Next Time, Sheriff, Say What You Mean : Brad Gates May Have Misled Supervisors About the Legal Uses of Drug Money

To hear Sheriff Brad Gates, you wouldn’t know there had ever been a question about it. Of course drug forfeiture money could be used for a variety of law enforcement purposes besides drug suppression, he said. Who had ever said anything different?

The sheriff’s observation caused a moment in the Twilight Zone at the Board of Supervisors meeting last week. Gates, after all, previously had given the board the distinct impression in private meetings and letters that the money--$17.6 million since 1984, not counting forfeited property and other assets--could be used only for drug-related programs. For that reason, a skeptical board had ordered a staff study, which took eight months and surveyed 27 cities and counties in California. Also, Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, seeking clarification, had taken the matter up personally with U.S. Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh--twice. The report concluded, and Thornburgh agreed, that there was no legal reason why the money couldn’t go for general law enforcement, as the board thought, as long as it wasn’t used for ongoing expenses.

Despite Gates’ cool handling of the situation last week, there is a lingering feeling that he misled the board. But the board, which at times appears afraid of Gates, also failed to move more quickly to clarify the matter. In the meantime, Gates has had free rein to dispense the money as he wanted. A year ago, he authorized $335,061 of his drug-fighting budget to spruce up Rancho del Rio--a remote canyon site seized during a drug raid--for a visit by President Bush. Gates dubbed it an “emergency” that did not require board approval.

It’s the board’s responsibility to balance all the needs of the county, which is facing severe budget problems. The narcotics suppression money is necessarily a part of that decision-making. Gates’ department is to be commended for good law enforcement work that brings the county the money in the first place. But the sheriff violated the trust of the supervisors by failing to fully inform them of how the money could be used.