Civil case filing claims Sheriff Hedges taped subordinates because they were mocking him—not because he was investigating alleged criminal activity as he said

Civil case filing claims Hedges taped subordinates because they were mocking him—not because he was investigating alleged criminal activity as he said

Leslie Parrilla

Comments (0) |

E-Mail

Text Size:

tool goes here

Court documents filed in a civil case against Sheriff Pat Hedges describe him secretly taping subordinates because they were mocking him, not because he was investigating alleged criminal activity as he had claimed.

Attorneys for Hedges deny the notion, saying it was a misunderstanding.

The federal case against Hedges was heard in court Thursday, and a trial date was tentatively set for Sept. 30, according to Hedges’ attorney, Paul Coble of Fullerton.

Retired Chief Deputy Gary Hoving is suing the sheriff, Undersheriff Steve Bolts and the county, claiming his civil rights to privacy and due process were violated Oct. 13, 2006, when the sheriff and undersheriff secretly videotaped a meeting between him and Sgt. Jay Donovan in Hoving’s office.

Hoving alleges the incident ruined his ability to work at the department after 28 years there, caused him emotional distress and illegally used taxpayers’ money.

He originally asked for more than $1.25 million in a claim filed against the county on Sept. 7, 2007, over the taping.

It is illegal in California to tape a conversation unless all parties agree, except in certain criminal investigations or if the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Neither Hedges nor Bolts could be reached for comment Thursday.

But Hedges has claimed that the taping was part of a criminal investigation into the narcotics unit that later proved to be unfounded.

The state Attorney General’s Of fice decided earlier this month not to file criminal charges against the sheriff after spending nearly a year investigating the taping.

Hundreds of documents have been filed in the federal case, including interviews with human resources employee Dori Duke.

Her statement and those of others paint a picture of turmoil in the narcotics unit triggered when Hoving promoted Donovan to lead the unit, against Hedges’ opinion that he was unqualified. Hoving later removed Donovan.

“Donovan told the sheriff that Hoving makes fun of the sheriff and takes credit for anything that goes right and blames him for anything that goes wrong,” the lawsuit complaint stated in its account of Duke’s deposition. “When Donovan stated he did not have any evidence of this, Bolts and Hedges stated they want to get some evidence on Hoving.”

Duke said in the deposition that she interviewed Bolts about the taping and he said that the undersheriff, the sheriff, Donovan and Sgt. Tony Perry “were going to arrange a meeting where Donovan and Hoving would get together and talk about Donovan’s beefs and they were going to tape them, tape the meeting.”

Coble explained that Duke did not interview Bolts but had a conversation with him 10 months after the taping.

By then, Bolts had ruled out any criminal activity in the unit and was answering her questions in that context, Coble said.

Duke further described in court documents that Hedges and Bolts considered having Donovan wear concealed recording devices but that his clothing wouldn’t allow for it.

So instead they installed a camera in the ceiling of his office, Duke added.

She said Bolts told her he did not think Donovan was going to discuss concerns he had raised about evidence handling in the narcotics unit—which could fall into potential criminal activity— during the taping.

Rather, the taping was intended to capture Hoving intimidating, threatening or mistreating Donovan, abusing his authority, mocking the sheriff and being disloyal, Duke said in her deposition.

Leslie Parrilla can be reached at 783-7645.