Treasure Ortiz

Introduction

Treasure Ortiz is a San Bernardino City Councilwoman representing Ward 7, publicly identified as “Dr. Treasure Ortiz” in coverage of her fight with the city’s police leadership. In January 2026, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office filed misdemeanor charges against her for unlawfully recording San Bernardino Police Department personnel in violation of California Penal Code Section 632(a) . The state’s case alleges she secretly recorded confidential communications with police personnel — recordings allegedly made during the proceedings of the 2025 federal lawsuit she filed against the city, a roughly $2 million claim the city says an independent investigator it hired disproved. Before the criminal case, Ortiz had cast herself as the whistleblower: in August 2025 she publicly accused Police Chief Darren Goodman of trying to intimidate her into dropping the suit, calling it “a threat” and “blackmail” .

Background Information

Ortiz was elected to the San Bernardino City Council from Ward 7 in 2024. Per Inland Empire Community News, her rivals for the seat included former City Attorney James “Jim” Penman, described as her competition in the November 2024 Ward 7 election . The system at the center of her dispute — CLETS, the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System — is a confidential database accessible only to law enforcement, overseen by the California Department of Justice; its misuse has led to criminal prosecutions across the state .

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Charged, not adjudicated. The recording charges against Ortiz were filed by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office in January 2026 and have never been adjudicated; she is presumed innocent and had not been tried as of the latest reporting. In the other direction, Ortiz’s own claims that police illegally spied on her — the basis of her $2 million lawsuit — are also unproven allegations: an independent investigator hired by the city found no illegal CLETS search occurred, and the city and its attorney call her claims false and baseless. Both sides’ accounts below are allegations, not established facts.

On January 21, 2026, the District Attorney’s Office filed misdemeanor charges against Ortiz for unlawfully recording San Bernardino Police personnel in violation of California Penal Code Section 632(a), which criminalizes nonconsensually using an electronic recording device to eavesdrop on or record confidential communications . Per the city, the complaint alleges she intentionally and without consent used such a device to eavesdrop on and record confidential communications with police department personnel; arraignment was scheduled for February 19, 2026 . Per the Highlander, citing a city press release, the alleged recordings were made during the proceedings of the federal lawsuit Ortiz filed against the city in 2025, with the city declining further comment on the charges’ specifics .

That lawsuit capped a dispute Ortiz had waged publicly for months. She filed her claim in March 2025, alleging former police Detective Steve Dereoscher, then vice president of the Police Officers Association, illegally ran her information through CLETS, and sought over $2 million in damages for what she asserted was an illegal search of the system in March 2019 . On August 12, 2025, outside City Hall, she alleged Chief Goodman had tried to intimidate her into dropping the suit, telling community members he would make certain “non-public records” available if she continued — remarks she called “a threat” and “blackmail.” “I will never, ever be threatened to be quiet and not expose corruption in this city,” Ortiz said. She said she had brought the matter to the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the District Attorney’s office, and alleged a broader cover-up: “Everybody is culpable for what I believe is a conspiracy to cover up this crime” .

The city rejected that narrative. Per the city, an independent investigator it hired confirmed no one conducted an illegal CLETS search, which is audited annually by the state Attorney General’s Office; Mayor Tran and the City Council called the lawsuit a complete misrepresentation of the facts and an attempt to obtain millions in taxpayer dollars . City attorney Stephen Larson said the review found the allegations “entirely unfounded,” that any searches as alleged were conducted “in strict accordance with the law,” and that her allegations of wrongdoing are “factually and legally baseless and will be exposed as such in court” . In a May 2025 statement, city officials had already called the claim false and dishonest, describing the $2,000,000 claim as “an attempt to swindle the City of San Bernardino” . Goodman denied the intimidation accusations to IECN’s media partner KVCR: “I have not made any threats, of any kind, directly or indirectly to Councilwoman Ortiz. This is another one to add to the long list of lies she has told since this investigation began” .

Public Reaction and Consequences

The charges came from the same District Attorney’s office Ortiz had petitioned for intervention in her police-department dispute — the feud’s central public consequence . Coverage framed the charges as the latest turn in a fight that had already seen her sue her own city for $2 million, accuse its police chief of blackmail, and see her claims dismissed as an attempted swindle . Inside the chamber, the feud split figures publicly: former Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin appeared at her press conference to corroborate her account, while Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra defended Goodman, contrasting him as “a man of his word and integrity” with a pointed “I cannot say the same for Ortiz” .

Current Status

The misdemeanor case is pending; Ortiz was scheduled to be arraigned on February 19, 2026, and the city said it would make no further comment, calling the matter the District Attorney’s Office’s responsibility . Her federal lawsuit was reported still pending in August 2025, with no outside agency announcing an independent investigation . No removal from her Ward 7 seat has been reported; she remained a sitting councilmember in the January 2026 charging coverage .

Impact on Their Career/Life

Ortiz’s political brand was built on the CLETS fight — the whistleblower councilwoman who swore she would “never, ever be threatened to be quiet” — and the January 2026 charges invert that narrative, converting her from accuser to defendant in the same dispute . Because the counts allege she recorded the very police personnel tied to her lawsuit, the criminal case and the collapsed $2 million claim now define her public record together: a state prosecution on one side, and a city-funded investigation that found her core allegation of an illegal CLETS search did not happen on the other .