Sheriff Clears Deputies in Fatal Raid on Ranch : Law enforcement: Block rejects as unfounded a report by Ventura County’s top prosecutor that questioned the legality of the drug search, in which Malibu millionaire Donald P. Scott was killed. He calls for censure of the district attorney.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block has cleared his deputies of wrongdoing in a drug raid that left a Malibu millionaire dead last fall and has recommended public censure of Ventura County’s top prosecutor for “willful distortions of fact.”

Block, in a report scheduled for release today, rejects as unfounded Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury’s conclusion that the drug raid was not legally justified and was prompted in large part by authorities’ desire to seize Donald P. Scott’s $5-million ranch.

Bradbury’s findings have been cited nationwide by critics arguing for reform of federal asset-forfeiture laws because the 61-year-old Scott was killed but no drugs were found on his ranch.

Block says, however, that a five-month internal investigation reinforces his department’s belief that marijuana had been growing on the ranch just days before the Oct. 2, 1992, raid and that Bradbury--not Block’s department--is guilty of unethical conduct.

Block reports that several of Bradbury’s key findings are wrong, including conclusions that a sheriff’s deputy lied to get the Scott search warrant and that a drug agent could not have seen marijuana plants from a plane flying 1,000 feet above the ranch.

“The Bradbury report is so riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations that any thorough analysis raises disturbing questions regarding the investigation’s integrity and intent,” Block’s report concludes. “Did the Ventura district attorney knowingly construct an investigation . . . in a manner that falsely attacked the integrity of veteran law enforcement officers? (This department) believes Mr. Bradbury did just that.

“There are too many crucial misquotations, too many erroneous facts, too many false attributions and too many untaped interviews to accept that his report is merely shoddy workmanship,” Block reports.

Block said in an interview that he believes Bradbury committed “willful distortions of fact trying to come to a preconceived goal.” And the sheriff said he thinks Bradbury’s motive was publicity: “I believe that he saw this as an opportunity for national exposure.”

Block said he is forwarding his 24-page report and hundreds of pages of supporting documents to state Atty. Gen. Daniel E. Lungren, asking for public censure of Bradbury “to discourage similar breaches of public trust.”

A spokeswoman for Lungren said the attorney general does conduct “abuse of discretion” reviews of alleged misconduct of law enforcement officials upon request.

Bradbury, who aides said is bedridden with pneumonia, issued a statement saying he stands by his March 30 report.

“It is unfortunate that the Los Angeles County sheriff has decided to personally attack this office,” Bradbury said. “We stand by our report and are confident its findings and conclusions will withstand the test of future scrutiny.”

Bradbury investigated the fatal shooting because Scott’s ranch is just across the Ventura County line from Malibu.

Scott, a reclusive heir to a chemicals fortune, was killed Oct. 2 during an early morning raid led by the Sheriff’s Department.

Eight agencies were involved because investigators first were told by an informant that 3,000 to 4,000 marijuana plants were growing on Scott’s 200-acre ranch, officials said. Later information indicated about 50 plants.

Scott was killed after he emerged sleepy and drunk from his bedroom and allegedly pointed a pistol at Deputy Gary Spencer, who shot him twice.

Bradbury found the shooting justified self-defense but concluded that Spencer--the case’s lead investigator--should not have been on the ranch.

“This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant,” Bradbury said. “Clearly one of the primary purposes was a land grab by the (Los Angeles County) Sheriff’s Department.”

Under federal forfeiture law, police may seize property when the land was used to grow or manufacture drugs or the property was purchased with drug money.

In issuing his report, Bradbury called on Block to re-examine Spencer’s conduct and review Sheriff’s Department policies.

Block says the re-examination turned up little evidence to support Bradbury’s findings.

“This whole thing is predicated on a very simple premise,” Block said. “We have a deputy sheriff in this department who either was guilty of serious misconduct or was seriously maligned by the district attorney of Ventura County. . . . I believe the latter.”

In a point-by-point rebuttal to Bradbury, Block concludes that:

* The Scott search warrant was valid and the search justified.

Factual errors and omissions that Bradbury found in the search warrant affidavit are of little legal importance, the sheriff says. He cites the opinion of a Los Angeles County prosecutor who co-authored the county’s manual on search warrants.

* Spencer, who Bradbury said had “lost his moral compass” in pursuit of a career-building drug bust, did not lie about informant information used to obtain a search warrant.

Instead, the sheriff concludes that Bradbury’s own tape-recorded interviews with the informant show that the informant never denied telling Spencer about 40 pounds of marijuana ready to harvest at the ranch.

“It was not Spencer who lied,” Block reports. “It is the Bradbury report which falsely claimed the informant denied ever mentioning 40 pounds of marijuana to Deputy Spencer.”

* Federal drug agent Charles A. Stowell could have seen marijuana plants hanging from trees when flying over the Scott ranch nine days before the raid, as he claimed.

Bradbury found that Stowell, with his sight unaided and his view blocked by a dense canopy of trees, could not have seen marijuana plants from 1,000 feet above Scott’s ranch.

But Block reports that both the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and the state Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement consider 1,000 feet ideal for such sightings.

* New evidence supports Stowell’s marijuana sighting.

Bradbury concluded that marijuana was not grown on the ranch because authorities found no physical evidence.

But Block reports that two photo experts--one from the DEA and a private consultant--have detected in high-altitude photos taken two weeks before the raid between six and 14 evenly spaced “circular objects” beneath trees in the area where Stowell said he saw about 50 marijuana plants.

Acknowledging that he cannot prove marijuana was on the Scott ranch before the raid, Block says that “a number of the factors outlined suggest that marijuana may well have been present.”

* Seizure of the Scott ranch was only a secondary consideration of the Sheriff’s Department. If the department had staged the raid to seize a valuable ranch, Block said his deputies would not have invited officers from seven other agencies to participate and share in the proceeds.