Pubdate: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 Source: Tribune, The (San Luis Obispo, CA) Copyright: 2007 The Tribune Contact: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/391 Author: Leslie Parrilla Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?246 (Policing - United States) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/corrupt.htm (Corruption - United States) Eavesdropping HEDGES' CASE HINGES ON PROBE OF DRUG UNIT Sheriff calls taping of deputy legal because of criminal investigation, but some officials say there wasn't one Whether Sheriff Pat Hedges is guilty of illegal eavesdropping depends largely on whether he ordered a criminal investigation into his department's narcotics unit and a chief deputy, as Hedges said when defending his actions. But two investigators in the Sheriff's Department and one former high-ranking sheriff's official have told The Tribune there was no criminal investigation. Hedges, the county's top law enforcement official, declined to talk to The Tribune for this story. He has said that he secretly videotaped one of his chief deputies meeting with a subordinate to discuss a grievance last year. The sheriff said the videotaping was part of his criminal investigation into an allegation that Chief Deputy Gary Hoving was interfering with a criminal investigation into the narcotics unit, according to court documents. Hedges and Undersheriff Steve Bolts have pointed to an audit and interviews with employees spanning several months as proof that a criminal investigation was conducted. Ultimately, they determined the allegations were unfounded. The secret taping is the subject of a criminal probe by the state Attorney General's Office and a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Hoving against Hedges, Bolts and the county. The Grievance After Sgt. Jay Donovan was assigned to lead the narcotics unit in January 2006, detectives complained to Hoving -- Donovan's supervisor - -- that he was verbally abusive and impossible to work for, narcotics detective Nick Fontecchio said. Following repeated complaints, Hoving transferred Donovan to the traffic unit to hone his supervisory skills, according to court documents. Donovan then filed a grievance with the department protesting his involuntary transfer. The county and Sheriff's Department denied The Tribune a copy of the original or an amended grievance, citing state laws protecting personnel information. According to court documents filed by Hedges, the grievance included criminal allegations against the narcotics unit--that detectives misused department money, claimed overtime for work not performed and improperly booked evidence. As well, the documents said, drugs seized by the unit made their way to inmates at County Jail. Donovan and Hoving met Oct. 13, 2006, to discuss the grievance. Hedges and Bolts secretly taped the meeting with concealed video and audio equipment. Donovan knew the session was being taped, but Hoving did not, according to court documents. Defending the Taping It is illegal in California to tape a conversation unless all parties agree, except in certain criminal investigations or if the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hedges has said the secret taping was legal because he was conducting a criminal investigation into the possibility that Hoving was interfering with a criminal probe by Donovan into the narcotics unit, according to court records. Bolts backs the sheriff's account, telling The Tribune that Bolts' full-time job from October 2006 to Jan. 29 was investigating criminal and personnel matters alleged in Donovan's grievance. Bolts said he combined the personnel and criminal investigation into one case -- instead of the department's standard procedure of creating a separate crime report for criminal investigations -- because the criminal and administrative issues arose together and were investigated simultaneously. "It's difficult to define standard procedure in this set of circumstances," Bolts said. "I can't speak to the standard because it is rather unusual for a personnel investigation to involve elements of criminal conduct." Although the sheriff and undersheriff do not normally investigate criminal matters, Bolts said they did in this case because the allegations involved Hoving, one of the department's highest-ranking deputies, and employees with varying ranks. Bolts told The Tribune he interviewed several people in the department and the unit as part of the criminal investigation. "A lot of people were interviewed in this investigation," Bolts said. "Any member of that unit that's saying I didn't interview them is not being truthful with you." He said he avoided asking pointed questions during the interviews to shield information in the grievance that would be protected by state laws. "So a lot of that effort was not (to) sit down in rooms and say 'Did you take narcotics from the unit?' " Bolts explained. He also audited the unit by reviewing employment records, time sheets, overtime reports, cash accounts, travel claims and evidence reports and examining evidence, he said. Bolts said he determined in October 2006 the criminal allegations were unfounded and he ended that part of his investigation. He continued following up on the personnel issues outlined in Donovan's grievance. "It was a criminal investigation up to the point that it is unfounded," Bolts said. "When the case falls apart, the criminal element goes away. "The allegations of criminal conduct were one of a laundry list of complaints.We were still left with a mountain of complaints that to this day have not been resolved." Donovan's grievance was amended in late January, according to Bolts, who declined to elaborate on how the grievance was changed, citing personnel laws restricting him from discussing it. "I feel handcuffed," Bolts said. "They (employees) don't know the whole story. Neither do you. Neither do a lot of people.... We have to protect the personnel rights of our employees. And therein lies the dilemma of not being able to explain (this) to your satisfaction." Donovan could not be reached for comment. Doubts About Investigation Two sheriff's investigators and one former investigator dispute Bolts' account, saying they know of no official criminal investigation into the narcotics unit. Fontecchio, a narcotics detective, said Bolts had interviewed him but only asked if he had seen Donovan's grievance or knew what was in it. "(Bolts) asked me if I had seen a copy of the grievance, ...and I told him no because I hadn't," Fontecchio said of what he described as a five-minute interview in Bolts' office a few months after Donovan's transfer. "He asked me a few questions months ago and didn't say any more about why he wanted the information," Fontecchio said. "He gave me limited information, and that's it." None of Bolts' questions included or alluded to criminal conduct within the unit, Fontecchio said. Hoving told The Tribune that he was never told about a criminal investigation into his activities or the narcotics unit nor was he interviewed about any criminal allegations. "The focus was on administrative details, such as documentation of overtime reports, and strictly administrative concerns," Hoving said. Former Chief Deputy David Albrecht said the investigation did not follow department procedures for criminal investigations, adding that it appears instead to have been only a personnel investigation. Albrecht, a 28-year veteran of the department, left the agency Aug. 4 after he was charged with stealing groceries. He was convicted and sentenced in July to a year of probation after pleading no contest--a plea that results in a conviction without an admission of guilt. Albrecht said that if the department had combined the criminal and personnel aspects of an investigation, that would not be standard procedure. Normally, alleged crimes are assigned their own case numbers and are investigated separately. Combining criminal and personnel issues into one investigation wouldn't work, Albrecht said. A combined report that contains confidential personnel information could not be sent to the county District Attorney's Office for prosecution because the information is protected by state law, he said. Santa Ana attorney Bruce Praet, who specializes in local government law and is not involved in the case, said if Hoving was not told that he was being interviewed as part of a criminal investigation, then the interview would have been illegal under state law. "If the employer is conducting a criminal investigation of its employees, then they are obligated to (inform) the employee of the nature of the (investigation) prior to the interrogation," Praet said. "The sergeant is interrogating the chief deputy. That is a violation of the chief deputy's bill of rights." The state Attorney General's Office said this month it is continuing to investigate the taping but declined to discuss details of the case. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake