D.A. Joins Sheriff’s Review Panel Suit : Law Enforcement: Head of citizens’ board calls move ‘outrageous,’ an ‘unacceptable use of taxpayers’ money.’

The district attorney’s decision to join a lawsuit against a voter-approved sheriff’s review panel is “outrageous” and “an unacceptable use of taxpayers’ money,” the head of the Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board said Thursday.

Voters authorized the 11-member board in November, 1990, to look into allegations against Sheriff’s Department personnel of excessive force, illegal search and seizure, criminal conduct, false arrest, false reporting and other potential problems.

Randy Dibb, president of the 1,400-member deputy sheriff’s union, has fought the creation of a citizens’ panel, arguing in court that the Board of Supervisors had no authority to put the board into place or grant it power to subpoena witnesses.

In February, a Superior Court judge refused to block the creation of the review board, ruling that county supervisors had the authority to confer subpoena power on any advisory board they establish.

Dibb’s attorneys, arguing that only the Board of Supervisors, the grand jury and the Civil Service Commission can subpoena witnesses, have appealed the matter in state court.

On Monday, Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller asked the court for permission to file an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief to challenge the subpoena power.

“It’s the D.A.’s position that the subpoena power is not lawful,” said James E. Atkins, a deputy district attorney who asked the state court for permission to file the brief.

“If you read the California Constitution, the code sections, the case law, the County Charter and the ordinance, the review board cannot lawfully subpoena anyone,” Atkins said.

Filing a friend of the court brief allows an entity that is not party to a lawsuit to become part of the legal proceedings. The state court must first grant permission.

The head of the citizens’ panel condemned Miller’s actions in a written statement released Thursday.

“It is outrageous that the district attorney is seeking to challenge the Board of Supervisors and the review board at this time,” said Marilyn Lassman, the board’s chairwoman.

Dibb’s lawsuit was filed, she said, “in order to delay and undermine the implementation of the vote of the citizenry. For the district attorney to aid in this challenge is in direct conflict with the wishes of the people and an unacceptable use of the taxpayers’ money.”

A second lawsuit by the Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. against the county is still pending. A judge ruled that the county failed to “meet and confer” with the association on many key issues related to the review panel. Although the two sides are still meeting, they cannot agree on whether deputies must testify before the review panel or whether such hearings should be open to the public.