Long Arm of the Law Needed a Wrist Slap

After asking questions and taking testimony over a seven-month period, Orange County grand jurors still didn’t seem quite sure what they had. That’s why I love the title, question mark and all, that they put on their report of how the Sheriff’s Department handled the non-

arrest last October of the son of an assistant sheriff: “A Tempest in a Teapot or a Violation of Public Trust?”

The jurors probably wanted an either-or answer, and they did reach some conclusions. But for an incident that in some quarters had been elevated to scandal proportions, the jury was decidedly more rooted in the real world.

It’s important to recognize that some scandals come in pint-size form, as this one did.

The inquiry revolved around Gregory Haidl, then 18 and one of three teens free on bail and awaiting trial in the high-profile gang-rape case that ended last week in a hung jury. Haidl, the son of Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl, and two other teens were skateboarding illegally when a deputy approached and questioned them. He found marijuana in their possession.

The deputy soon was joined by a sergeant and, the jury reported, “the focus of attention shifted from possession of marijuana to concern about involvement by the son of the Sheriff’s Department official.” Subsequent calls went up the chain of command to two lieutenants and then to another assistant sheriff, George Jaramillo, Sheriff Mike Carona’s right-hand man.

Fearing media coverage and wanting to protect a colleague, Jaramillo and the lieutenant decided to keep the incident private. However, rumbling inside the department forced officials within days to release details of it, which the grand jury found to be misleading and incomplete.

In short, high-ranking department officials decided to keep under wraps that the son of a colleague -- albeit a teen involved in a criminal case -- was involved in a minor pot bust. And then they fudged on what really happened.

That’s the dimension of the “scandal.”

The district attorney’s office determined that no laws were broken. The worst the grand jurors could say about the situation was that “poor judgment by certain officers [of the department] is obvious, but explanations seem consistent with loyalty to the department, not criminal liability.” Still, the jury found that the “interference” of high-level department officials “gave the appearance of a cover-up.”

Pardon me if I can’t get exercised over this. Of course, it’s always bad when public officials cover up, because theirs are positions of public trust. Worse, if they think they can get away with it in small-fry cases, they may well try their luck in more serious instances. But the flip side is also true: believing that what happened with young Haidl that night was so inconsequential -- often, teens in a pot-possession situation would be sent home with a warning -- officials probably considered their actions “no harm, no foul.”

Jaramillo has said that Carona gave tacit approval that night to the hush-hush decision. Carona was vague last week when The Times asked if that were true.

The sheriff needs to assure us he grasps the concept that misleading the public -- even on seemingly innocuous subjects -- is bad business. He needs to assure us that favoritism to colleagues, especially when they’re faced with potential embarrassment, isn’t how he runs his department.

Still, when all was said and done, the grand jurors brought this case back to Earth. Keep in mind these are public-minded citizens who aren’t apathetic about government ethics.

In the end, they only wrist-slapped the Sheriff’s Department. By their tone and language, they told us they saw the incident for what it was: a violation of public trust and a tempest in a teapot.

Dana Parsons’ column

appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com.