LAKEPORT — No decision was made in the ongoing lawsuit between Sheriff Frank Rivero and the Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS) as of Monday afternoon.
The matter was heard before Judge Richard J. Henderson on July 20. Henderson said at the conclusion of that hearing that he would issue a ruling within two to three weeks.
On March 6, following a few weeks of discussion, the BOS voted 4-1 to deny a request from Rivero to provide him with private legal counsel during a reported District Attorney”s Office investigation.
The DA”s Office was investigating an on-duty shooting involving Rivero when he was a sheriff”s deputy in February 2008, according to court records.
The Lake County Sheriff”s Office (LCSO) reported at the time that then-deputy Rivero fired a single shot after a suspect allegedly brandished a weapon. The man was reportedly uninjured.
The LCSO and DA”s Office investigated the incident at the time and no criminal charges were filed against Rivero. District Attorney Don Anderson said earlier this year that his office was not investigating criminal violations related to the incident.
Rivero filed a petition in late March asking the court to order the BOS to provide him with legal counsel and to pay for attorney fees associated with the case. The petition lists the BOS as the respondent, with Lake County as a “real party in interest.”
County Counsel Anita Grant determined her office had a conflict of interest and could not represent either party. The BOS argued a member of the County Counsel”s Office could represent Rivero with an “ethical wall” established within the department.
At the March 6 BOS meeting, Grant said she could set up an “ethical wall,” but it was irrelevant because Rivero said he would not waive the conflict of interest to allow for county representation.
In a petition filed June 12 with the court, Rivero”s attorneys Paul Coble and Martin Mayer, argued a conflict exists based on Grant”s inconsistent position on the “ethical wall,” which would warrant the BOS providing the sheriff with legal counsel.
The Government code states that when the county counsel or district attorney declares a conflict of interest when the county sheriff or assessor request legal counsel, the board of supervisors shall provide legal counsel to assist them in the performance of their duties.
In a written declaration to the court, Anderson stated his office received information in March 2011 that Rivero was untruthful during the investigation of the 2008 shooting incident.
Anderson stated that in September, an attorney for a defendant in a criminal case involving an LCSO criminal investigation in 2011 requested the release of documents pertaining to Rivero”s possible untruthfulness.
Anderson stated that, under the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brady v. Maryland, he is obligated to disclose impeachment evidence that relates to the untruthfulness of a peace officer to the defendant in a criminal case involving the peace officer.
Anderson stated he made attempts between November and December to set up a panel hearing with Rivero to hear any objections the sheriff might have regarding the release of the documents pursuant to the Brady ruling, later changing the format to an “informal” meeting between the two elected officials.
The DA stated he has not made a decision to disclose the documents to the attorney because he is “willing to informally discuss the disclosure of said documents with (Rivero) prior to making any final decision.”
In a second petition filed June 22, Coble stated that Rivero could be labeled a ” Brady” officer,” which is a peace officer who is known for lying in an official capacity, and that the label would impact him in performing his duties as sheriff.
Kevin N. Hume can be reached at kevin.n.hume@gmail.com or call directly 263-5636 ext. 14. Follow on Twitter: @KevinNHume.
