SLO DA agrees to not post on social media about probation officer embezzlement case
Neither the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office nor the defense team involved in the case against the former probation officer accused of embezzlement can comment on the case — or post on social media about it — a judge ruled Monday morning.
The decision comes about two weeks after San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow made several comments about the case on Facebook, alleging the judge gave Fallyn Rollins special treatment when he allowed her to post bail without first being arrested and booked in jail.
Rollins, 32, appeared in court for the first time Feb. 7 to face nine counts of grand theft for allegedly embezzling more than $100,000 from the Probation Department’s union. She was the treasurer for the union at the time, according to a San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office news release.
She was not arrested or booked into jail because her attorney, Robert Sanger, found out about the arrest warrant and had her case scheduled on the calendar, a practice that is not unusual, according to Sanger and two other defense attorneys interviewed by The Tribune.
“Unfortunately, retired Judge (and former DA Barry T. LaBarbera) reduced the bail amount from $1.18 million to $100k and allowed her to get out of custody from Court without ever being booked. ... In doing so, the Judge seemingly treated her different than the Court would treat a ‘regular’ citizen,” Dow wrote in a Facebook post Feb. 7 sharing his agency’s news release on the court hearing.
Sanger filed a motion for a gag order following Dow’s online comments, alleging the statements were prejudicial to his client, created false innuendos and violated Dow’s duty as a prosecutor.
Dow, on the other hand, argued that his comments were protected under the First Amendment and did not cause any bias or prejudice because they were tailored to his disappointment in LaBarbera’s decision on Rollins’ bail and booking.
In court Monday, Sanger and Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth agreed to refrain from making further public comments to the media or on social media, which San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Rita Federman approved and issued a gag order. Sanger then withdrew his motion for a gag order.
Rollins did not enter a plea, and her arraignment was scheduled for April 8.
Judge says she does not have a conflict of interest prior to proceeding
Before Monday’s hearing began, Federman disclosed that she had only interacted with Sanger’s wife, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Catherine Swysen, in a professional capacity and that the only time she had interacted with Sanger outside of court was at a bar association event where attorneys were welcome and it was strictly professional.
This comes after Dow’s comments on Facebook, in which he appeared to insinuate that Sanger’s wife being a judge had something to do with Rollins being arraigned without being booked and being allowed to post a lower bail.
“I hear you ... but she moved out of state and does not even live here. When she embezzled the money she was a San Luis Obispo peace officer who breached the trust of her fellow probation officers and stole their money. The Judge let her leave court today without even being booked on her felony warrant. Her lawyer’s wife is a judge in our court also,” Dow wrote in response to a commenter who agreed with LaBarbera’s decision and said they were “not a fan of using the pre-judgment judicial system as a means of punishment or negotiation.
Sanger wrote in his motion that the comment was “unfounded.” The District Attorney’s Office response to the gag order motion did not address the comment about Sanger’s wife but instead focused on Dow’s right to free speech and argued the comments did not infringe on Rollins’ right to a fair trial.
In the DA’s Office’s opposition to Sanger’s motion, Dobroth wrote Dow’s remarks did not create a reasonable likelihood that Rollins would face an unfair trial.
Dow did not disclose evidence of the alleged embezzlement, the motion argued, and despite Dow not using “alleged” in his Facebook posts or comments, the office’s official press release did use the word and included the phrase, “Every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
“The District Attorney’s comments were confined to the disappointment that bail was reduced and the defendant was released without booking. The District Attorney was merely commenting upon the fact that in his experience this seemed out of the ordinary,” the opposition read. “This opinion was provided concurrently with the press release, which affirmatively noted that an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.”
The additional statements Dow made when responding to comments on his post were not part of the news release but “given in response to questions posed by citizens on the social media threads,” which is a protected First Amendment activity, the opposition argued.
While Dobroth said in court Monday that the office stands by the statements made in the opposition, Federman did not hear arguments because the parties instead agreed to not talk to media or post online about the case.
This story was originally published February 24, 2025 at 12:54 PM.
