Armed, Off Duty and Drinking: Risky Mix?

Drunk on beer, the woman sparked an argument with several men at the Pickwick Pub in Woodland Hills. “Do you want to fight with a girl?” witnesses recalled her yelling. “Come on. Come and get me!”

A shoving match ensued in the parking lot and the woman pulled out a pistol, accidentally firing at a nearby brick wall as a bouncer wrestled away the weapon.

The bar owner told the woman that if she wanted the gun back, she would have to pick it up from the cops. “I am a cop,” she replied.

More precisely, she was an off-duty Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy packing a 9-millimeter Smith & Wesson during a night out on the town.

Since 1990, at least 17 Los Angeles County deputies have been investigated for using their weapons off duty after consuming alcohol, according to a review of internal sheriff’s reports. The incidents have prompted a heated legal debate over where and when it is appropriate for officers to arm themselves.

Next month, a Los Angeles civil rights attorney--who recently won a $750,000 judgment in a wrongful death lawsuit involving a drunk deputy--will ask for a court order barring members of the Sheriff’s Department from carrying guns when they are drinking.

Although the problem is not unique to the Sheriff’s Department, civil rights attorney Carol Watson is hoping that targeting the countywide agency will prompt other law enforcement departments to voluntarily review their off-duty gun policies.

“We want officers to uphold the law when they are on duty,” Watson said. “We don’t want them endangering their own lives when they don’t have the cloak of the uniform to give them authority. And we don’t want them enforcing the law when they’re drunk.”

Under state law, officers are allowed--and often encouraged--to carry their guns off duty so they will be prepared to take police action at a moment’s notice. “We are on duty 24 hours a day,” said Pete Brodie, president of the sheriff’s deputies union.

For many deputies, carrying a weapon is second nature. On any given day, an estimated 8,000 sworn sheriff’s personnel are armed when they’re off work; about 80 have been investigated for drawing or firing their weapons off duty between 1987 and 1996, according to department records.

“There have been cases of off-duty misconduct by deputies involving a firearm, and we deal with those,” Sheriff Sherman Block said. “It is not a common occurrence.” He added: “By giving them the option [to carry their guns], we expect they will exercise good judgment.”

One case of proper use involved several off-duty deputies who shot and killed a man who attempted to open fire with a shotgun at two women in the bar section of a Saugus restaurant in 1985, sheriff’s officials say.

While most of the patrons of the Ramp II restaurant lay on the floor or hid at the back of the lounge area, the deputies engaged the suspect in a brief standoff. As they ordered him to drop his weapon and surrender, he responded by pulling on the shotgun’s slide--giving the deputies no choice but to shoot, officials said.

The weapon turned out to be empty, but the deputies did not know that at the time. The actions of the officers--who had been drinking but were not intoxicated--were viewed as heroic by the department.

“We live in a dangerous society,” said Sgt. Michael Waldman, who was there that night. “We need to have that authority to carry that gun.”

Despite the Saugus example, Watson believes the potential for danger outweighs the benefits. Her lawsuit--which she brought on behalf of Gerald Huffman--claims Huffman’s son was killed by a drunken sheriff’s deputy in 1994 and is set to be heard Jan. 9 in Los Angeles Civil Court.

“A case can be made that officers who are drinking and waving guns around are a danger and a menace to this community,” Watson said.

Added Huffman: “If we can stop one family from going through what we went through, it would be worth it. We have nothing against cops carrying guns. We’re propolice. But if they’re drunk, you don’t know what they are going to do.”

To support the claim, Watson points to a number of incidents.

Among them:

* A 30-year-old sheriff’s deputy, who had been drinking at a party and then at a bar, was accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend after a dispute at their Malibu home. Deputy William Joseph Burke was convicted of manslaughter and served three years in prison.

* A sheriff’s deputy--who was driving home after drinking at a party--stopped to confront a man who appeared to be physically abusing a woman outside a La Mirada home. The deputy pulled out his gun, using it to hit the man in the head. He received a 30-day suspension for excessive force and lying. The county paid the man $4,000 for his pain and suffering.

* A deputy and his brother--who both had been drinking--followed a man home after a traffic dispute and fired 11 shots at his house. The deputy was fired.

In the case at the Pickwick Pub, the deputy, whose name has not been publicly disclosed, received a 15-day unpaid suspension for her conduct. The city attorney’s office reviewed the 1992 case but declined to prosecute because the incident was deemed a mutual combat fight, sparked by an argument over college allegiances.

Nevertheless, it was a miracle that no one was hurt, said Craig Holman, owner of the pub.

Of the 17 alcohol-related incidents, four resulted in fatalities--two of which were deemed justified. One is still under investigation and the other--the Malibu case--was categorized as a homicide.

In most cases, the department conducted extensive inquiries into the off-duty conduct of the deputies. At least six of the officers received suspensions, ranging from 10 to 30 days off without pay. In several instances, the deputies were fired.

“Any complaint that we get is thoroughly investigated,” Block said. “It is absolutely essential. We take it very seriously.”

Up until a couple of years ago, the Sheriff’s Department required all its deputies to carry their guns off duty. That policy was changed when some of the deputies complained that they didn’t want to take their weapons to places like church and the gym.

“We tell deputies that it is their choice,” said Assistant Sheriff Michael E. Graham.

However, “we understand what [Watson’s] issue is,” he added. “We do not want people who are impaired acting as a peace officer either.”

But the Sheriff’s Department argues that it cannot legally adopt a policy forcing deputies to leave their guns at home if they plan on consuming alcohol.

“We can say all we want,” Graham said. “It is state law that makes them peace officers and gives them the power to carry a gun off duty.”

Los Angeles Police Department officials hold a similar view. They say they expect their officers to use common sense in carrying guns.

According to LAPD statistics, there have been 68 off-duty shootings over the last five years. However, the LAPD does not keep track of how many of those involved alcohol, said spokesman Lt. Tony Alba.

Sgt. Kieth Moreland, the department’s chemical dependency supervisor, said he has been made aware of only a few such incidents during the last two years.

Among the most visible LAPD cases is that of two officers who had been drinking and went on a shooting spree, firing wildly at freeway signs and nearly hitting a California Highway Patrol officer.

The two men, who lost their jobs, were each convicted of discharging a firearm with gross negligence. Officers Michael V. Herrera and Ted S. Teyechea received three years’ probation for their actions two years ago, according to the district attorney’s office.

Aside from the possibility of criminal charges, some of the shootings come with a hefty price tag. In the last six years, the Sheriff’s Department has been ordered to pay $1.3 million in damages to people who alleged that they or family members were injured or killed by off-duty deputies. Five of the 13 payouts involved deputies who had been drinking.

By far the largest judgment came in October, when a federal jury awarded $750,000 to Huffman and his family. The case involved veteran Deputy Thomas Kirsch, who was accused of shooting and killing Huffman’s son, John, after an argument outside a Rowland Heights bar in August 1994.

According to a district attorney’s report on the incident, Kirsch had consumed four or five screwdrivers at Whitney’s Steak House before he met Huffman, 29, a car salesman and former high school wrestling champ.

The two men spoke at the bar for about 10 or 15 minutes before Huffman said he was willing to bet that he could “take down” Kirsch, who had not identified himself as a deputy, according to Watson.

Later, as Huffman was leaving the bar, Kirsch stopped in the bathroom and took his gun from his boot and stuffed it into his belt, Watson contended in the U.S. District Court civil trial.

Kirsch said that he simply wanted to talk to Huffman “one on one” but that he was knocked down when he walked out the door, according to the district attorney’s report. The deputy said his gun came out of his belt and discharged when he grabbed it.

Forensic evidence showed that the gun was positioned directly against Huffman’s chest when he was shot, according to Watson.

About two hours after the shooting, Kirsch had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21, more than double the legal limit for driving. Huffman, also legally intoxicated, had a trace of cocaine in his bloodstream.

With the circumstances in dispute and no witnesses to the shooting, the district attorney’s office declined to file criminal charges against the deputy.

“While one may conjecture that Deputy Kirsch intentionally fired his weapon, it is also not unreasonable to believe the firing of the weapon was an accident,” then-Deputy Dist. Atty. Katherine Mader wrote in a report to the Sheriff’s Department. “If jurors follow the law regarding conflicting circumstantial evidence, they would be obligated to vote ‘not guilty.’ ”

However, Mader--now the Los Angeles Police Commission’s inspector general--added: “One may question the wisdom of drinking in excess when one is armed with a firearm, albeit legally. Such conduct is certainly ill advised.”

Kirsch, a 24-year member of the Sheriff’s Department, is still assigned to the arson/explosive detail. The department has yet to decide whether to take disciplinary action against him. The county is appealing the judgment. A court hearing on the matter is to be held Monday.

“The county is not liable for Kirsch’s conduct when he is not acting in the color of law,” said Rickey Ivie, who represented the county in the case.

Gerald Huffman believes his family received a small slice of justice from the jury verdict.

“I can’t even tell you what we’ve been through,” he said. “. . . We’re not going to stop until they change their policy.”