Duffy Paid Legal Bills With Funds Seized in Raids : Lawsuit: Despite warning, the sheriff used money from drug raids to pay for his defense in a lawsuit filed against him by members of his department.

San Diego County Sheriff John Duffy spent nearly $70,000 seized in drug raids--money the federal government said must be used for law enforcement--to defend himself in a civil lawsuit against sheriff’s deputies involved in the so-called “Rambo Squad” case at the El Cajon jail.

Duffy’s finance manager, Harold Donahoo, said Monday that the department had spent $66,336 through June 30 and was processing invoices of $3,000 more through Sept. 30 to the law firm of Martin J. Mayer, who represented Duffy against six deputies in the “Rambo Squad” case.

The last of the cases was resolved, at least temporarily, last week when the county Civil Service Commission granted an appeal from a sheriff’s captain, whose 35-day suspension was revoked and $8,000 in pay reinstated. None of the cases went to trial.

In June, county auditors told Duffy that he improperly spent $46,450--paid to Mayer’s law firm through Jan. 18--and recommended that he reimburse the account, presumably from other Sheriff’s Department funds.

Despite the warning, Duffy continued to pay the law firm. Attorneys from the firm represented Duffy through the month of October on the appeal of Sheriff’s Capt. Maudie Bobbitt, who won her appeal last week and who yet may be disciplined after a new internal investigation is completed.

Duffy did not return telephone calls to his office Monday. Undersheriff Richard Sandberg declined to comment, referring all questions to Duffy.

Duffy has run into problems regarding legal fees before.

In 1988, the county counsel’s office said the sheriff must personally pay the American Civil Liberties Union the legal costs it incurred while challenging Duffy’s conduct during a 1985 campaign to oust then-California Chief Justice Elizabeth Bird.

In that case, Duffy used on-duty deputies to distribute 18,000 anti-Bird post cards. The ACLU successfully sued Duffy for misusing his office. Duffy’s friends later helped him retire the $33,796 in attorney’s fees and court costs.

The June audit, which documented Duffy’s spending of the drug seizure money, also criticized his poor accounting of property, such as cars, seized in drug raids and questioned why $24,500 was paid to the Metropolitan Homicide Task Force, which is investigating prostitute murders.

The audit shows that the sheriff’s office collected $2.086 million from September, 1986--when the asset forfeiture program started--to June 30, 1989. The sheriff spent $998,000 during that time on portable radios, a turbo engine, computers, FAX machines, data services, travel and other expenses.

Duffy said in June that he expects $2.4 million this fiscal year and expects to spend $1.6 million.

Federal guidelines established in 1984 allowed law enforcement officials to keep money and property seized in drug busts. Two years later, federal officials ruled that the money could be used “for law enforcement purposes only.”

The definition is purposely broad to allow police agencies great latitude in using the drug money to fight crime, federal and local law enforcement officials say. The guidelines make clear, however, that money obtained through drug seizures cannot be used to balance governmental budgets or to pay for budget items normally financed by law enforcement agencies such as the Sheriff’s Department.

Auditors pointed out to Duffy in June that drug funds “shall not be a source of revenue to meet normal operating needs of the Sheriff’s Department.”

Supervisor Susan Golding said she was shocked by Duffy’s actions, in light of the sheriff’s past comments to the board that he is an expert on how drug funds can be used and has provided valuable input into the federal laws that established the spending guidelines.

“I’m more than surprised because John Duffy said he had frequently testified in hearings as to the purpose of using these funds,” she said. “Now he’s used money to defend himself against his own deputies in a civil lawsuit. I’m sure that’s not an expenditure Congress had in mind when they drafted the federal guidelines for drug money expenses.”

In June, Golding and other county supervisors voted to spend about $450,000 from seized funds to upgrade jail security. Duffy had wanted to use the money to buy computers that would help deputies run a criminal history of suspects from their patrol cars.

Duffy saw the supervisors’ action as a move to usurp his authority and put together a strongly worded memo to the board last May that warned supervisors that spending money on the jail was not permitted under federal law.

“In your zeal to divert forfeited cash assets from their intended law enforcement purposes and apply those funds to general government purposes, you may very well ‘kill the goose that lays the golden egg,’ ” he wrote. “I cannot be a party to the charade that would be created by implementing the proposed ordinance by simply going along to get along.”

Golding said she hoped that Duffy or someone in his office will end the practice of paying Mayer’s law firm.

“I’m making the assumption that, because all of this is now becoming public, things will change,” she said. “And I would hope that our new sheriff would follow up on this.”

Duffy is not running for reelection for the first time in 20 years. Assistant Sheriff Jack Drown and Sheriff’s Capt. Jim Roache are running to succeed him in next Tuesday’s election.