By Cris Alarcon, InEDC Writer. April 27, 2026
PLACERVILLE, Calif. — A 2023 incident involving El Dorado County supervisorial candidate Gina Posey and a county-issued laptop is resurfacing in public discussion as the District 4 race gains momentum, with questions raised about the handling of confidential Grand Jury materials and the decision not to pursue criminal charges.
According to a report filed by the Placerville Police Department, officers were dispatched on June 21, 2023, to the Grand Jury offices at 360 Fair Lane following a complaint that a county-issued laptop had been taken without authorization. The reporting party, identified as Grand Jury member Marisa Nickles, told officers Posey declined to immediately return the device and left the premises with it after being asked to surrender it.
The report states the laptop contained confidential documents and witness interview materials related to Grand Jury investigations. County IT staff were notified and remotely wiped both cloud access and the laptop itself later that day, according to the report.
Posey returned the laptop the following morning, June 22, 2023. However, the reporting party later alleged that files had been accessed, downloaded, and in some cases deleted or emailed from the system during the period Posey had control of the device.
The case was forwarded to the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office for review. In a written response dated March 2024, Assistant District Attorney James Clinchard stated:
“A review … shows no criminal complaint has been issued at this time, against the incident described in the report.”
The case was subsequently classified as inactive.
The incident has since become a point of public debate as Posey seeks elected office. Some community members and former Grand Jury participants have downplayed the significance of the report, citing the absence of charges.
“I served as a member of the Grand Jury… Gina did nothing wrong, as evidenced by the report going to the D.A. and no charges being brought forth,”
wrote former juror Ron Edmon in a public comment circulating online.
Others, however, have raised concerns about the conduct described in the report, regardless of prosecutorial outcome.
“Even allegations and a full police report… raises an eyebrow for me as to moral and ethical practices,”
wrote community member Myra Lowder.
Additional commentary reflects broader disagreement over Grand Jury procedures and expectations regarding the handling of confidential materials. Some former jurors noted that end-of-term data review practices were not always clearly structured, while others emphasized strict limitations on personal use of county-issued equipment.
No public record indicates that formal charges, disciplinary findings, or judicial proceedings followed the incident. It remains unclear whether any internal Grand Jury review was conducted, as those proceedings are typically confidential under California law.
As the District 4 supervisorial race continues, the resurfacing of the 2023 report highlights the role past conduct may play in shaping voter perception, even in the absence of formal legal action.
