A man found dead in the Napa River last week has been identified, according to the Napa County Sheriff’s Office. (Beth Schlanker / The Press Democrat file)
A Napa County sheriff’s deputy has been accused of distributing explicit photos of his now-estranged wife over several years, and has been charged with crimes covered partly under California’s revenge pornography law.
James Fotherby, 43, faces one count each of invasion of privacy and distribution of a private image causing emotional distress. Both counts are misdemeanors, with maximum punishment of six months jail for each.
On Dec. 1, the Napa County District Attorney’s Office added a special allegation based on the victim’s status as a domestic partner. It calls for a probation term of at least 3 years.
Fotherby has pleaded not guilty to both counts, and denied the special allegation. Neither he nor his attorney, Napa-based Laina Chikhani, responded to text messages this week.
Fotherby has been on paid administrative leave from the Sheriff’s Office for two months or more, according to Henry Wofford, the agency’s public information officer. Any further investigation will be handled by the Napa Police Department, which has jurisdiction in the case, and by the District Attorney’s Office office.
“We’re aware of the situation,” Wofford said. “We want to make sure that the person has the privacy they deserve, and make sure it’s a matter addressed in court rather than in public. It’s very important to get the factual information and to hear both sides before coming to any conclusion.”
Fotherby and his wife are currently in divorce proceedings, which he initiated Aug. 4. The Press Democrat is not naming her because she is the reported victim.
Napa Police Department Detective Dustin Dodd filed an arrest/complaint form Sept. 26 noting that, “From 2023-2025, James Fotherby distributed nude and explicit images of his wife … without her permission. He admitted to doing so in text messages and in a pretext phone call.”
A pretext call refers to a phone call initiated by the victim, usually under the supervision of a law enforcement officer, and recorded to gather evidence.
The intimate images were forensically recovered from Fotherby’s phone following execution of a search warrant, and from his wife’s phone with her consent, according to the arrest report. It also alleges that Fotherby accidentally distributed a “nude and explicit image” of the wife to their 13-year-old daughter, via an iPhone AirDrop last January.
That error happened to occur on Fotherby’s 43rd birthday.
In describing the invasion of privacy charge, the criminal complaint states that sometime in 2024, the deputy “did unlawfully use a concealed camera to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means” the case’s Jane Doe, who was “in a state of full or partial undress … in the interior of a bathroom.”
This was done without the wife’s knowledge or consent, according to the complaint.
The distribution of the intimate, private content occurred between January 2022 and January 2025, the complaint alleges, expanding the time frame offered by the police department. “Jane Doe suffered serious emotional distress” due to that distribution, the document states.
At Fotherby’s Dec. 3 arraignment before Napa County Superior Court Judge Elia Ortiz, prosecuting attorney Shashawnya Worley requested a criminal protective order for the wife, who addressed the court. Chikhani objected on Fotherby’s behalf.
Ortiz granted the protective order.
That order, which remains in effect until overridden by a further court directive, requires Fotherby to stay at least 100 yards from his wife and daughter, their home, their workplace and vehicle, except for exchange or visitation of the child as laid out in the divorce case.
Fotherby otherwise isn’t allowed to contact either of them in person or by telephone, mail, email or other electronic means, or through a third party.
The protective order also appears to prohibit Fotherby from owning or possessing firearms or body armor. Courts have the power to grant exceptions to this rule if a peace officer’s employment and personal safety necessitate carrying a gun. But it requires a mandatory psychological evaluation of the officer to determine whether they pose a threat of harm.
There is no indication in the court documents that Ortiz granted such an exception for Fotherby.
A settlement conference in the criminal case has been scheduled for Feb. 17.
You can reach Phil Barber at 707-521-5263 or phil.barber@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @Skinny_Post.
Originally published at Phil Barber