A Sheriff Bailed Out, an Investigator’s Widow Denied

This is a complicated world, but perhaps you knew that.

It’s not always fair, either. Oh, you heard that too?

For those who need a refresher course, consider a couple of cases hot off the presses of county government. They’re seemingly unrelated matters, but I’ll leave you to decide, as long as you promise to keep in mind our twin themes today of complicatedness and fairness.

The first involves Sheriff Brad Gates. A federal jury recently found that he had violated the rights of two private investigators over the department’s refusal to give them gun permits. The permit issue is an old one, already well chronicled, having spawned other court cases about Gates’ alleged abuse of power. In recent years, the county has paid more than $2.5 million to settle lawsuits against Gates. But I digress.

In the most recent case, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $246,000 but also permitted them to seek punitive damages, which Gates might have been required to pay himself. But, miracle of miracles, the two sides settled before the punitive phase, and the plaintiffs agreed to another $370,000 in relief, in exchange for dropping claims for punitive damages.

The sigh of relief from Gates reportedly destroyed several mobile home parks in the area.

The county will pay the entire $616,000. That’s considered legally reasonable because, in layman’s terms, the sheriff’s actions occurred while he was conducting county business.

In other words, in the line of duty.

That brings us to the second matter.

In 1986, Orange County Fire Department investigator Dennis Donelson was shot to death in the San Juan Capistrano condominium of a woman named Barbara Clark. Two months earlier, an apartment she was renting had been the target of a possible arson, and Donelson had been assigned to the case.

On the night of the shooting, Donelson went to Clark’s condo to get a look at an obsessive acquaintance who Clark believed had set the earlier fire. Indeed, the man showed up at her home that evening while Clark and Donelson were in the living room. The suspect then left.

Here’s where the plot thickens. Donelson, who was in the midst of a 24-hour on-duty shift, remained at Clark’s residence. About 1:30 a.m., the suspect returned to the condo and shot Donelson and Clark in her bedroom. Donelson, still technically on duty, was dressed only in his underwear. He died of a gunshot wound and Clark survived.

Donelson’s widow is asking the county’s Retirement Board to award her $750,000, to which she would be entitled if it is determined that her husband’s death was connected to duty. If it isn’t, she will get $24,000. There is no negotiable in-between territory, according to her attorney. The Donelsons also had a daughter, now 13.

The county thus far has fought awarding the larger amount, contending that Donelson’s death resulted from actions outside the “course and scope” of the job. A hearing officer has also recommended that the board not pay the larger amount. The board is scheduled to decide the issue Dec. 10.

For your consideration, and, remember that bit about it being a complicated world, I would make the following points:

* Donelson went to Clark’s condo that night on official business.

* Had he been shot at 10 p.m., while he was fully clothed, instead of 1:30 a.m., while he was not, Mrs. Donelson would probably have been awarded the benefits.

* Donelson wouldn’t have been shot at all had he not been investigating the arson. And he was shot while still on duty.

* What if he spent most of his time that night legitimately investigating arson?

* Mrs. Donelson is not responsible for her husband’s indiscretion while on duty. She could rightly contend that he went to work and that during the course of his 24-hour shift and while in the home of an arson victim, he was killed.

In the line of duty. Yes? No?

Give her the money or not? If I had to judge, it would be a muted “no.” When a public official is caught under the covers while on duty, you can’t make a reasonable case that he or she was still performing public duty.

I’m sure it’s happened in other cases that we never heard about, but we did hear about this one. And there’s a standard of conduct that most public officials adhere to, even in the course of intense or tempting personal situations that may crop up while on duty.

Having said that, I wouldn’t raise a howl of protest if Mrs. Donelson and her daughter got the money.

And here’s my final point: Brad Gates gets shot time and again, metaphorically speaking, but he catches a break every time. The bullets keep deflecting off his badge. This time around, the county will pony up $616,000 to protect Gates while he was on duty.

Would that Dennis Donelson had that kind of luck.