Warner. Martinez stated that he had met the woman on Facebook and they got together.

Martinez said he last viewed the video a month earlier. When asked why he recorded the women, he allegedly responded that it was for his personal use and for his “collection”.

Martinez admitted that he currently has two or three videos in his collection. He further stated, it is alleged, that he still has videos on his old cell phones, which he still possesses.

Martinez is associated with two addresses in northwest Orland. Sgt. Johnson believes it is reasonable that Martinez could have property of value to this case at both or either of these addresses.

According to Sgt. Johnson, it has been his experience that “persons who commit acts of surreptitious recording of sexual partners without their consent often retain the videos, sometimes for years, both for the purpose of their own sexual arousal, but as a form of ‘trophy’ that can be shown off to friends and acquaintances.” He continued, “Martinez admitted during an interview with Officer Warner that he has a ‘collection’ of such videos, which he stores on his phone and older cellular phones.”

Sgt. Johnson also said that persons who commit these kinds of acts “may keep diaries, journals, calendars, or other documents tracking who they met, had a sexual encounter with, and other details about the encounter.” Sgt. Johnson “believes that such documents could help identify potential victims of Martinez.”

Sgt. Johnson requested that the Glenn County Superior Court issue a warrant allowing him to search “digital media, including videos, photographs, and audio recording files that can easily be transferred to other digital media devices, including computers, tablets, and various forms of digital storage, including but not limited to compact discs (CDs), digital video discs (DVDs), flash media devices (memory cards, USB thumb drives), and others, where they could be accessed and viewed at a later time with relative ease.”

At about 4:48 p.m. on Saturday, May 28, 2022, Marcos Martinez was booked into the Glenn County Jail by an Orland police officer on a warrant alleging eavesdropping (a felony), and distributing intimate photos of another person (a misdemeanor). His bail was set at $12,000.

Three days later, his bail bond was filed. The district attorney charged Martinez with the same crimes listed above.

Arraignment with a mandatory appearance of Martinez before Judge Donald Cole Byrd is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Friday, August 5.

After Martinez was taken into custody, The Observer attempted to get his booking photo. This request was illegally denied.

The Glenn County Sheriff’s Office and, reportedly, the Glenn County Counsel’s Office, are operating under the mistaken idea that a California law passed in 2021 (AB 1475) forbids the release of many booking photos to the public. In reality, it does no such thing.

Booking photos are still public records and must be released to the public upon request. AB 1475 only applies to law enforcement agencies publishing booking photos on their own social media pages.

The text of AB 1475 follows. References proving the law applies only to agencies’ own social media pages appear in bold.

“Existing law requires law enforcement agencies, departments, or entities to consider specified best practices regarding the downloading and storage of body-worn camera data, including prohibiting agency personnel from uploading recorded data onto public and social media internet websites, when establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system.

“This bill would prohibit a police department or sheriff’s office from sharing, on social media, booking photos of an individual arrested on suspicion of committing a nonviolent crime, as defined, unless specified circumstances exist. The bill would require a police department or sheriff’s office that shares, on social media, a booking photo of an individual arrested for the suspected commission of a nonviolent crime to remove the information from its social media page, upon request, unless the same specified circumstances exist.

“The bill would require a police department or sheriff’s office to remove the booking photo of a person who has committed any other crime from social media if the individual’s record has been sealed, the individual’s conviction has been dismissed, expunged, pardoned, or eradicated pursuant to law, the individual has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation, the individual is found not guilty of committing the crime for which they were arrested, or the individual was ultimately not charged with the crime or the charges were dismissed.

“The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

“(a) In our criminal justice system, suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty.

“(b) In recent years, law enforcement departments have begun to use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor to communicate with the public.

“(c) Some departments post the booking photos of suspects on their social media accounts even though the suspect is no longer at large or an ongoing threat to public safety.

“(d) Information posted to these social media accounts can remain on the internet for years, seriously affecting the life of the person depicted.

“(e) In 2016, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, in Detroit Free Press Inc. v. United States Department of Justice (829 F. 3d 478, 482) that booking photos are more than just ‘vivid symbols of criminal accusation, booking photos convey guilt to the viewer,’ effectively ‘eliminating the presumption of innocence and replacing it with an unmistakable badge of criminality.’

“(f) The Sixth Circuit also noted that booking photos are ‘snapped “in the vulnerable and embarrassing moments immediately after [an individual is] accused, taken into custody, and deprived of most liberties,’” putting them in the realm of ‘embarrassing and humiliating information.’

“(g) Section 1 of Article 1 of the California Constitution protects the privacy of Californians, including limiting the disclosure of arrest information unless that disclosure serves a compelling state interest (Central Valley Ch. 7th Step Foundation, Inc. v. Younger (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 415, 151).

“(h) In July 2020, San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott instituted a department directive against the release of booking photos in most circumstances because their publication creates an ‘illusory correlation for viewers that fosters racial bias and vastly overstates the propensity of black and brown men to engage in criminal behavior.’

“(i) The Legislature finds that publishing booking photos on social media when there is a low risk to public safety is detrimental to the right to a fair trial because it diminishes the presumption of innocence and potentially violates privacy rights of Californians without a commensurate benefit to public safety.

“SEC. 2. Section 13665 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

“13665. (a) A police department or sheriff’s office shall not share, on social media, booking photos of an individual arrested on suspicion of committing a nonviolent crime unless any of the following circumstances exist:

“(1) A police department or sheriff’s office has determined that the suspect is a fugitive or an imminent threat to an individual or to public safety and releasing or disseminating the suspect’s image will assist in locating or apprehending the suspect or reducing or eliminating the threat.

“(2) A judge orders the release or dissemination of the suspect’s image based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate law enforcement interest.

“(3) There is an exigent circumstance that necessitates the dissemination of the suspect’s image in furtherance of an urgent and legitimate law enforcement interest.

“(b) (1) A police department or sheriff’s office that shares, on social media, a booking photo of an individual arrested for the suspected commission of a nonviolent crime shall remove the booking photo from its social media page within 14 days, upon the request of the individual who is the subject of the social media post or the individual’s representative, unless any of the circumstances described in subdivision (a) exist.

“(2) A police department or sheriff’s office that shares, on social media, a booking photo of an individual arrested for the suspected commission of a crime identified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 shall remove the booking photo from its social media page within 14 days, upon the request of the individual who is the subject of the social media post or the individual’s representative, if the individual or their representative demonstrates any of the following:

“(A) The individual’s record has been sealed.

“(B) The individual’s conviction has been dismissed, expunged, pardoned, or eradicated pursuant to law.

“(C) The individual has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation.

“(D) The individual was found not guilty of the crime for which they were arrested.

“(E) The individual was ultimately not charged with the crime or the charges were dismissed.

“(3) This subdivision shall apply retroactively to any booking photo shared on social media.

“(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following Meanings:

“(1) ‘Nonviolent crime’ means a crime not identified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5.

“(2) ‘Social media’ has the same meaning as in Section 632.01, except that social media does not include an internet website or an electronic data system developed and administered by the police department or sheriff’s office.”

The Observer requested the Martinez photo in case there are victims who do not realize they are victims. A photo of the suspect could help bring forward women who did not know they were recorded while having sex with Martinez.

Given that The Observer was denied a recent booking photo, a photo was used that is four or five years old. This photo appears at the top of this story.