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.