BHPD Confirms Vehicle in Campaign Sign Video Was Involved in Thefts

Beverly Hills police have confirmed that the vehicle shown in a video originally posted by BHUSD candidate David Cienfuegos and later shared in a Beverly Hills community WhatsApp chat was involved in campaign sign thefts. The department also says it has identified a juvenile suspect and that the case remains active.

The confirmation came in an October 5 written response from BHPD Captain Kevin Orth to questions submitted by the Beverly Hills Standard. It provides a substantially different account from the one Councilmember Rebecca Pynoos initially presented in a neighborhood WhatsApp chat.

"The case is active and is being handled through the juvenile justice system," Orth wrote.

Asked whether police had identified who was responsible, he responded: "The suspect involved in the thefts has been identified as a juvenile." The department declined to disclose additional information, citing restrictions on the release of juvenile offender information.

The Standard also asked whether BHPD had determined that the allegation shared in the chat was incorrect.

"In the posted video, only the vehicle posted was involved in the thefts," Orth wrote. "We cannot disclose who was involved in the thefts."

That response confirms the vehicle's involvement. It does not establish its ownership, identify its driver or authenticate every claim made alongside the video. The identification of a suspect also does not establish guilt.

Those distinctions matter. So does the difference between what police have now confirmed and what an elected official previously attributed to them.

At 3:08 p.m. on October 4, Pynoos posted: "Our BHPD has deemed this is incorrect and has sadly targeted a minor in our city who is not responsible for stolen signs."

She urged residents not to share the material, calling it unfactual and saying it had jeopardized a family's public safety.

Her wording presented a police conclusion. It did not identify a community member as her source or describe the information as an unconfirmed account.

At 4:33 p.m., the Standard emailed Police Chief Max Subin and City Manager Ryan Gohlich seeking clarification of the investigation and the conclusions Pynoos had attributed to BHPD.

At 6:17 p.m., Pynoos posted a clarification saying she had written as a concerned resident and had not been speaking for the city.

"The information that I referenced in my comments was not shared by BHPD but rather by a community member," she wrote. "I apologize for any confusion this may have caused."

Her clarification followed the Standard's inquiry. That sequence does not establish what prompted her second message.

The department's subsequent response adds another significant point. Asked whether BHPD had provided those conclusions to Pynoos and whether her message was an authorized statement of its findings, Orth answered: "No."

Because the question contained two parts, that answer leaves room for further clarification about each. It nevertheless provides no support for treating her original message as an authorized department statement.

In our view, Pynoos's clarification leaves the central accountability question unanswered: Why did she present information from a community member as a conclusion reached by BHPD?

Her original message expressly invoked the department's authority. She later acknowledged that her information had not come from the department. Apologizing for confusion does not explain why she attributed that information to police in the first place. Residents have reason to expect an elected official to verify a claimed police finding before presenting it to the public.

The department's response does not establish that Pynoos knowingly misled anyone. It does establish that police have identified a juvenile suspect, that the investigation remains active and that the vehicle shown in the video was involved in the thefts. Those findings do not support her original assurance that BHPD had deemed the allegation incorrect.

Orth also answered "Yes" to a question asking whether police had documented a related safety threat or whether the concern was Pynoos's own assessment. Because that question offered alternatives, the answer does not clearly establish which he meant.

The Standard received BHPD's response at 1:11 p.m. on October 5, after the noon publication deadline specified in its inquiry. This report follows the Standard's earlier article examining Pynoos's statements.

The public now has a written police account. The remaining question for Pynoos is why her initial account claimed police authority for information she later said came from someone else.