Sheriff Duffy’s Real Fear May Be the Truth

The temporary restraining order sought and won by Sheriff John Duffy on Thursday against the Los Angeles Times speaks as much to public relations as it does to the law. The order, granted after a hearing to which The Times was not a party, is clearly unconstitutional.

It is a bedrock principle of the U.S. Constitution that, except in the narrowest of circumstances, material should be allowed to be published first, then attacked legally if it is libelous or invades someone’s privacy. Without this safeguard, we run the risk of having government decide what is, and is not, public information.

Sheriff Duffy, who has been under increasing fire from the media, effectively is using the law as a shield to obscure the real issue, which is his accountability to the people.

The order that the sheriff’s aides sought and won states that “great and irreparable injury” would result to Duffy if The Times published stories about the personal security system at his home.

In truth, The Times has no intention of publishing information that would endanger the sheriff. And we may never publish anything at all.

What really happened is that a reporter, acting on some information he received, called the sheriff’s office to inquire further.

Then the legal ax fell. Unfairly and without legal basis, we think, but perhaps more important: Why? The implication from the sheriff is that it fell to protect him and his wife, to prevent The Times from running his address, the floor plans of his house, the location of his alarms, and other sensitive information. To save his life.

In actuality, this is preposterous.

We have known Sheriff Duffy’s address for years and have never published it. As recently as Wednesday, we ran an article that described how Duffy has ordered his deputies to respond to emergency calls at his home, even though it is deep within territory patrolled by the San Diego police.

That story, true and unchallenged, did not give Duffy’s address, the name of his street, or any other clues identifying his residence. It did describe an unusual arrangement that is apparently unique to Duffy; other local law-enforcement officials do not appear to operate that way.

The proposed story about the sheriff’s security system sprang from similar roots. Its purpose was not to endanger or allow anyone else to endanger the sheriff.

Its purpose was--is--to find out if a super security system exists and if so, what are the public policy implications of such an installation?

For one, how extraordinary is it? Why is it necessary? Have there been serious threats? Did Duffy pay for it, or did you and I as taxpayers pay for it? Were sheriff’s deputies diverted from their work to help put it in?

We don’t know the answers to those questions. But we think the public has a right to know them. So, we asked. And the sheriff went to court.

Is it his safety he fears for, or does he fear the truth?

We are not in the business of furnishing maps for burglars. And we go to great effort not to publish information that could be used to harm someone. For example, we have gone even further than some news organizations by declining to run photographs of the sheriff’s house.

But we do reserve the right to ask questions, and to publish what people have a right to know.

In truth, the sheriff has been displeased with us for some time. He did not like our reporting of abuses in the jail. He fought us unsuccessfully in court over our desire to look at his calendars to see when he was at his post and when he was not.

He took issue with our stories reporting that he was absent from his job on various trips for inordinate amounts of time. He later went on television to criticize The Times and our reporter, Richard Serrano, for stories that detailed his private consulting business, which he earlier had said did not exist. He has refused for many months to talk to Serrano or return his phone calls, and most recently, Duffy barred Serrano from a sheriff’s news conference.

And now, when Serrano asks questions about what we believe to be Duffy’s extraordinary security, the courts get called into the fray. The order is clearly unconstitutional. What’s more, Duffy’s motivation in seeking it is clearly suspect.