Gates Off Hook in Suit; County to Pay $616,000 : Judgment: Ritter brothers drop attempt to obtain punitive damages from sheriff in gun-permit case.

Two private investigators, who alleged that Sheriff Brad Gates unfairly denied them concealed weapons permits, will receive $616,000 in a court judgment approved Friday that will end more than a decade of controversy over the way Gates issues gun permits.

The judgment, to be paid by the county, came after weeks of negotiation between the sheriff and Frank and Ty Ritter, two brothers who in September won a $246,000 jury verdict and the right to pursue additional punitive damages from the sheriff.

With the agreement, Gates will not have to face the possibility of being held personally accountable for violating the Ritters’ constitutional rights. Had the case gone forward, he would have had to divulge details of his wealth at a court hearing set to begin Tuesday.

“I’m very happy. It’s been 12 years and a long fight,” said Frank Ritter of Huntington Beach, who was denied a gun permit six times. “Obviously, I am pleased from the money side, but, in the broader sense, someone has to look over the sheriff’s shoulder because he can’t be trusted to look over his own shoulder.”

Although the jury decided that the sheriff intentionally discriminated against the Ritters, Gates maintained again Friday that he and his deputies have tried to treat everyone fairly when they apply for a concealed weapons permit.

“We are relieved to have this case behind us,” the sheriff said. “I have not been afraid of the process at any point of the game. I think the plaintiffs probably made a decision to settle rather than take a chance on a long, drawn-out battle on punitive damages. After 11 or 12 years, that is enough.”

The stipulated judgment was approved late Friday afternoon by attorneys for both sides and U.S. District Court Judge William P. Gray, who presided over the case. It allows the jury’s September verdict against Gates to stand.

Meir J. Westreich, the Ritters’ lawyer, said his clients will receive $400,000 of the total award while the remaining $216,000 will be used for legal fees and a few remaining court costs.

Under terms of the judgment, the Ritters agreed to drop their attempt to obtain upward of $500,000 in punitive damages from Gates personally. Frank Ritter also abandoned his request for a gun permit to be granted to him retroactively.

In addition, the Sheriff’s Department was ordered to make sure that a new gun permit policy that Gates intends to issue treats all applicants equally and in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and state law.

“We have a conclusion that makes it very clear that Sheriff Brad Gates is not abiding by the law, plain and simple,” Westreich said. “The fact remains there is a final judgment that shows Brad Gates violated his oath of office by applying a policy that violated the Constitution of the United States. That judgment stands.”

The Ritters, both of Orange County, were denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon six times in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They alleged in their lawsuit that Gates discriminated against them as private investigators and oversaw a process that improperly issued many gun permits to political backers, wealthy business people and friends of the sheriff.

During three weeks of trial, the defense contended that the sheriff tried to treat every applicant fairly and that there was no indication that political influence or lack of it had anything to do with the fact that the Ritters did not get permits.

On Sept. 28, the jury found that the Ritters’ failure to support the sheriff politically was not a motivating factor in the denial of their gun permits. Jurors decided that Gates intentionally discriminated against the brothers because they were private investigators.

Finally, jurors found that Gates acted with malice or reckless disregard for the Ritters’ constitutional rights, which subjected the sheriff to the possibility of additional punitive damages to be determined by the same jury at a later hearing.

“I certainly understand the jury’s feelings,” Gates said, “but I believe my people and my department were trying to do the right thing. I think that this is underscored by the fact that the judge did not want the plaintiffs to take part in the review of the gun-permit process. Without talking to him, I think it is an indication that he trusts us to do the right thing.”

Westreich disagreed. “It is outrageous that someone who is agreeing to pay $616,000 and agreeing to an order to obey his own oath of office can turn this upside down and say, ‘The judge trusts me,’ ” he said. “Can the public afford the trust this judge has in the sheriff? It has cost them $616,000.”

Gates noted that his department has issued 448 gun permits to private security personnel and private investigators since 1978. He reiterated that his efforts since becoming sheriff in 1975 have reduced the number of gun permits from about 3,000 to 250.

Gates also said the California State Sheriff’s Assn. will be introducing legislation to have the state assume the responsibility for issuing concealed weapons permits to private investigators and security personnel to avoid future problems for local law enforcement agencies.

Had the case gone into the punitive-damage phase, Westreich was prepared to argue that Gates deliberately ignored the U.S. Constitution and a 1978 Orange County Superior Court decision that said he discriminated against private investigators who applied for gun permits.

Westreich also said he would have contended that Gates showed disregard for the jury’s $246,000 award by making statements to the media minimizing his responsibility in violating the Ritters’ constitutional rights.

Eric L. Dobberteen, Gates’ lawyer, has contended that punitive damages were not deserved because Gates was acting in his official capacity as sheriff and did not consider the Ritters’ gun permit applications himself.

Dobberteen was prepared to argue that the sheriff never benefited personally nor tried to benefit personally from the Ritters’ applications, such as asking for political support or campaign contributions in exchange for gun permits.