D.A.’s Office Appears to Back Orange Chief

A letter from the district attorney’s office appears to support the case of Police Chief John R. Robertson, who is facing the loss of his job partly for investigating whether top city officials leaked a sealed court affidavit to reporters.

City Atty. David A. De Berry has maintained that the district attorney’s office told the chief last summer that leaking the document was not a crime and that it was not interested in prosecuting. However, Robertson continued to pursue the matter, which De Berry has said was “improper.”

In a letter dated Jan. 16, Assistant Dist. Atty. Jan J. Nolan wrote: “The only opinion given to Chief Robertson and/or Orange Police Dept. investigators, was that insufficient evidence of a crime existed at that time. At no time were the investigators, nor was the chief, advised to stop the investigation or to refrain from attempting to prove the elements [of a crime].”

Nolan wrote the letter in response to questions from Shannon Tucker, a Robertson supporter. Tucker had sent Nolan minutes of City Council meetings containing De Berry’s statements criticizing the police chief.

Tucker read Nolan’s letter at Tuesday’s council meeting. No council member responded.

Nolan did not return phone calls Wednesday.

The letter comes at a crucial point for the chief, who was put on administrative leave Oct. 15 for investigating the leak, among other matters.

Robertson is scheduled to go into a closed-door hearing this morning to argue his case before a hearing officer.

Nolan’s letter relates to a complex case that involves an investigation of Orange Resource Recovery Systems Inc., the city’s trash recycling company, which is alleged to have misappropriated as much as $6 million in municipal funds. The leaked document was an affidavit asking a judge to issue a search warrant of the recycling company’s offices and related sites. The document describes much of the evidence against the company and its officers.

In the case against Robertson, two law firms the city hired have interviewed numerous witnesses. Transcripts of those interviews and related documents have been handed to the hearing officer, who will make a recommendation to the City Council, which has the final decision on Robertson’s fate.

City Manager David L. Rudat, one of the targets in Robertson’s investigation, has recommended that the chief be fired.

Among the 14 accusations against Robertson are insubordination and allowing a hostile workplace to develop.

But the charge that has been discussed most in public concerns the leaked affidavit.

The city’s case contends that Robertson was comparing fingerprints found on the affidavit with those of City Council members and Rudat, his boss.

De Berry said Wednesday that he does not see any contradiction between Nolan’s letter and his previous statements.

De Berry said he thought the district attorney’s office had told Robertson that evidence the chief’s investigators had gathered against Rudat and council members did not indicate a crime had been committed, but that he should feel free to pursue others.

City personnel director Steven V. Pham said the situation was frustrating.

“We still don’t understand what they’re trying to say,” Pham said. “Every time you talk to [the district attorney’s office], their interpretation depends on how you ask the question. We’re trying to figure this out so we don’t look like a bunch of idiots.”

Robertson’s former attorneys have portrayed the termination proceedings as “political retaliation.”

His new attorney, Sacramento-based Christopher Miller, declined comment until after the hearing.