Subject: Questions Intensify Over Handling of May 1 School Incident and Subsequent Arrest in San Marcos

San Diego County, CA — New information released by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office (SDSO) is raising further questions about the handling of an alleged child-abduction incident involving San Marcos mother Giselle Smiel, whose September 4, 2025, arrest stemmed from events that occurred months earlier on May 1, 2025, at Double Peak K-8 and Mission Hills High School.

Although the Los Angeles District Attorney later filed felony kidnapping charges, records obtained from the San Diego Sheriff’s Office show that deputies who responded to the schools on May 1 did not treat the situation as an active child-abduction incident. Deputies were present at both campuses—including School Resource Officer Robert Riggs, Deputy James Manibusan, and a Child Abduction Unit investigators —yet no arrest, detention, campus lockdown, report of exigent circumstances, or investigative actions consistent with a child-abduction response were initiated. 

AS STATED IN A MAY 3, 2025 ARTICLE from the Thunder Report, No Warrant. No Order. Just Lies. — The San Marcos School Ambush Exposing Family Court Fraud – “These weren’t isolated events either. They are part of a larger, more terrifying trend: the growing use of non-sworn “investigators” who impersonate law enforcement, leverage the court system for private custody battles, and use schools as access points for unsanctioned removals.”

Standard national child-abduction guidelines—including federal missing-child requirements, NCIC entry protocols, and NCMEC notification procedures—call for immediate emergency classification, rapid documentation, and activation of investigative steps when a kidnapping is alleged. None of those steps appear to have occurred.

In a separate development, SDSO recently declined to release certain records related to Ms. Smiel’s September 4 arrest, stating:

“The Sheriff’s Office declines your request for discretionary release in this case due to the significant public interest and the questions already raised about the legality of the underlying arrest and detention. This is not a request for an identifiable public record.”

The statement is unusual for a California Public Records Act response and suggests the agency is aware of unresolved concerns surrounding the arrest process. The Sheriff’s Office also previously reported that it had no field notes, incident memos, or responsive records generated during the May 1 response at either school.

The conflicting timelines, the absence of standard child-abduction response protocols on May 1, and the Sheriff’s Office’s acknowledgment of “questions… about the legality of the underlying arrest” have heightened public attention on the case. Advocates and observers say the discrepancies raise broader issues about inter-agency communication, the use of criminal charges in family-law disputes, and the transparency of law-enforcement decision-making.

The case continues to draw scrutiny ahead of upcoming court proceedings.

Media Contact:
Michael Phillips, Thunder Report
mike@thunderreport.org