Assistant Sheriff Accused of Rape in New Lawsuit

A top Sheriff’s Department official, already facing accusations that he sexually harassed three female subordinates, was accused in a new lawsuit Wednesday of raping a clerk who said she was lured to the veteran lawman’s home on the pretext that he wanted to discuss her career with the agency.

The woman, whose name was not revealed in the suit filed in Orange County Superior Court, is the first to contend that Assistant Sheriff Dennis LaDucer’s behavior went beyond mere workplace harassment and included assault and sexual battery.

“This was an absolute nightmare for this young woman,” said attorney Patrick Thistle, who also represents the other employees who recently filed suits against LaDucer. “She was terrorized by her boss and she was afraid. And like the others, she tolerated it for a long time.”

In her complaint, the woman said LaDucer paid unwanted attention to her almost from the first day of her employment in 1994, repeatedly making sexually suggestive remarks and inviting her to meet him for drinks, lunch or dinner.

She said she reluctantly agreed to visit his San Clemente home for lunch in the summer of 1995, fearing that her constant refusals could affect her future employment at the department.

Once there, the woman said she declined LaDucer’s offer for a tour of the home, and he responded by grabbing her arm and dragging her upstairs into his bedroom.

According to the complaint, the 52-year-old LaDucer then pushed her onto his bed, raped her, forced her to perform oral sex and later threatened to “torture” her if she told anyone what happened that day.

She returned to work and said she endured more advances from LaDucer, claiming that he often placed her hand against his crotch, brushed his hands across her breasts and stuck his tongue out in a suggestive manner.

The woman’s allegations triggered a criminal investigation and led directly to Sheriff Brad Gates’ public announcement last week that he was firing LaDucer, according to department sources.

The woman was initially interviewed by members of the department’s internal affairs unit about a month ago, as they investigated the sexual harassment complaints filed against LaDucer by Lt. Wendy Costello, office employee Mary Ann Hoyt and Deputy Florence “Jeanie” Henson.

In that initial interview, the woman didn’t mention the 1995 incident, but reported it to sheriff’s officials shortly thereafter, sources said.

Gates has declined to confirm that a criminal investigation has been launched, or comment on the specific findings that prompted his announcement to fire LaDucer. The sheriff has said, however, that LaDucer’s dismissal validates at least some of the claims made by the women.

“We really cannot confirm or deny whether there is a new investigation underway,” department spokesman Lt. Ron Wilkerson said.

LaDucer’s attorney, Bruce Praet, said Wednesday that he hadn’t seen the latest lawsuit, but he questioned the woman’s decision to report the case now, after more than two years of silence.

“These are serious charges,” Praet said. “Why now? What’s her motivation?”

Thistle said the woman was understandably afraid of LaDucer’s power, and though continually groped, stalked and pestered by the longtime administrator, she was also afraid to report the misconduct to anyone in a position of authority in the department.

“This stuff happens all of the time,” Thistle said. “There is no doubt, no doubt in my mind at all, of her credibility.”

But Praet said he has found nothing in the sheriff’s internal investigative file about the alleged rape, although he suspects it contributed to the decision to fire his client.

“From what I can see, the sheriff has considered something else that he’s not disclosing, and I find that a problem,” Praet said.

The attorney also said the manner in which news of LaDucer’s termination was delivered was illegal, because Gates did not serve him with a notice of intent to fire him, a procedure that is required by law. Praet said his client may consider suing the agency for violating his privacy rights by publicizing the firing in a news release.

“Peace officer personnel files are confidential by statute,” Praet said. “And yet the sheriff has made the ultimate disclosure by announcing my client’s complete termination from the department.”

After Praet complained, LaDucer was given copies of the entire internal affairs investigation and has until Aug. 29 to appeal his termination. Praet said LaDucer will remain on the payroll until a final judgment is rendered.

Lawyers on both sides expressed concern that the Sheriff’s Department would handle a criminal investigation involving LaDucer in the first place, saying such cases are generally turned over to another agency to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

Several law enforcement experts disagreed, though, noting that the case will still be reviewed independently by the district attorney’s office.

“These investigations are not done in a vacuum,” said Steve Craig, president of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California.

Added Bob MacLeod, executive director of the Orange County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn.: “I think the price they would pay if they did not do a complete investigation would be very high.”