Case Explained: After branding a man guilty on social media, three RPD officers have been named in $12 million defamation suit – Shasta Scout – Legal Perspective

The Robert P. Blankenship Police Facility in Redding, California. Photo by Nevin Kallepalli

Probable cause is a foundational principle that every California cadet learns during training. It’s defined by state manuals as when circumstances lead officers to have an “honest and strong suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime.”

The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to establish probable cause to justify an arrest. But probable cause is a suspicion, not an established fact. And under America’s justice system, defendants accused of crimes are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by trial. 

But that foundational truth didn’t stop the Redding Police Department from referring to Phetakhom Tu Manivong as guilty in a 2022 post on the department’s Facebook about his arrest — long before he would have his day in court. 

Manivong’s trial concluded in May of 2025. He was found not guilty and acquitted of all charges. Now he’s suing the City of Redding for defamation, among other alleged civil violations of his rights.

Manivong, who worked for the city, was apprehended by officers in 2022 under suspicion of committing a sexual crime against a minor. 

But in a social media post at the time, Officer Regan Ortega documented the arrest on social media differently, telling RPD’s tens of thousands of followers that officers had definitive proof of the suspect’s guilt. Her RPD post, which included a photo pulled from Manivong’s driver’s license, stated that a police investigation revealed a victim “had been sexually assaulted by Manivong for a period of about 1.5 years.” 

The post went beyond sharing the news of his arrest to describe crimes now known to be falsely attributed to him in disturbing detail, noting officers had spoken with an underage victim and other witnesses. 

The social media narrative elicited hundreds of comments from the public, including multiple calls for Manivong’s castration and expressions of hope that he would be physically harmed in prison. The post was also amplified by local news sources, which regularly draw on RPD’s communications for crime reporting, extending the message’s damaging impact even farther.

Last year, RPD implemented changes to its social media practices after a Shasta Scout investigation revealed that the department appeared to be routinely violating California law. That law bans law enforcement from posting mug shots, or arrest photos — something the department did hundreds of times in 2024 alone. The law was based on research that documents how the practice fundamentally undermines a person’s presumption of innocence.

It can also open up police departments to defamation suits like the one filed last December by Manivong.

His suit against the City of Redding names Ortega and officers Lauren Meyer and Jon Sheldon, along with local union I.B.E.W. 1245, which represents some of Redding’s city workers. Manivong is claiming breach of contract and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy after the city of Redding was allegedly motivated by RPD’s post to terminate him. He also included claims related to malicious prosecution and defamation and is seeking $12 million in damages. 

RPD Chief Brian Barner declined to comment on ongoing litigation for this story. But last year, Barner bragged about RPD’s social media following of 51,000, a number second only to KRCR, he said. At the time, he described RPD’s social media posts as “arrest stories,” saying they are an important part of a larger social media strategy which is used to communicate “all the positive work being done by our Department to make our community better.”

Manivong’s attorney, Eric Alan Berg, said in an interview a few weeks ago that he’s observed this particular kind of conduct among police officers many times, saying social media posts like the one about Manivong are used as an effort “to garner public opinion on their side … they have no regard for the possible innocence of someone.” 

Berg drew a distinction between simply publishing a false allegation from a victim and what RPD wrote in the Facebook caption about Manivong — that a police investigation had actually revealed his guilt. 

“That’s as bad or worse than just saying that he did it, right?” Berg said. “Because they’re saying, not only did [the victim] say it happened, but they investigated this and they believed it to be true.” 

Berg said that Manivong had lost his city job, and with it, his retirement and means of supporting his wife and children, based on a mere accusation.

3.20.2026 12:03 p.m. We have updated the headline and subhead to align with the language of the courts which use the phrases guilty and not guilty rather than innocent.

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.