News - Local

Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008

Sheriff Pat Hedges won’t face charges over eavesdropping allegations

Attorney General’s Office won’t pursue criminal case over eavesdropping incident in 2006

Comments (0) |

After nearly a year of investigating Sheriff Pat Hedges on eavesdropping allegations, state investigators said Wednesday they would not press criminal charges because of insufficient evidence.

The county’s top law enforcement official was suspected of violating California’s eavesdropping laws when he secretly videotaped and recorded a meeting between former Chief Deputy Gary Hoving and Sgt. Jay Donovan.

State officials did not comment Wednesday on whether the sheriff broke the law.

“After consideration of all the information it doesn’t appear that there is sufficient evidence to sustain any criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Christine Gasparac, spokeswoman for the state Attorney General’s

Office. “Our office will not be taking any further action in this matter.”

Gasparac said she did not know whether investigators determined if the sheriff had violated eavesdropping laws on Oct. 13, 2006, during the taping.

“That’s not part of their conclusion,” she said.

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.

Hoving said the decision has no bearing on his federal lawsuit against the sheriff, which he said he would continue to pursue.

When the state’s investigation started, Hedges acknowledged that he and Undersheriff Steve Bolts were responsible for secretly installing video and audio recording equipment in Hoving’s office and taping a meeting between him and Donovan.

Hedges also said that he did nothing illegal and later claimed the taping was part of a criminal investigation.

The state’s decision not to file criminal charges came after a 10-month investigation that involved 15 interviews, several depositions, a review of numerous documents and a viewing of the tape at the center of the investigation.

The probe lasted nearly a year because officials wanted to be thorough, Gasparac said.

Hedges was traveling on department business Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.

But in a statement released late Wednesday, he said: “The undersheriff and I are pleased, but far from surprised, by this outcome.

“There was never any real dispute as to what had occurred, nor that we were investigating allegedly criminal conduct which under the law allows us to record that meeting,” Hedges added. “This is obviously the conclusion reached by the attorney general.”

Bolts said he would need to look into the matter and was not aware of the state’s decision and that he would need to contact the Attorney General’s Office for the findings.

Hoving reacted Wednesday in a written statement in which he still holds the sheriff responsible for his actions.

“The decision of the attorney general does not exonerate the actions of the sheriff. It merely identifies that they may not be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Hoving wrote.

He added that he thinks the matter should have been referred to the county grand jury.

Hoving filed a claim against the county on Sept. 7, 2007, asking for damages in excess of $1.25 million, followed by a federal lawsuit alleging the sheriff violated his civil rights to privacy and due process during the taping.

The U. S. District Court in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear the case on Aug. 28, according to Pasadena attorney Michael Stone, who is representing Hoving.

Stone also responded to the state’s decision in a written statement Wednesday, insisting that it has no bearing on the federal case.

“The attorney general’s decision is irrelevant to the merits of Hoving’s claims,” Stone wrote. “The attorney general examined only elements of state law. … Hoving’s federal claims center on constitutional law.”

Stone continued: “We continue to believe that the federal case is strong and we intend to proceed to trial on all claims.”

The lawsuit claims the incident ruined Hoving’s ability to work at the department after 28 years there and caused him emotional distress, and that it was an illegal use of taxpayers’ money. He retired recently after claiming he had no other options.

The county began its own investigation into Hedges’ conduct in October—at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $117,000 —and sent its report to state investigators. They have not released the report to the public.

The county District Attorney’s Office said it does not plan to take any action in the matter after it originally referred it to the state in August 2007 to avoid a potential conflict of interest.