Court Documents Suggest That Duffy Has ‘Safe Room’

Sheriff John Duffy’s house may contain an elaborate “safe room,” a fortified room with county weaponry and radio equipment from which he could command his officers during an emergency, according to court documents filed Monday.

The court papers, filed by The Times in opposition to a temporary restraining order imposed by a Superior Court judge at Duffy’s request last week, outline for the first time the questions about Duffy’s security measures that a Times reporter had been asking of the Sheriff’s Department, triggering the court order.

Calling Duffy’s move “a transparent political gesture” and “half-cocked,” attorneys for The Times argued that the sheriff’s court bid is intended to prevent the newspaper from publishing legitimate, newsworthy information about his performance in office.

“This is simply the latest battle in Sheriff Duffy’s ongoing efforts to stifle criticism of him,” the Times attorneys wrote in the court filings. This “is plainly an unconstitutional attempt to prevent legitimate criticism of his conduct as San Diego’s sheriff.”

The arguments included in Monday’s court papers will be the focus of a hearing Wednesday when Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Miller is expected to decide whether to lift the extraordinary order he issued last week barring The Times from publishing information about security measures installed at Duffy’s Scripps Ranch house.

That order was issued Thursday after Times reporter Richard A. Serrano asked the Sheriff’s Department for information about a possible “safe room” in Duffy’s house containing various weapons and other county equipment, such as radios. In the event of an emergency--either personal or in cases of widespread civil disorder--the sheriff purportedly could go to the room and still be in contact with his deputies, according to a declaration by Serrano filed in connection with the lawsuit.

In seeking last week’s order, Duffy’s attorney contended that the publication of any news story about security measures at Duffy’s newly built home would jeopardize the personal safety of the sheriff and his wife, Linda. Such stories would also violate the sheriff’s privacy rights, his attorney says.

Dale Fetherling, editor of the San Diego County Edition of The Times, has characterized that claim as “preposterous”--a position that Monday’s court filings reiterate. Times attorneys said Duffy’s suggestion that such stories would endanger his family is merely a smokescreen aimed at precluding possible criticism over the nature and financing of the security measures.

Stories about Duffy’s security measures could help determine whether public funds or other resources were used, as well as help voters judge whether Duffy, who faces reelection next year, has developed a “fortress mentality,” the court papers say.

“Nothing more clearly demonstrates Sheriff Duffy’s motivation than the scope of the prior restraint he initially sought, namely, an order barring the publication of ‘any information regarding security measures in (his) residence,’ ” the Times attorneys wrote. “Thus, Duffy sought to bar any discussion of obviously legitimate subjects (such as) who paid for his security measures . . . and are those measures unreasonably elaborate?”

Noting that the U. S. Supreme Court has consistently held that “only in the most extraordinary circumstances” may newspapers be prevented from publishing stories, Times attorneys contend that any restraining order in this case would be an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment. Duffy’s complaints, the lawyers said in the court papers, fall far short of meeting the “extraordinary burden required to justify a prior restraint.”

“The First Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the public and press to be free from government censorship,” the newspaper’s lawyers said. “Sheriff John F. Duffy would have this court turn those principles on their head, by subscribing instead to the principle that elected officials can prevent the publication of unfavorable or critical commentary.”

Duffy’s attorney, Janet Houts, said Monday that she believes that the arguments about prior restraint are outweighed by questions concerning whether news stories about the security measures at Duffy’s home violate his guarantees of privacy. Houts’ complete response to The Times’ legal documents will be included in her own court filings, to be submitted today.

“I don’t think prior restraint is applicable to this case,” Houts said Monday night. “The main issue is privacy. This is not a public issue. When you have to balance two conflicting constitutional protections, you have to sort out which is more important. In this case, I think that’s the privacy question.”

The dispute began Thursday when reporter Serrano contacted the Sheriff’s Department seeking details about what he had been told by sources were elaborate security precautions taken at Duffy’s home.

“Although I was not certain whether this inquiry would result in any news article, the purpose of the inquiry was to ascertain whether unusual security measures were in effect and whether those measures included the use of San Diego County resources,” Serrano said in an affidavit included in Monday’s court papers.

Serrano said in the statement that he asked only about the reported safe room and not about any other aspects of the sheriff’s security system or household contents.

During subsequent conversations involving Serrano, Times editors and sheriff’s employees, Duffy’s staff refused to discuss whether such security measures exist at Duffy’s house. Nevertheless, Duffy’s aides argued that any stories about the sheriff’s home security would pose a threat to his safety, and pressed the newspaper for a commitment not to publish any such information.

Although emphasizing that no decision had been made about whether to publish a story, Times editors refused to agree not to do so, prompting Duffy attorney Houts to go to court late Thursday seeking a restraining order.

At a hearing at which The Times was not present, Miller ordered the newspaper not to print information regarding the “nature, layout or configuration of security measures” in Duffy’s home. At a hearing Friday, Miller amended that order, substituting the word “location” for “nature”--a change that the Times attorneys argued would enable the publication of a wide range of information about Duffy’s security measures.

From the outset, Times editors and lawyers have emphasized that the newspaper never intended to publish Duffy’s home address or a layout of his house detailing his home-security system. The sheriff’s effort to make it appear that the newspaper planned to do so, Times attorneys said Monday, is simply a “great public relations ploy . . . designed to smear The Times.”

Both of Duffy’s two major legal arguments--that the public has neither the need nor the right to know about his security measures, and that publication of that information would violate his own privacy rights--are insufficient to justify prior restraint, the Times attorneys wrote.

The public has the right to know whether Duffy has installed an elaborate security system “at the expense of the public or some third party,” as well as whether the system “includes the use of sheriff’s deputies and equipment to respond to alarms at his residence--features which are not available to the general public,” the court papers say.

“Even the issue of whether the San Diego sheriff has developed a ‘fortress’ mentality, which has led him to implement overblown and unnecessary security measures at his residence, is certainly a matter which may ‘touch on his fitness for office,’ ” the Times attorneys wrote.

Describing Duffy’s safety concerns as “completely speculative,” the lawyers noted that the sheriff himself acknowledges that he has received “hundreds of threats” throughout his 30-year career, “none of which apparently ever resulted in actual danger.”

Moreover, a “general discussion” of Duffy’s security measures actually could “act as a deterrent to individuals who might otherwise be a threat to him or his family,” the lawyers said.

Duffy’s claim that his privacy rights would be violated by publication of his home address or a discussion of his security system is “completely ridiculous,” the Times attorneys said. Not only is that information available in other public records, but The Times has no intention of publishing Duffy’s address or a map of his home-security system, they said. In addition, because Miller’s temporary restraining order applies only to The Times, it would not prevent other news media from printing or broadcasting the information.

“Sheriff Duffy cannot present any rational justification for a prior restraint,” the court papers conclude. “All Duffy has (is) surmise and conjecture. That is never enough to justify a prior restraint.”