After supervisors raised questions about an investigator in the
District Attorney’s Office, the prosecutor fired back Monday with
copies of the investigator’s certifications and a letter informing
them it was partly the county’s responsibility because the human
resources department didn’t catch possible problems with his
qualifications before he was hired.
Hollister – After supervisors raised questions about an investigator in the District Attorney’s Office, the prosecutor fired back Monday with copies of the investigator’s certifications and a letter informing them it was partly the county’s responsibility because the human resources department didn’t catch possible problems with his qualifications before he was hired.
Supervisors, concerned about potential liability, will discuss the matter involving District Attorney Special Investigator Andy Simpson publicly on Friday, but do not know where that talk might lead or whether they will take any action. The discussion will center on whether Simpson broke the law when he claimed to be a peace officer to secure a search warrant last November. Simpson, who has worked as a special investigator for more than a year, is not qualified to act as a peace officer, according to Mario Rodriguez, a senior consultant with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. District Attorney John Sarsfield, who hired the investigator and directed him to secure the search warrant, said Simpson’s status is a gray area of the law and has requested clarification on the issue from the Attorney General.
However, in a letter to supervisors on Monday, Sarsfield said he hired Simpson based on what he believed to be the proper credentials, but that the county failed to help him make that determination. Sarsfield said he had requested the help from the county’s human resources department to make sure every employee in the county was properly qualified, but his request was denied. Sarsfield also pointed out that the county didn’t even have someone heading the human resources department at the time of his request.
But Supervisor Reb Monaco said the decision to hire Simpson was not in the Board’s purview.
“(Sarsfield) has a responsibility to make sure the people he hires are qualified,” he said. “It’s not the Board’s responsibility.”
Monaco is hoping the issue can be resolved soon.
“Based on the evidence, I have to be concerned,” he said. “Mr. Simpson has been acting in a capacity he is not qualified to act in and he violated people’s constitutional rights.”
Monaco said he had no idea were Friday’s discussion might lead, but said he agreed with Sarsfield that an opinion on Simpson’s qualifications is needed from the Attorney General.
“We decided we should hold it in open session after the district attorney advised us to do so,” Supervisor Pat Loe said Monday. “The public has a right to know and I truthfully want to hear from both sides before making a decision.”
Sarsfield believes Simpson is qualified for the position, based on a recommendation from the District Attorney’s Association and two certificates he has received from investigator training courses. However, Sarsfield has referred the matter to the Attorney General for a final decision.
Although Simpson has completed two investigator training courses, he is not a POST certified police officer, as he claimed in the search warrant request, according to County Counsel Claude Biddle. Both police officers and citizens can request search warrants, defense attorney Greg LaForge said, but they can’t claim to be police officers when doing so.
“Normally it would take six months, but we’re asking for an expedited opinion,” Sarsfield said. “Hopefully it will only take a month.”
In the meantime, Sarsfield has been instructed by both Biddle and Rodriguez to stop using Simpson as an investigator.
County supervisors are concerned about the search warrant Simpson served on MK Ballistic Systems last November. LaForge, representing the company’s owner Mike Keith, warned the Board of Supervisors two weeks ago that Simpson violated his client’s Fourth Amendment rights by claiming to be a police officer when he secured a search warrant from the San Benito County Superior Court.
MK Ballistic Systems, an ordnance and munitions manufacturer in rural San Benito County, was believed to have been storing, handling and disposing of explosives and toxic waste without proper federal permits. No charges have been filed in the case.
In his letter to the Board, Sarsfield attacked LaForge, saying the defense attorney is spreading unsubstantiated allegations.
“Furthermore, this matter is nothing more than a continuation of the pattern of harassing false allegations by Mr. LaForge,” he said. “Its connection to the Los Valientes case is obvious, as is (Mr. LaForge’s) motivations.”
The anonymous group Los Valientes is being sued by the District Attorney’s Office for civil rights violations for allegedly filing false and damaging accusations against a number of local elected officials and business owners.
LaForge denied any allegation that he was working on behalf of or motivated by the Los Valientes.
“How does this have anything to do with anything other than what it is?” LaForge said. “You don’t have somebody say they are a cop when they are not.”
Sarsfield believes LaForge, or possibly someone working on his behalf, gave information about Simpson’s questionable investigator status to local defense attorney Mike Pekin, who is representing the Los Valientes. Pekin said he plans to ask that the entire case be dismissed on the grounds that the District Attorney’s office lied about Simpson’s status.
Sarsfield also warned the Board that LaForge may have opened the county up to lawsuits through the use of questionable tactics – such as trying cases in the press – and has been the “subject of repeated complaints.”
Simpson’s attorney, Philip Berry, recently sent a letter to LaForge demanding him to “cease and desist in your campaign against Mr. Simpson.” The letter also alleges that LaForge has “spread false statements” about Simpson’s qualifications to county officials.
LaForge said he was not concerned about the letter and that he could not be sued for libel or defamation because “truth is an absolute defense” against such accusations.
“I read the letter, laughed, and threw it away,” LaForge said. “If anybody is liable for any type of defamation it’s Sarsfield for saying complaints have been filed against me.”
LaForge said no formal complaint has ever been filed against him.
Brett Rowland covers public safety for the Free Lance. He can be reached at 831-637-5566 ext. 330 or
br******@fr***********.com
.
