Travis Huntsman - Corrupt and criminal sheriff

This site is maintained by a civil litigant. It presents the author’s account, opinions, and allegations regarding events on November 19, 2020, in Santa Cruz County, California. The material below is not aimed at children. Nothing herein is legal advice. All persons named are invited to submit corrections or statements for publication.

• The author alleges that on November 19, 2020, a co-occupant (Emma Joy Nie) sustained lacerations after a glass coffee table broke inside a residence.
   
• The author states he called 911 for medical assistance and that first responders treated injuries on scene.
   
• The author further alleges that Sergeant Travis Huntsman subsequently prepared or caused the preparation of a report that, in the author’s view, was factually inaccurate and omitted material facts (e.g., broken glass, source of injury, and the sequence of calls).
   
• The author asserts these actions led to a wrongful on-scene eviction and the loss of personal property exceeding $100,000 in value.
   
• The author contends the conduct, if proven, could implicate California statutes governing false reporting by peace officers and false reports, and that the property losses meet the threshold for grand theft.
   
• The author states that body-worn camera footage, dispatch/911 records, and paramedic run sheets should resolve the dispute; the author claims these materials exist and should be preserved and disclosed.
   

These are allegations, not findings. The author seeks disclosure of records and an independent review.
 

• It does not present unverified claims as established fact.
   
• It does not speculate on anyone’s sexuality, gender identity, medical history, family history, or motives.
   
• It does not use insults, epithets, or demeaning caricatures.
   
• It does not encourage harassment of any person or agency.
   

1. Pre-incident
    
   • Two adults co-occupied a residence in Santa Cruz County in separate rooms during the pandemic period.
      

1. Nov 19, 2020 — Injury & First Response
    
   • A heavy glass coffee table broke.
      
   • The co-occupant (Emma Joy Nie) suffered lacerations.
      
   • The author states he was not in the immediate vicinity when the table broke and dialed 911 to obtain medical care.
      
   • Paramedics arrived and provided treatment.
      

1. Law Enforcement Response
    
   • Sgt. Travis Huntsman responded.
      
   • The author alleges a prolonged on-scene discussion occurred and that critical physical evidence (broken glass, injury context) was not documented in the manner the author would expect.
      
   • The author alleges the resulting paperwork mischaracterized events and precipitated an on-scene eviction without due process.
      

1. Post-Incident Property Loss
    
   • The author claims loss of property and improvements (e.g., bed, sofa, television, fixtures, EV charger, flooring, landscaping) with a total asserted value > $100,000.
      
   • The author attributes these losses to the on-scene removal and subsequent inability to recover items.
      

1. Subsequent Records Requests / Complaints
    
   • The author reports making preservation and disclosure requests for:
      
     • Body-worn camera (BWC) footage for all responding officers;
        
     • CAD/dispatch logs and audio for all 911 calls;
        
     • Incident/Arrest reports and all supplements;
        
     • Paramedic run sheets and photos;
        
     • Evidence logs and scene photographs.
        
   • The author alleges incomplete disclosure and seeks full production.
      

• BWC Video & Audio from the entire response window.
   
• 911 Call Recordings (the author claims two calls occurred that evening: one by the author for medical aid and another associated with the co-occupant).
   
• Dispatch/CAD Logs correlating units, times, and narrative codes.
   
• Paramedic/EMS Documentation showing treatment for lacerations and mechanism of injury.
   
• Scene Documentation (photographs of broken glass, table remnants, blood evidence, and the interior layout).
   
• Property Valuation Materials (receipts, invoices, before/after photos) supporting claimed losses.
   

If these records corroborate the author’s account, they could resolve factual disputes without rhetoric.
 

• Government Code & Civil Rights: claims relating to unlawful seizure/eviction, due-process deprivations, or retaliatory official action.
   
• California Penal Code (potentially implicated if facts are proven):
   
  • § 118.1 (Knowingly including false statements in reports by peace officers — criminal statute; cited to frame the gravity, not to assert guilt).
     
  • § 148.5 (False report of a crime — likewise, cited as context).
     
• Conversion / Trespass to Chattels / Theft-related civil theories for personal property losses exceeding statutory thresholds.
   

All citations are presented to explain alleged legal significance; no criminal liability is asserted as fact.

• Claims are alleged; proof must come from records and witnesses.
   
• The author invites a neutral third-party review of BWC, 911, and EMS records.
   
• The author will publish verbatim corrections or responses from any named agency or person (with minimal editing for privacy and clarity).
   

The author has issued, or will issue, written requests for:

1. BWC for all officers present from dispatch to scene clearance.
    
2. CAD timeline, unit history, and “remarks” fields.
    
3. 911 Audio (medical and law-enforcement calls) and ANI/ALI metadata.
    
4. Incident/Arrest Reports & Supplements including attachments.
    
5. EMS/Fire Run Reports and any photographs.
    
6. Evidence/Property Logs and disposition records.
    
7. Internal Affairs/Complaint Files related to the incident (to the extent disclosable under state law).
    

If any of these records are unavailable, the author requests a written explanation describing system retention limits, exemptions, or legal bases for withholding.

• Personal property and improvements allegedly exceeding $100,000 (itemized documentation on file).
   
• Housing instability during pandemic restrictions.
   
• Reputational and relational harms the author attributes to the disputed report.
   
• Costs associated with record retrieval, storage, and attempts at mitigation.
   

• Agencies & Individuals Named: You may submit a point-by-point response, documentary exhibits, or clarifications.
   
• How We Handle Corrections: Upon receipt, we’ll post a labeled “Response/Correction” section with your statement in full (except redactions required by law).
   
• Witnesses: If you have first-hand information (e.g., paramedic on scene, neighbor, dispatcher), you may submit a declaration or contact for a sworn statement.
   

The author seeks records, accountability, and correction if warranted—not harassment of any person. Until a court or authorized review resolves the facts, these remain allegations. Readers are encouraged to consider only evidence-based conclusions.