Panel Gains Power to Call Officers : Courts: Civilian review board gets OK to subpoena sheriff’s deputies involved in investigations. The decision is being appealed.

A Superior Court judge cleared the way Friday for a civilian review panel to call San Diego County sheriff’s deputies to testify in public investigations of alleged wrongdoing.

Members of the Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. had sought to block the panel’s rules and regulations that allow public hearings in which deputies are forced to testify, sometimes by subpoena.

But Judge Wayne L. Peterson, citing a case involving the Los Angeles Police Department, said state statutes governing confidentiality for police officers are sometimes overshadowed by the public’s right to know about police conduct.

Eileen Luna, the review panel’s executive director, said Peterson’s ruling allows the 2-year-old board to start calling deputies into public hearings of investigations that are already under way.

“This means we are fully operational,” Luna said. “We had begun investigations up to the point of talking to officers. Now we can move forward.”

The legal struggle between the sheriff’s association and the review board, however, appears far from over.

The 4th District Court of Appeal is still weighing arguments by association president Randy Dibb and the county district attorney’s office that the panel’s ability to subpoena witnesses is unconstitutional.

Attorneys for the review board and the county say that the county Board of Supervisors legally conveyed its own subpoena power onto that of the review board. Until the state appeals court decides, perhaps as late as next fall, Luna said the 11-member review board is free to compel any deputy to testify.

But James Gattey, an attorney representing sheriff’s deputies, said he will advise his clients not to speak with the board unless “their rights are fully protected.”

Gattey believes the subpoenas are unconstitutional and will tell deputies not to accept them. If deputies are called to testify before the board, Gattey said he may advise that they take the Fifth Amendment.

“What I anticipate is that peace officers will be advised that the (review board) has no authority to require them to testify,” he said. “Our advice to officers will be not to talk to anybody who contacts them and to talk only when their rights are being protected.”

In his ruling, Peterson cited a case of a Los Angeles police officer who requested a hearing before that department’s Board of Rights to argue a disciplinary ruling. The board then released information about the officer it considered public. But the officer sued, saying he should have been protected by confidentiality laws. The officer ultimately lost the case.

Gattey said the Los Angeles case did not apply to the sheriff’s review board because the Los Angeles officer requested a hearing. In San Diego County, he said, deputies would be called to testify before the sheriff’s review board.

Sheriff’s deputies have the right to be represented by an attorney before the review board, Gattey said, just as they would in a criminal or civil trial. Since allegations of excessive force and other alleged misdeeds may be raised, Gattey said, deputies would be at a tremendous legal liability to testify before the civilian review panel without representation.

“If the review board wants to invoke protection of confidentiality, there will be no problem,” Gattey said. “But it is not our perception that they will see our rights the same way we do.”

Voters overwhelmingly approved the civilian review board in November, 1990. The sheriff’s association immediately filed suit, arguing that the board was created without the county first discussing the ramifications of the investigative hearings on deputies’ employment.

The county was ordered to meet with labor attorneys for the deputies, but neither side could agree to a number of issues, including whether hearings should be held in public.

Peterson’s ruling means that the review board can talk to officers accused of alleged wrongdoing and also to officers who witness such misconduct. The board can provide investigative reports to those who make complaints and conduct public hearings, Luna said.

Ultimately, whatever the review panel finds is given to the sheriff with a recommendation on discipline. The sheriff can accept or reject the recommendation.

Luna said the review board has received 67 complaints this year, including 36 during the last quarter of this year.