Morgan’s Bid a Tough Sell With County Law Enforcement

Snubbed by peace officers in the spring primary election for county supervisor, Camarillo Councilman Michael D. Morgan is again seeking endorsements from the power brokers of Ventura County law enforcement.

But Morgan--though professionally linked to law enforcement for 25 years--may still find his candidacy a tough sell partly because of his behind-the-scenes conduct in a 1992 investigation of the death of a Ventura County millionaire.

So far, Morgan has secured no law enforcement endorsements. He is calling county prosecutor and deputy sheriff unions and courting officials such as Sheriff Larry Carpenter and Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury.

However, Bradbury said recently that despite Morgan’s long career as a probation and pretrial officer, and even though both are conservative Republicans, he will not endorse Morgan in a November runoff. Nor will he endorse Morgan’s opponent, Kathy Long, chief aide to retiring Supervisor Maggie Kildee.

Bradbury, along with Carpenter and much of the law enforcement establishment, supported Fillmore Mayor Roger Campbell in the March 26 primary. But Campbell finished third. And Bradbury now says he will steer away from endorsements in local races due to potential conflicts of interest.

Bradbury would not comment on Morgan’s qualifications in a recent interview. But in a sworn deposition last year, the district attorney said there was “no way” he could endorse the federal court pretrial officer for the 3rd District supervisorial seat.

“He’s not qualified, in my opinion,” Bradbury said. “He’s kind of a lightweight . . . politically, intellectually.”

*

Morgan, a councilman since 1980, would not discuss Bradbury’s appraisal of his abilities last week except to say, “Those are opinions, those aren’t facts.” But in an earlier interview, he said:

“If he feels I’m not qualified, it’s his option. I have a proven track history of what I am in Camarillo. I’m not going to argue with Mike.”

Although Bradbury would not comment in interviews on professional differences he might have with Morgan, a Bradbury assistant complained to Morgan’s federal court boss in 1992 about his involvement in the case of millionaire Donald P. Scott, who was shot to death by a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy in a botched drug raid. Bradbury, who investigated the shooting because it occurred in Ventura County, found that Scott was shot in self-defense, but that the raid was not justified.

And Bradbury’s sworn comments--made public recently in a wrongful-death lawsuit by Scott’s survivors--reveal his feelings about the candidate.

Morgan, 49, who monitors federal defendants while they await trial or appeal a sentence, knew Scott because the 61-year-old millionaire’s new wife, Frances Plante Scott, 42, was a “client” who had appealed a misdemeanor drug conviction.

In addition to the misdemeanor conviction, Frances Scott, a Texas native, had been investigated by federal agents in 1988 and 1990 regarding her “involvement in negotiations to smuggle and sell heroin,” Bradbury wrote in his 1993 report on the Scott shooting. She was never charged.

But it was Morgan’s unusual role in the Scott homicide investigation--as Frances Scott’s alleged legal advisor and as a potential witness--that bothered local and federal investigators and Bradbury’s aide.

Twelve days after Scott’s slaying on Oct. 2, 1992, Morgan angered officials by showing up at the Scott ranch for the first scheduled interview with Frances Scott by Ventura County Sheriff’s Department homicide investigators. According to them, he recommended that the widow not talk with the investigators until she called an attorney.

And a month later, Morgan set up a secret meeting with Bradbury at Camarillo City Hall. He told the district attorney that the raid was a mistake and that he had never seen marijuana on Scott’s 200-acre ranch on numerous walks around the property during repeated visits.

*

A federal Drug Enforcement Administration agent joined the Bradbury deputy who was investigating the Scott shooting in complaining to Morgan’s superiors that he may have interfered with the homicide investigation and also breached his confidential relationship with his client, according to interviews and depositions.

“We were concerned about Morgan’s role in the investigation, whether he was acting properly as a probation officer,” said retired agent Anthony Ricevuto, who was the senior inspector reviewing the case for the DEA. The Scott raid occurred partly because a DEA agent said he spotted marijuana while flying over the ranch.

Ventura County Sheriff’s Sgt. Pat Buckley, who investigated the Scott homicide, said he had never seen a pretrial or probation officer act as Morgan did when Buckley tried to interview Frances Scott at her home after the shooting.

“I was really stunned to see him there,” Buckley said in an interview. “I couldn’t figure out what role his would be. It turned out to be her legal advisor.

“We had set this up with her. She had planned it and dictated the terms,” the sergeant said. “We drove 40 miles out there to do it. And all of the sudden it changes. . . . He pulled her into the house and that was the end of our interview.”

A summary of Bradbury’s interview of Morgan a month later also says that Morgan suggested to Frances Scott that she call her attorney before answering investigators’ questions.

And Dennis Gonzales, a deputy county counsel for Los Angeles County, said Morgan admitted advising Frances Scott to consider calling a lawyer. But last year, under oath, Morgan denied offering such advice.

“I can’t prove which one of the two is true,” said Gonzales, the attorney defending Los Angeles County in the wrongful-death suit.

Morgan insisted last week that he played the Scott case by the book.

He went to the Scott house because the ranch phone was not working and he needed to check on his client because of the shooting, Morgan said.

*

He said that instead of advising Frances Scott to call a lawyer, he encouraged her to talk with the investigators. Homicide officers’ impressions of the incident are wrong, Morgan said.

“That’s not true,” he said. “[But] there are some things that can be confused. That day I went back into the house with her at her request, and I came back out and I said, ‘I think she’s calling an attorney.’ But I didn’t tell her to do that. . . . I advised her to talk to them.”

Frances Scott generally supported Morgan’s version in her depositions last year, saying Morgan only advised her that she had a right to an attorney and that he “pleaded” with her to talk to the investigators.

Morgan also said that in his interview with Bradbury he never breached Frances Scott’s confidentiality, talking only about what he saw at the Scott ranch and not about the case.

“I never talked to Bradbury about my client,” he said.

Bradbury’s deposition, however, indicates the two spoke in some detail about Frances Scott and her deceased husband for 45 minutes. So does the summary of Morgan’s comments written by district attorney investigator Richard Haas, who attended the same November 1992 meeting with Bradbury.

For example, that summary outlines the history of Frances Scott’s criminal case and says Morgan visited the Scott ranch about once a month, twice as frequently as Morgan now recollects.

In her deposition, Frances Scott said that she and her husband met with Morgan every two or three months for nearly two years. They became friendly with Morgan, she said, and he would come to the ranch for an hour or so and wander the oak-studded canyon with the couple’s 23 dogs.

“We discussed everything,” she said. “He was very nice. And Donald liked him a lot.”

Morgan also apparently provided Bradbury with details about Frances Scott, including which attorney she had hired to file a wrongful-death suit and that the lawyer would get 40% of the eventual monetary settlement.

Morgan said investigator Haas must have gotten that information from other sources and wrongly included it in the summary of his interview with Bradbury.

*

Bradbury’s deposition also indicates that Morgan knew when he set up the Bradbury meeting that his continued involvement in the case might lead to trouble.

“He called and said, ‘I’ve got important information for you on the Scott shooting. . . . I’ll only talk to you.’ . . . And he says, ‘Look, you know, I’m risking a lot by even making this phone call. I’ll only talk to you, but I’ve got information.’ ”

Bradbury said in the deposition that he was not impressed with the information Morgan provided.

But Morgan’s actions caused him trouble with his superiors.

First, Frances Scott’s probation case was quickly reassigned to another officer and Morgan was directed not to talk about it or to talk with her anymore, Morgan acknowledged last fall in his deposition.

“We never had anything like this happen before,” Morgan said in an interview, referring to the situation surrounding the Scott case. “It was just the boss’ decision.”

Later, according to Bradbury, Morgan told the district attorney that he was in trouble with his superiors because he had offered evidence in the case and they thought he had breached client confidentiality.

“He called and said he had gotten in trouble as a result of his giving us a statement,” Bradbury said in his deposition. “It had something to do with confidentiality . . . between him and his client, [Scott].”

Law enforcement sources said Morgan was reprimanded.

Morgan would not comment on the alleged reprimand, saying everything about the Scott case is confidential. At the request of Morgan’s attorney, a U.S. District Court judge refused to allow Morgan to be questioned about sanctions against him, if any. And Morgan said he must follow that ruling.

*

“I’m not saying this is not true at all, I’m saying it’s a personnel issue,” Morgan said. “I’ve got excellent ratings throughout my history, and I’m not going to tell you any more.”

He offered to provide copies of his annual job performance reviews, but then retracted the offer for 1992, the year of the Scott homicide.

“I’m not going to for the year in question,” he explained, “because they would discuss the same thing you’re talking about.”

He referred questions about his job performance to his longtime federal court supervisor, Marv Shuck, who said he could not comment because of department policy. “I am not at liberty to discuss anything about him,” Shuck said.

Some law enforcement officials to whom candidate Morgan will soon plead his case for political support said they know about his problems in the Scott case.

“I’m aware that there is something there,” Sheriff Carpenter said. “But that was the district attorney’s side of that whole investigation. I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of it.”

Much more significant in deciding whether to endorse Morgan or Long, said the sheriff, will be the strength of their pledges for full funding of law enforcement under the Proposition 172 initiative.

“I really want to support the one who I think will be the most supportive of safe streets in Ventura County,” said Carpenter, a strong Campbell backer. “My comfort factor needs to be improved with whichever one of them I choose to support, if either.”

Morgan’s long career as a probation and court pretrial officer is not a significant factor to him, Carpenter said.

“It’s removed from Ventura County. It’s a different field of law enforcement. And it’s not an administrative position,” he said. “I think whatever comes out of our discussions will be much more important than his background in probation.”

*

Kevin DeNoce, president of the 100-member county deputy district attorneys’ association, helped write Bradbury’s final report on the Scott raid and knows Morgan’s role in it.

“I’m aware of it, the public record is there,” DeNoce said. But DeNoce said county prosecutors are most concerned about what they see as the current Board of Supervisors’ lack of respect for them and pay issues.

“I met with Kathy Long, and she said a lot of good things,” DeNoce said. “I’ve talked with Mike Morgan, and that’s been positive, too. . . . But we still need to do our background checks. That’s a whole separate issue.”

David Williams, president of the county deputy sheriffs’ association, said leaders of his 750-member union will interview both candidates May 1. They hope to back one after supporting Campbell in the primary.

“I don’t think we’ll endorse real quick,” Williams said. “We endorsed Roger as quickly as we did to send a message to Maggie Kildee.”

Kildee, who angered law enforcement by opposing their demands for a full pass-through of Proposition 172 money, decided to retire instead of running for a fifth term.

In that vein, Morgan may have a negative as well, since he championed the city of Camarillo’s position that it should get a portion of the half-cent sales tax that flows to law enforcement through the 1993 proposition.

“Mike and I have certainly disagreed on Prop. 172,” Williams said. “His position is that the city of Camarillo should get a chunk of the money. He totally in my mind was straddling the fence. . . . I got a little bit frustrated.”

Nor did Williams place great importance on Morgan’s professional background. He said he was not familiar with the Scott case. “Mike’s certainly in law enforcement, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be the best candidate.”

*

On the other hand, Kildee aide Long may be painted with the same brush as her boss. “She’s very capable, but there might be some reservations: Is she going to carry on the Maggie Kildee mind-set?” Williams said.

One law enforcement union made up its mind months ago. The 227-member association that represents county probation and correctional officers supports Long even though Morgan is a former county probation officer.

“We picked someone else because there’s more to being a supervisor than our limited aspect,” said Dennis Nicholson, vice president of the Ventura County Peace Officers Assn. “We also live here as citizens, and we felt her grasp of the issues--other than the ones directly related to us--was better.”

Morgan himself said he did not get law enforcement’s backing the first time around because leaders wanted a unified front against Kildee, and Carpenter had committed early to Campbell’s candidacy.

“You have to understand the situation at the time. The sheriff is the . . . neighbor of Roger Campbell, and they’ve been friends a long time. And [Bradbury] is a friend of the sheriff. They’re allied. . . . So it wasn’t a complete surprise.”

As for his chances now for support, Morgan said: “Wait and see what happens with the law enforcement personnel before this is over, OK?”