Ukiah Journalist Arrest Highlights Tensions Between Criminal Investigations and Press Protections
Two-month delay in charging prompts questions, scrutiny
It has been two months since Ukiah police officers arrested Matt LaFever, a high school teacher and journalist, on suspicion of misdemeanor child annoyance or molestation. No criminal charges have been filed.
The delay in filing charges has prompted scrutiny of the Ukiah Police Department, including its decision to seek a Ramey warrant rather than work directly with prosecutors.
Meanwhile, the court has appointed a special master to ensure that materials seized under a search warrant — including laptops and other digital devices — did not include any unpublished information obtained or prepared for communication to the public. Such a search could violate the California Constitution, the California Penal Code, and the California Evidence Code.
Beyond the unresolved criminal allegations, the case has become a test of how California’s legal system balances law-enforcement investigations against protections for journalists. Police bypassed prosecutors to obtain a pre-charging arrest warrant, seized multiple digital devices from a working reporter, and triggered court oversight to prevent the disclosure of unpublished reporting materials — a rare convergence of criminal procedure and press-freedom safeguards.
The court is expected to hear an update from the special master on Monday.
A Gap Between Police and the Prosecution
In most cases, police and prosecutors work in tandem, said Beth Colgan, a professor at UCLA School of Law. Typically, she said, “the prosecutor asks for an arrest warrant at the same time that they are filing a complaint against a person.”
That did not happen in LaFever’s case.
Instead, according to court records, Detective Zhonghao Chen of the Ukiah Police Department went directly to a judge on Sunday, Nov. 2, seeking what is known as a Ramey warrant — an arrest warrant issued before formal charges are filed. The warrant was approved by Judge Keith Faulder.
“That’s typically done for expediency,” Colgan said. “They want to go directly to the judge without taking the time to go through the prosecutor.” In some cases, she added, police may proceed this way if they believe a prosecutor is reluctant to file charges and hope that an arrest will help generate additional evidence.
Two weeks earlier, Ukiah police had executed a search warrant at LaFever’s home in Hopland, seizing his cellphone, Apple Watch, three laptops, a router and an SD card, according to court records.
The search warrant was based on information provided by a former student in LaFever’s journalism class, who told police she had inappropriate interactions with her teacher on Snapchat during the summer of 2025.
What follows is drawn directly from Detective Chen’s sworn declaration in support of the arrest warrant. The allegations have not been tested in court, and LaFever has not been charged with a crime. LaFever did not respond to a detailed request for comment sent to his personal Gmail address and by mail to his home.
A Secondary Snapchat Account
According to the warrant, the student said she left Mr. LaFever’s class because of “weird comments” he had made about her to others, as well as “racist and sexual comments that she believed to be inappropriate for the classroom.”
The warrant states that the student later created a Snapchat account under an alias “to test her boyfriend.” While using that account, she was contacted by a user with the screen name “LaFever,” which police said corresponded with the fact that she had her teacher’s name and phone number saved in her contacts.
The student told investigators she initially believed the messages concerned schoolwork, the warrant said, but quickly realized she was using her secondary account — one that was not linked to her real email address, phone number or name.
Snapchat is designed so that photos or videos disappear after they are viewed; however, the student told police she recorded her screen using another device, the warrant stated.
Detective Chen wrote that the person using the “LaFever” account introduced himself by saying, “Hey there, I’m [REDACTED] in California. How are you?” The warrant alleges the account then sent a topless photo of an adult male.
When the student replied, “I’m good,” the account asked, “Where you from baby” and “Age.” The student responded that she was 17.
According to the warrant, she told the account multiple times that she was 17 years old and a junior in high school. The account then sent another selfie and asked her about her “height and cup size,” Chen wrote.
When the account asked for a photo, the student sent an image she had found online. The warrant states that the person depicted was fully clothed and that the image was not obscene.
The account responded with a hot-face emoji and the message “Goddam gir,” then asked, “How old are you again?”
The student again replied, “17.”
“Well you must be the sexiest woman at your high school,” the account responded, according to the warrant.
The exchange continued, with the account asking whether the student played sports. When she said she played volleyball, the account asked whether she had photos in volleyball shorts and whether “your butt and thighs look sexy in them.” The student declined to send photos, the warrant said.
The arrest warrant also included records obtained from Snapchat showing that the account linked to LaFever’s phone number was active on July 4, 2025, and deactivated on Aug. 7, 2025, according to Chen.
Two months later, another student at Ukiah High School reported LaFever for making what she perceived to be an inappropriate comment, the search warrant stated. That student, a friend of the first, told police she heard him say “Oh damn” while standing behind her holding his phone. The student “immediately suspected that he might have taken a photograph of her buttocks,” the warrant stated.
Mr. LaFever was arrested and released the same day after posting $10,000 bail.
An Uncertain Outcome
Police did not immediately submit the case to prosecutors. When the case was eventually forwarded, the outcome became uncertain. In California, prosecutors have full discretion to decide whether to bring charges — or not.
In an interview with Mendo Local, District Attorney David Eyster said he recused himself from charging decisions related to LaFever to avoid any perception that charges could be influenced by LaFever’s coverage of Eyster and his office.
Legal experts say the delay in charging is not unusual in cases involving a Ramey warrant.
“There’s a big difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Jo-Anna Nieves, a criminal defense attorney based in Oakland. “Probable cause is enough to justify an arrest, but it does not mean the evidence is sufficient to convict someone at trial.”
Under California law, misdemeanor child annoyance or molestation does not require physical contact, Nieves said, but it does require conduct motivated by sexual interest that a reasonable minor would find disturbing, irritating or offensive.
“At the same time,” she said, “not every inappropriate or immature comment rises to the level of criminal conduct.”
Eyster said the Ukiah Police Department’s decision to seek a Ramey warrant under the circumstances was atypical, but he said it would have no bearing on the charging decision.
He confirmed that his office has not rejected the case forwarded by the Ukiah Police Department and has not sent it back for further investigation. A charging decision, he said, will be based on materials approved by the special master as “relevant to the prosecution.”