In a horrifying breach of public faith that reads more like a thriller script than a court document, a former Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy, Eric Piscatella, has been accused of leveraging his position, his uniform, and classified law enforcement databases to orchestrate a months-long stalking campaign against a local fitness influencer and mother of two. The victim, 29-year-old Briana Ortega, has bravely filed a federal civil rights lawsuit not just against Piscatella, but against the entire machinery of the county and its leadership, arguing that his predatory behavior was enabled by a toxic culture of indifference and lack of accountability within the department.

The story begins innocently enough, at a family festival in Coachella on or about September 17, 2023. Deputy Piscatella approached Ortega and her young children, offering stickers—a seemingly benign interaction that gave him the one piece of information he needed to launch his sinister campaign: her name.

According to the lawsuit, this brief passing encounter soon turned into what the complaint calls “predatory conduct.” Despite not exchanging contact information, Ortega’s name was all Piscatella, who had served the Sheriff’s Department for five years, needed. The lawsuit alleges that months later, on January 25, 2024, the deputy used his Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) patrol vehicle’s computer to illegally search for her private, personal information. This act of accessing secure police databases—often used for legitimate law enforcement purposes—for personal, romantic, or even sexual interest is a major violation, and in California, such abuse of power and access is considered a felony.

The legal community has voiced grave concerns, noting that this type of behavior strikes at the very heart of the justice system’s credibility. As one trial attorney noted, the abuse of a position of trust “undermines the credibility of the police in the community and the trust that the community is… mandated and required to place in law enforcement to protect, to serve and to uphold the law.”

The Uniform as a Weapon: Intimidation and Silence

Through his illicit search, Piscatella allegedly obtained Ortega’s home address and cell phone number. The pursuit escalated beyond digital stalking. Soon after, he appeared at her residence in the city of La Quinta, armed and in full uniform, demanding information about her location from her mother. The lawsuit contends that this aggressive use of authority—the badge, the weapon, the uniform—was an intentional act of intimidation, exploiting the psychological reality that most citizens feel they have no choice but to comply with a police officer’s demands.

What makes this incident particularly damning for the department is the allegation that Piscatella was not alone. The lawsuit names Deputy Martinez Moreno and two unidentified “Does” as being present in the patrol car during this interaction and claims they neither stopped nor reported Piscatella’s clear misuse of power. This alleged failure to intervene points directly to a crucial legal doctrine in the civil suit: that of the department’s tacit approval. Officers have a duty to intervene and report misconduct, yet the culture of “no snitching” appears to have prevailed, leading the lawsuit to conclude that the deputies were “loathed to turn each other in” for violating policy or the law.

Despite Ortega changing her number, the deputy’s obsession only intensified, leading him to illegally search for her information routinely. The chilling culmination of his harassment occurred on July 2, 2024, an event that forms the most shocking core of the civil complaint.

Faking a Home Invasion to Gain Entry

On that day, mere minutes after Ortega had returned home from being out of town, Piscatella allegedly ran her license plate on the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS). Armed and in uniform, he then showed up at her residence and entered without consent or legal cause. His pretense? A terrifying, fabricated story: that “a black man with dreadlocks had jumped over her backyard fence attempting to break into her residence.”

This brazen lie, designed to exploit a homeowner’s fear and the duty of a peace officer to respond to a crisis, allowed the deputy to breach the sanctity of her home. The lawsuit points out the chilling detail that this staged encounter happened just three minutes after she arrived home, suggesting she was under constant surveillance.

Once inside, the facade crumbled. According to the complaint, Piscatella “immediately began to make romantic overtures towards the plainif, telling her how beautiful she was without makeup and asked for her new cell phone number.” Confused, scared, and deeply uncomfortable, Ortega began secretly recording part of the interaction on her phone, creating crucial evidence of the deputy’s predatory intent. Legal experts emphasize the critical nature of this digital and recorded evidence, which corroborates the victim’s account and destroys any defense Piscatella could mount about a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Ortega eventually provided her new number while “under duress,” believing it was necessary for the fake investigation. Immediately, Piscatella resumed his romantic pursuit, even texting that he would “steal Plainif from her boyfriend.” Ortega immediately ended the conversation and reported the illegal conduct to law enforcement, leading to his eventual resignation in October 2024.

The Fight Against Systemic Failure

The civil lawsuit, filed in federal court, is a multi-pronged attack. It alleges six causes of action, including civil rights violations under specific federal statutes, violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and a Fourth Amendment violation against unreasonable search and seizure, directly citing Piscatella’s illegal access of her data and warrantless entry into her home.

Crucially, the suit seeks to hold the entire county responsible under the doctrine of municipal liability—often called a Monell claim—by alleging the department failed to properly train, supervise, and enforce policies against the abuse of computer systems. The complaint forcefully argues that the deputies “knew or was otherwise aware there was no enforced county RCSD policy in place to monitor and/or review his computer use and activity,” and that his co-workers believed they “would not be disciplined or punished for their conduct” because similar actions had “routinely gone unpunished.” This argument suggests that the county’s lack of policy effectively constituted an informal policy of allowing abuse to go forward, making the employer liable for the employee’s actions.

A Slap on the Wrist in Criminal Court

Perhaps the most frustrating element of this case for the public is the outcome of the criminal proceedings. In December 2024, Piscatella was charged with seven felony counts for illegally obtaining information. However, in July of this year, he made an open plea to the court, requesting that the judge downgrade his charges to a misdemeanor.

Despite strenuous objections from the prosecution, Superior Court Judge Helios J. Hernandez reportedly accepted the downgrade, saying that “nothing actually happened,” and minimizing the severity of the deputy’s abuse of power. Piscatella ultimately pled guilty to misdemeanor charges, receiving a sentence of just one year of probation and 100 hours of community service.

Legal analysis suggests this outcome reflects the frustrating reality of the justice system: “a host of immunities and legal protections that allow law enforcement to get away with things that you and I or anyone who’s watching this would never be able to do.” The victim’s position further complicated the criminal case; Ortega, fearing retaliation from the former deputy or the department, refused to testify against Piscatella. This refusal ultimately limited the charges the District Attorney’s office could pursue, although prosecutors still have the discretion to proceed with available evidence.

The result—a convicted former deputy who stalked a mother of two and faked a crime to get into her home, walking away with probation—sends a deeply damaging message. For many, it suggests that when law enforcement betrays public trust, they receive nothing more than a temporary “speed bump” in their career, rather than the firm accountability required to deter such destructive behavior in the future.

While the criminal case has concluded with a disappointing sentence for the public, the federal civil lawsuit against the County of Riverside continues. It represents Ortega’s pursuit of justice—a fight to hold the entire system accountable for enabling a predator who weaponized his badge and eroded the community’s fundamental trust in those sworn to protect them. The outcome of the civil proceedings will determine whether the county’s alleged systemic failures will finally face a reckoning.