Judge Rules Search Involving 2 Deputies in Drug Case Is Illegal

A federal judge ruled Monday that evidence obtained in search warrants against two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies cannot be used in court, dealing a legal setback to government prosecutors in their case against nine narcotics officers charged with stealing drug profits.

U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie threw out the evidence against Deputies Nancy A. Brown and Michael J. Kaliterna after ruling that authorities lacked sufficient cause to search their homes and offices for evidence linking them to the money-skimming scandal. Rafeedie said the ruling will stand unless he changes his mind in a subsequent written order.

Brown and Kaliterna are among nine deputies and a sergeant charged with stealing more than $1.4 million from suspected drug dealers and money launderers during the last two years. Another 18 narcotics officers have been relieved of duties in the ongoing investigation.

Although neither Brown nor Kaliterna is considered a major figure in the case, federal prosecutors opposed Rafeedie’s ruling. Government lawyers claimed that both deputies had joined other members of their elite narcotics investigations team--known as Majors II--in a conspiracy to skim money confiscated during narcotics raids.

Protesting the judge’s ruling, Assistant U.S. Atty. Thomas A. Hagemann contended that both deputies were part of an “ongoing criminal scheme within the Majors unit.”

The deputies, facing an Oct. 9 trial date, have maintained their innocence.

Rafeedie upheld most of the other warrants served last Sept. 1--the day when hundreds of FBI agents and sheriff’s deputies descended upon deputies’ homes, offices, cars and other locations during a daylong raid.

In his ruling, the judge said there was “no probable cause” for investigators to have searched property owned by Kaliterna or Brown.

Noting that Brown had been with the Majors II crew for only a few months before the search warrants were served, Rafeedie said it appeared the deputy had been swept up in the investigation “solely based on her membership in this unit.”

“That inference alone is not sufficient (for a search warrant),” Rafeedie said.

In its indictment, the federal government claims that Brown was found with $13,280 in cash in her possession and Kaliterna had $2,770 in alleged drug money when their homes and other property were searched in September.

None of that evidence--as well as any other material obtained through the search warrants--can now be used against the deputies, if Rafeedie allows his ruling to stand. The remaining evidence against the pair is now likely to center on the testimony of former Sgt. Robert R. Sobel, their one-time boss who has pleaded guilty in the case and has agreed to testify against the deputies.

Attorney Roger Hansen, who represents Brown, said he hopes the ruling may persuade prosecutors to drop their case against his client.

“I would think so,” he said, “but that would be up to the government.”

Leonard Levine, a lawyer who represents Kaliterna, said his happiness over the ruling was tempered. “We’ve won the first battle but won’t be satisfied until we win the war, until we have total exoneration at trial,” he said.

Hagemann declined to comment.

Despite the rulings on Brown and Kaliterna, prosecutors were victorious in spurning efforts by other defendants to quash their search warrants.

Rafeedie upheld search warrants served on Deputies James R. Bauder, Eufrasio G. Cortez, Ronald E. Daub, Daniel M. Garner, Macario M. Duran and Duran’s wife, Maria, who also was indicted in the case. Another indicted deputy, Terrell Amers, had his home searched later that same day under a separate warrant. Deputy John C. Dickenson agreed to a consent search of his property, prosecutors said.

On Monday, Rafeedie, who will preside over the money-skimming trial, also rejected a request by defense attorneys for a hearing to determine whether FBI agents and other investigators lied or were negligent in their search warrant affidavits.

The judge also ruled that the videotape of an FBI sting last fall--purportedly showing deputies stealing $48,000--can be shown as evidence. However, the audio portion, as well as separate audiotapes taken during the sting, will not be allowed as evidence.

Rafeedie said that the federal government had missed a legally required deadline to seal the tapes as an insurance against possible tampering.

Authorities failed to finish transcribing the tapes, Hagemann told the judge, because of its time-consuming investigation. Rafeedie said the fact that investigators were too busy to have the tapes sealed was not a satisfactory explanation.