LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A Lake County News investigation has revealed that the issue at the heart of a dispute between the sheriff and district attorney, resulting in the sheriff’s request for outside legal counsel, is based on allegations that the sheriff lied during a 2008 investigation into a shooting in which he was involved while a deputy.

Sheriff Frank Rivero is the subject of a District Attorney’s Office inquiry into the incident, in which he is alleged to have shot at a man holding a can of pepper spray during his time as a deputy sheriff. The man was not injured.

Documents Lake County News received Wednesday as the result of a California Public Records Act for emails between Rivero and members of the Board of Supervisors indicate District Attorney Don Anderson is conducting an evaluation of the shooting based on Brady v. Maryland.

That 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision requires prosecutors to disclose to defendants exculpatory evidence, including issues about an officer’s truthfulness and credibility.

The impetus for the inquiry appears not to be the shooting itself but the conflicting stories Rivero allegedly gave investigating officers following the incident at a Cobb home on Feb. 19, 2008.

Asked for a response in regard to the release of his emails, Rivero told Lake County News in an email message on Wednesday, "I categorically deny any allegation or inference of being untruthful during the investigation of my officer involved shooting of February 19, 2008. The Sheriff and the DA in office at the time thoroughly investigated the shooting and found no impropriety and concluded that I acted properly."

Rivero in February requested the Board of Supervisors hire him outside legal counsel to respond to the inquiry, adding that he wanted to ensure Anderson didn’t overstep his legal bounds. The board denied that request March 6, after discussing it in three separate meetings.

If Rivero is found to have lied to investigators in the 2008 shooting investigation, he could receive a “Brady letter,” which would identify him as an officer whose reliability as a witness in court cases has been compromised.

Rivero and attorney Matthew Pavone – who the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or PORAC, retained to represent the sheriff – both have raised the concern that Rivero’s ability to perform his duties would be affected if the District Attorney’s Office took action to place him on a “Brady list” of officers with compromised credibility.

For many officers, being placed on a Brady list can spell the end of their careers.

That’s because Brady v. Maryland requires that prosecutors divulge to defendants in criminal cases all evidence that could aid them in defending themselves, including information about the reliability of officers who are witnesses in their cases.

Anderson told Lake County News in a Wednesday interview that any time a peace officer’s credibility comes into play because of past testimony or material representations in any investigation, his office is required by law to disclose it to defendants. Otherwise, he and his staff could face sanctions from the state bar association.

“I believe in full disclosure to defendants,” he said.

He said the decision on whether to give officers Brady letters is up to him or his designee.

The documents released to Lake County News indicated Anderson had set up a panel of three representatives from the district attorneys’ offices of neighboring counties to hear the matter. He said it’s not a made up process, as Rivero has alleged, but is done around the state all the time.

During discussions by the Board of Supervisors regarding Rivero’s request for outside legal counsel, some board members indicated they understood the panel had been dropped, but Anderson said the panel was merely changed from one composed of out-of-county representatives to one formed with members of Anderson’s own staff.

The panel doesn’t interview the officer, only reviews documents from the investigation, said Anderson. However, the officer in question can make an argument to the panel against the action before a final determination is made.

In the issue with Rivero, Anderson – who could say little directly about the case due to confidentiality – said, “The investigation is resolved,” and a decision is pending a response from Rivero.

Anderson said he had agreed to hold off on taking any action until the matter with Rivero’s request to the board for legal counsel was resolved.

Rivero’s Brady inquiry is anticipated to have a direct impact on a pending case, People v. Carrillo, according to a Dec. 13 letter Anderson sent to Pavone.

In that case, Nicolas Carrillo of Santa Rosa is accused of being a member of the Hells Angels and is alleged to have taken part, along with three other alleged Hells Angels, in a June 2011 fight with rival Vagos motorcycle gang members at Konocti Vista Casino in Lakeport.

Carrillo’s attorney, Michael Clough, succeeded in having Judge Andrew Blum open Rivero’s personnel records in October to see if there were any potential bias issues against the Hells Angels. Blum reviewed Rivero’s records and those of Sgt. John Gregore and found no issues, as Lake County News has reported.

Clough had argued there were unusual circumstances in the case, namely, that a deputy had investigated and closed the matter before Rivero had it reopened, going to the casino personally to collect the surveillance tapes.

Because of Rivero’s involvement in that case, it is likely any Brady issue would need to be disclosed to Carrillo’s attorney.

But Anderson said disclosure is not necessary until a matter is set for trial. Carrillo’s case was only recently set for preliminary hearing.

Documents explain legal issues

According to a 2010 District Attorney’s Office investigation of the 2008 shooting, “Deputy Rivero tells Sergeant Gary Hall, who is the first to talk to him, that the male subject was holding a lighter in one hand and a can of 'pepper spray' in the other. Later, Deputy Rivero tells Detective Paulich that he could not see the object in the male subject’s hand and that is why Deputy Rivero did not know what the male subject was grabbing and pointing at Deputy Rivero.”

That report also stated that the suspect’s former girlfriend, who had called the sheriff’s office, first told investigators that she heard Rivero tell the suspect to “drop the pepper spray.”

That matched the version of events given by the other deputy on scene at the time, then-Deputy Michael Sobieraj – who has since left the department – who told investigators that he heard Rivero order the suspect to “drop the pepper spray, drop the pepper spray.”

“That would indicate that Deputy Rivero knew the male subject had pepper spray and had discarded it,” the District Attorney’s Office report stated.

That report concluded, “Since it is difficult to say beyond a reasonable doubt what exactly Deputy Rivero believed occurred, there would not be support for criminal charges of knowingly making a false report to law enforcement.”

The 2010 District Attorney’s Office report can be seen here: http://bit.ly/ztj3bM .

In his Dec. 13 letter to Pavone, Anderson explained that he intended to impanel a Brady review committee to review the case documents, hear comments from Rivero or another relevant witness, and Pavone’s arguments.

In that same letter, Anderson – who during the 2010 campaign had shared a campaign manager with Rivero, Olga Martin Steele – told Pavone that there were no conflicts requiring his office to recuse itself, and that any animosity resulted from Rivero’s “conduct while acting in his capacity as Sheriff.”

Anderson added that Rivero “has come under investigation by this office regarding his conduct; but, no more or less than any other person would in similar situations.”

Anderson assured Pavone that his office did not take Rivero’s matter or any Brady action lightly. “We understand the significance of a peace officer being placed on a Brady list or determined to have Brady issues,” Anderson said. “We are taking this action only after careful review and after consulting several elected District Attorneys and Brady experts.”

In another letter to Pavone, dated Jan. 20, Anderson maintained that the decision on whether or not to place on officer on a Brady list rests with his office, not a judge, and he explained the makeup of the proposed panel.

Seeking outside legal counsel

The issue of Rivero’s push for outside legal counsel appears to have arisen when, last Dec. 19, County Counsel Anita Grant sent Rivero and Pavone an email about her concerns regarding a possible conflict of interest for her office.

“I’ve reviewed the issue of whether and under what circumstances my office could participate in your representation before a Brady panel to be devised by the DA and before which the DA intends to present the information relating to the issuance of a Brady letter as a result of a second investigation of a shooting incident which occurred when Sheriff Rivero was a deputy sheriff,” she wrote.

Grant goes on to point out, “I have determined that I have a conflict; however, it would be possible to create an ethical wall of separation and assign other counsel in my office if necessary. For reasons stated here, I do not believe that such representation is warranted.”

She noted that she learned that day from Pavone that he had been retained through PORAC to represent Rivero, and she questioned whether Rivero needed any additional representation by her office.

“When a deputy sheriff in Lake County faces adverse action, PORAC generally provides its members with defense counsel,” Grant wrote. “That has occurred here. Given that Sheriff Rivero is already ably represented by Mr. Pavone, it is unnecessary to have Sheriff Rivero also represented by this office. That is not something that has ever been done for a deputy sheriff facing similar adverse action in this county. For purposes of this particular issue, I must consider Deputy Rivero, rather than Sheriff Rivero.”

She said that while she saw no need for her office to provide Rivero with representation, “Mr. Pavone has raised some other issues which my office will be reviewing.” What those issues are was not specified in the documents.

The following day, Pavone responded by telling Grant, “I am disappointed by your decision not to involve your Office in opposing the District Attorney's effort to subject Sheriff Rivero to an ad hoc Brady disclosure process.”

He continued, “If I understand your e-mail correctly, at least one basis for your decision is that Sheriff Rivero is being evaluated for conduct while he was a deputy and not as the Sheriff. While that is true, an adverse decision against Sheriff Rivero will affect his ability to perform his duties as Sheriff which, if I understood you correctly in our telephone conversation yesterday, would be a valid basis for your Office to get involved.”

Pavone also warned Grant of potential liability to the county, and a possible lawsuit with an award of “punitive damages.”

“Additionally, you also have the interests of the County to consider,” Pavone wrote. “To the extent District Attorney Anderson subjects Sheriff Rivero to an unpublished, untested, and largely undefined procedure that is not consistent with his Office's own written Internal Policy, I believe he will be violating Sheriff Rivero's due process rights. Such wrongful conduct, particularly if the District Attorney proceeds as planned after being put on notice of my due process objections, will expose the County to needless litigation and the prospect of a punitive damages award. Certainly the County has an interest in avoiding that outcome.”

Later that day, Rivero emailed Pavone, telling him, “In short, county counsel admits that they have a conflict, and an obligation to defend me, yet they are now abandoning me. I appreciate you holding her feet to the fire and keeping the pressure on.”

Pavone responded that day to Rivero, accusing Grant of a “cop-out,” and stating that he understood from a phone conversation with her that “she certainly left me with the impression that she was going to have the County play some role in opposing Anderson, either by assigning somebody within her office (she did say that she was probably personally conflicted) or by asking the Board to allow an outside firm to be brought in. Accordingly, her e-mail came as quite a surprise.”

With the matter still not settled, Rivero appears to have reached out to individual board members to get support.

In a Jan. 4 email to Supervisor Denise Rushing, which he copied to Supervisor Anthony Farrington, Rivero – using his private email address, which he commonly does for all correspondence, even those involving county business – forwarded a string of email correspondence between his attorney and county officials.

He alleged that Anderson “has concocted an unprecedented mechanism devised to railroad me while appearing to keep his hands clean. This should be viewed for what it is; a gross violation of my due process and equal protection rights, as well as my rights and protections as an employee of the County of Lake.”

The mechanism to which Rivero is referring is the panel that Anderson had planned to assemble to make the final decision on whether Rivero would be placed on the District Attorney’s Office Brady list.

That panel and a proposed hearing later would be discussed in less direct terms in the Board of Supervisors meetings during which Rivero was requesting outside counsel.

The entire issue led Grant to send a confidential memorandum to Rivero and Anderson dated Jan. 11 – several weeks ahead of the first board discussion on Rivero’s legal counsel request – with the subject listed as “Brady Determination.”

“The Board of Supervisors is aware of continuing animosity between you. Obviously, the interests of the County of Lake are ill-served by such animosity. This correspondence is intended to express particular concern in regard to the decision-making process to resolve possible Brady v. Maryland disclosure issues relating to Sheriff Rivero,” she said.

She noted that Anderson “has a particular matter under review for purposes of determining whether Brady v. Maryland requires certain disclosures to defense counsel in a criminal matter,” but that Rivero was challenging Anderson’s ability to make a fair determination “because the Sheriff believes the District Attorney’s Office has exhibited bias against him and that the revisited investigation by the District Attorney’s Office giving rise to the Brady considerations is a contrivance to disguise that bias.”

In turn, she said Anderson attempted to address Rivero’s claims of bias by creating a panel to hear the matter.

“The County is well aware that it is undoubtedly within the authority and purview of the District Attorney to make determinations as to Brady disclosures. It is the obligation of the District Attorney to do so,” Grant said.

“However, in this particular case, the County of Lake has serious concerns, given the continuing struggles between the two of you, that any determination as to this matter which is made by the District Attorney or through him in the form of a panel will ultimately fail to resolve it and the interests of the County will be jeopardized by prolonged and needless litigation,” she continued.

Grant concluded, “The County therefore strenuously requests that this issue be presented to the courts for a judicial determination. Such a process would preclude a further claim of bias, would ensure due process protections, and would resolve the matter.”

How the documents were obtained

Over the past month, Rivero has appeared before the Board of Supervisors three times, asking that an outside attorney be hired to represent him in the matter with Anderson’s office, and stating he would not appear before the panel, which he called a “star chamber.”

At its meeting on Tuesday, March 6, the board voted 4-1 – with Rushing voting no – to deny Rivero’s request that outside counsel be hired to represent him at that time.

That followed board action on Feb. 21 – at Farrington’s suggestion – to direct county counsel to analyze erecting an “ethical wall” in her office to represent Rivero if necessary, a suggestion she had made to Pavone in her Dec. 19 email.

The consideration of such an ethical wall was aided by Anderson’s willingness to waive the county counsel’s conflict. Later that day, however, the board was informed that Rivero would not waive the conflict and wanted the matter brought back before the board for reconsideration.

During the board’s March 6 discussion, Farrington referenced a series of emails he had received from Rivero that led him to believe the sheriff would be willing to accept county counsel’s representation, thus Farrington’s effort at the Feb. 21 meeting to work out the compromise that Rivero rejected.

Following the board’s March 6 vote, Lake County News submitted its Public Records Act request to Grant and County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox, seeking “copies of all e-mails between all members of the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Rivero regarding his request for legal counsel. Those e-mails were referenced in the discussion this morning.”

Lake County News’ Public Records Act request was the topic of a special closed session discussion at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting this past Tuesday, March 13, during which the board considered whether to release the documents.

Grant explained to Lake County News afterward that when such materials are sent to individual board members through the county email system they become the property of the county of Lake.

Because the documents were county property, it required the full board to waive certain privileges involved with receiving such information, she said.

Following its closed session discussion, the board emerged, with Supervisor Jeff Smith moving to waive any exemptions from disclosure under the Public Records Act and disclose copies of all emails between all board members and Rivero regarding his request for legal counsel to the extent not otherwise precluded by law.

The board approved Smith’s motion 5-0, and Grant provided the emails to Lake County News Wednesday afternoon.

The materials Grant provided included Anderson’s Dec. 13 and Jan. 20 letters to Pavone and Grant’s Jan. 11 memorandum to Anderson and Rivero. Those letters and the memo had been attached to the emails Rivero forwarded to Rushing and Farrington.

Below are the emails, presented in chronological order. The attachments referenced in the mails – the letters from Anderson and Grant – can be seen at the end of the story.
                  
Monday, December 19, 2011; 6:56 p.m.

From: Anita Grant
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 6:56 PM
To: Francisco Rivero; Matthew Pavone
Subject: Brady panel

Dear Sheriff Rivero and Mr. Pavone:

I’ve reviewed the issue of whether and under what circumstances my office could participate in your representation before a Brady panel to be devised by the DA and before which the DA intends to present the information relating to the issuance of a Brady letter as a result of a second investigation of a shooting incident which occurred when Sheriff Rivero was a deputy sheriff.

I have determined that I have a conflict; however, it would be possible to create an ethical wall of separation and assign other counsel in my office if necessary. For reasons stated here, I do not believe that such representation is warranted.

To my knowledge, this panel process would be a new procedure in the DA’s office and there exists no written policy or practice surrounding it. Although it is difficult to construe it as an administrative proceeding based upon the information I have, I would nonetheless view it as such for purposes of peace officer representation given the potentially adverse consequences.

I learned from Mr. Pavone today that he has been retained through PORAC to represent Sheriff Rivero. When a deputy sheriff in Lake County faces adverse action, PORAC generally provides its members with defense counsel. That has occurred here. Given that Sheriff Rivero is already ably represented by Mr. Pavone, it is unnecessary to have Sheriff Rivero also represented by this office. That is not something that has ever been done for a deputy sheriff facing similar adverse action in this county. For purposes of this particular issue, I must consider Deputy Rivero, rather than Sheriff Rivero.

Although I see no need for my office to provide additional representation for Sheriff Rivero, Mr. Pavone has raised some other issues which my office will be reviewing.

Thank you and I hope you both understand that this determination is based solely upon my view of the parameters of my office.

Anita Grant

Tuesday, December 20, 2011; 11:26 a.m.

From: Matt Pavone
To: Anita Grant

Ms. Grant:

I am disappointed by your decision not to involve your Office in opposing the District Attorney's effort to subject Sheriff Rivero to an ad hoc Brady disclosure process. If I understand your e-mail correctly, at least one basis for your decision is that Sheriff Rivero is being evaluated for conduct while he was a deputy and not as the Sheriff. While that is true, an adverse decision against Sheriff Rivero will affect his ability to perform his duties as Sheriff which, if I understood you correctly in our telephone conversation yesterday, would be a valid basis for your Office to get involved.

Also, as you noted in our telephone conversation, there is a concern about the precedential effect of the District Attorney using a make-shift procedure to conduct the Brady evaluation here for future Brady determinations that may well involve deputy sheriffs. For that additional reason, I believe it is important for the County Counsel (or approved outside counsel) to be formally involved in this discussion.

Additionally, you also have the interests of the County to consider. To the extent District Attorney Anderson subjects Sheriff Rivero to an unpublished, untested, and largely undefined procedure that is not consistent with his Office's own written Internal Policy, I believe he will be violating Sheriff Rivero's due process rights. Such wrongful conduct, particularly if the District Attorney proceeds as planned after being put on notice of my due process objections, will expose the County to needless litigation and the prospect of a punitive damages award. Certainly the County has an interest in avoiding that outcome.

Attached is a copy of a letter I sent out today to Mr. Anderson. I ask that you review the letter and reconsider your decision to abstain from involving the County Counsel's Office in this matter.

Finally, your e-mail references "some other issues which my office will be reviewing." I would appreciate it if you would write to me with the specific issues you are referring to and your estimated time line for completing your review(s).

Sincerely,

Matthew B. Pavone

Tuesday, December 20, 2011; 11:47 a.m.

From: Francisco Rivero
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Matthew Pavone
Subject: Re: Brady panel

Matt,

You read my mind after reading Anita Grant's e-mail last night. I've been in a command staff meeting since early this morning and was planning on calling you to express my concern and disappointment. In short, county counsel admits that they have a conflict, and an obligation to defend me, yet they are now abandoning me. I appreciate you holding her feet to the fire and keeping the pressure on.

Frank

Tuesday, December 20, 2011; 3:57 p.m.

From: Matthew Pavone
Date: December 20, 2011 3:57:12 PM PST
To: Francisco Rivero
Cc: Karen Karner

Subject: RE: Brady panel

Yeah, a total cop-out (pardon the pun) by Ms. Grant. While she did not commit to anything in our phone conversation, she certainly left me with the impression that she was going to have the County play some role in opposing Anderson, either by assigning somebody within her office (she did say that she was probably personally conflicted) or by asking the Board to allow an outside firm to be brought in. Accordingly, her e-mail came as quite a surprise.

We'll see how she reacts to my e-mail.

The letter to Anderson went out earlier today. You will get your copy by mail. It is essentially the same as the draft I sent to you.

Matt

Wednesday, January 4, 2012; 9:20 p.m.

From: Francisco Rivero
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:20 PM
To: Denise Rushing
Cc: Anthony Farrington
Subject: Fwd: Brady panel

Denise,

Thanks for taking the time to speak to me this afternoon. As promised, I sent you the last correspondence between Mr. Pavone and DA Anderson in a previous e-mail. In order to inform you of the role County Counsel has admitted she has and now disavows in this matter, I am forwarding this string of e-mails beginning with Anita Grant's e-mail of December 19, wherein she tells Mr. Pavone and me that her Office will not be representing me, nor, by inference, the Sheriff's Office and the County. This after she writes in that same e-mail, "To my knowledge, this panel process would be a new procedure in the DA’s office and there exists no written policy or practice surrounding it." Translated into plain English, DA Anderson has concocted an unprecedented mechanism devised to railroad me while appearing to keep his hands clean. This should be viewed for what it is; a gross violation of my due process and equal protection rights, as well as my rights and protections as an employee of the County of Lake. You should also know that Anita has not responded to Mr. Pavone's reply e-mail of December 20th, wherein he puts her on notice of the County's exposure in this matter.

Frank

Friday, January 20, 2012; 8:58 p.m.

From: Francisco Rivero
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 8:58 PM
To: Anita Grant
Cc: Matthew Pavone; Kelly Cox
Subject: Re: memorandum to Sheriff Rivero

Anita,

Would you please clarify why it is "now" your understanding that " The Brady panel devised by District Attorney Don Anderson will not act as an evidentiary hearing board." Also, if it is now, "solely," a, "review panel," what exactly does that mean and what exactly is its function? For instance: What are they entrusted to review and under what authority? To whom are they presenting their findings and for what purpose? What statue or case law entitles them access to law enforcement personnel files and/or internal affairs investigative files, which are privileged, confidential and protected under 832.7 PC, 3300 GC and County policy. (I cannot overemphasize that I have not, nor do I plan to wave any of these right.)

These are just some of the questions triggered by your memorandum which has left me agape with wonder and concern.

Frank

Monday, January 23, 2012, 5:03 p.m.

From: Matthew Pavone
Date: January 23, 2012 5:03:00 PM PST
To: Francisco Rivero, Anita Grant
Cc: Kelly Cox;, Karen Karner
Subject: RE: Memorandum to Sheriff Rivero

Anita,

Thank you for your most recent Memorandum. However, I have to echo Sheriff Rivero's questions (see below) about the basis for your conclusion that the proceeding contemplated by the District Attorney is not an "evidentiary hearing board" to "determine issues of Brady disclosure." Regardless of how Mr. Anderson labels it, it is clear it is precisely a proceeding to determine whether he will make Brady disclosures about Frank. Moreover, all of his correspondence with me on the issue firmly establishes that fact. For example, his December 13, 2011, letter to me (which I have previously provided to you, and which I provide again here) speaks of "witnesses," "arguments," and the "review" of documents." He also states that the "meeting is somewhat informal and the normal rules of evidence do not apply, we will hear only relevant evidence that bears on Brady issues. The person conducting the meeting will have the discretion to determine what material is relevant."

In addition, Mr. Anderson's most recent letter to me (attached) again makes clear that, notwithstanding the Board of Supervisors belief that his office is conflicted in this matter (as conveyed in your attached memo of January 11, 2012, urging judicial oversight), either he will personally resolve the matter or it will be resolved by an as-yet unidentified "panel" of deputy district attorneys through an ad hoc process designed by him without any external controls, and outside the scope of his office's own published internal Brady policy.

If it looks like a duck, … .

Sheriff Rivero and I continue to view this entire procedure as exactly the sort of process that you describe in the second paragraph of your Memo. If you are aware of information that properly supports your different "understanding," we would appreciate it if you would share it with us. Also, the Sheriff again asks that your Office follow up on its commitment to "assist" him by taking proactive steps to safeguard the rights and protections to which he is entitled as referenced in your Memo.

Thank you.

Matt Pavone

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

121311 Anderson Letter on Brady Issue 011112 Grant Memo to Rivero and Anderson 012012 Anderson Letter to Pavone

EDITOR'S NOTE: A picture at the bottom of the article is graphic and may upset some readers.

CLEARLAKE OAKS, Calif. – The Lake County Sheriff's Office on Wednesday offered additional details on the arrest of a man alleged to have stabbed a dog last weekend, the third dog he had allegedly stabbed in four years' time.

Brian Peter Hagan, 73, of Clearlake Oaks was arrested last Saturday following the confrontation, as Lake County News has reported.

Sgt. Steve Brooks reported that deputies responded just after 7 a.m. Saturday, March 10, to a residence on Hoover Street in Clearlake Oaks on the report of a dog being stabbed.

Upon their arrival they noticed the dog had what appeared to be a 10-inch laceration across its back, Brooks said.

The owner of the dog told deputies that he let his dog go outside of the residence into the front yard. After he did so, he noticed a male subject later identified as Hagan of Clearlake Oaks, who was walking a small dog on a leash towards the residence, Brooks said.

Hagan appeared to be carrying a long stick. As Hagan walked closer, the owner of the residence noticed that his dog had walked towards the street. Brooks said the dog barked at Hagan and the owner called the dog to return, which he did.  

As Hagan walked closer to the residence, he raised the stick towards the dog, which made the dog bark more, Brooks said.

Hagan continued walking towards the dog and came within approximately 5 feet of it. Brooks said the owner of the dog noticed that Hagan was actually holding a metal pole with a knife attached to the end of it.

Hagan then allegedly swung the pole, which cut the dog across the back, Brooks said.

The owner confronted Hagan about cutting his dog and noticed the knife had fallen from the end of the pole. Brooks said Hagan retrieved the knife, attached it to the pole and raised it. He then told the owner of the dog that he would do the same to him.

Reports on the case indicated the knife was 7 and three-quarters inches long.

The dog, a 2- to 3-year-old neutered male pit bull mix – was transported to Middletown Animal Hospital where it received treatment for the injuries inflicted by Hagan, as Lake County News has reported.

The wound extended down to the dog's spinal cord, according to veterinarian Dr. Jeff Smith, who added that the dog should recover.

Hagan was arrested for unlawful possession/manufacture of a dangerous weapon, cruelty to animals, criminal threats and brandishing a deadly weapon. Hagan was transported to the Lake County Hill Road Correctional Facility and booked.

Animal Care and Control Director Bill Davidson reported this week that Hagan had previously stabbed a dog in 2008 and another dog about a year and a half ago, claiming self defense both times. Neither case was prosecuted.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Richard Hinchcliff told Lake County News earlier this week that he charged Hagan with felony animal abuse, felony threats against the dog’s owner and a misdemeanor charge for brandishing the knife at the dog’s owner.

Hinchcliff also indicated he is going to review the 2008 dog stabbing case against Hagan, which had been sent to the District Attorney's Office but dismissed due to a conclusion that the dog in that case was aggressive.

Hagan, who was arraigned on the charges on Tuesday, remained in custody early Thursday, with bail set at $30,000, according to jail records.

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake Police Department is asking for the community's assistance in locating its latest “most wanted” suspect.

The agency on Saturday released information on Vincent Anthony Saenz of Clearlake, who is wanted on several felony and misdemeanor charges.

Those charges include infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, possession of a controlled substance, vehicle theft, resisting an officer and being under the influence of a controlled substance.

Saenz is described as a white male with blue eyes and brown hair. He weighs around 160 pounds and is 5 feet, 7 inches in height.

He has tattoos on both arms, his right hand and on his back.

Anyone with information about Saenz is asked to call the Clearlake Police Department at 707-994-8251. Callers may remain anonymous.

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A man serving a prison sentence for second-degree attempted murder for shooting and wounding a Clearlake Police officer in 1992 was denied parole earlier this week.

On Tuesday, the California Board of Parole Hearings denied parole for 67-year-old Dewey Ringling Hansen.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Richard Hinchcliff attended the lifer hearing at Correctional Training Facility-State Prison in Soledad to argue against Hansen’s release.

Hansen was prosecuted in 1993 by Andrew S. Blum, then the Lake County chief deputy district attorney and currently a Lake County Superior Court judge.

Hansen pleaded guilty to the attempted second-degree murder of John Phillips, who was a reserve police officer for the Clearlake Police Department, the District Attorney's Office reported.

Hansen also admitted to enhancements for use of a gun and committing a felony while on bail, and was sentenced to 23 years to life by Judge Richard L. Freeborn. His minimum eligible parole date is May 7, 2012.

Prior to the shooting of Officer Phillips, Hansen had two prior convictions for armed robbery and one conviction for possession of methamphetamine, and had served prior prison terms on all three cases, the District Attorney's Office reported.

On the day of the shooting Hansen had an arrest warrant pending for a third armed robbery that occurred on July 26, 1992 in Suisun City.

The District Attorney's Office said Hansen also had a 30 year history of chronic methamphetamine, heroin and alcohol use. Hansen claimed to have injected 3/4 gram of methamphetamine just prior to the shooting.

According to investigation reports by the Clearlake Police Department and sentencing reports by the Probation Department, then-Lt. Bob Chalk, who later became Clearlake’s police chief, and Officer Phillips went to an address on 29th Street in Clearlake to talk to the residents in an effort to locate Hansen.

It was not believed at the time that Hansen was at that residence. While Lt. Chalk spoke with the occupants in the front of the residence, Officer Phillips went to a back bedroom that had a light on.

Inside the room Phillips found a closet with the door closed. He started to open the closet door, not knowing that Hansen was hiding inside and had seen the officers arrive.

As Phillips began opening the closet door, Hansen fired two shots with a stolen .25 caliber handgun, striking Officer Phillips once in the head at point blank range. It was later determined that the bullet grazed Phillips head and did no permanent physical damage.

Officer Phillips, who was knocked to the ground when shot, emptied his gun into the closet, hitting Hansen twice.

One shot struck Hansen above his left eye, causing him to permanently lose his left eye.

When Hansen was taken into custody he was found to be  in possession of a knife in each boot, and a brown paper bag with a hold up note in which he threatened he had a gun and would use it if the instructions in the note were not followed. Hansen received medical treatment and survived.

At his sentencing April 30, 1993, Hansen claimed the shooting was out of character for him and he possessed the gun for self defense only.

At Tuesday's parole hearing, which lasted more than three hours, Hinchcliff asked the Board of Prison Hearings to deny Hansen parole on the grounds that he still presented an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if released.

Although Hansen claimed to be remorseful at the hearing and claimed to accept responsibility for the shooting, as recently as December 2010 Hansen claimed that Phillips shot first and caused Hansen’s gun to discharge, the District Attorney's Office reported.

The Board of Prison Hearings commissioners agreed that Hansen still poses an unreasonable risk of danger to the public and denied parole for at least five years.

The District Attorney's Office said Hansen’s next parole hearing will be in 2017.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com , on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors voted against hiring outside legal representation for the county’s sheriff, who is locked in a dispute with the district attorney.

The board voted 4-1, with Supervisor Denise Rushing voting no, to deny Sheriff Frank Rivero’s request to hire him an attorney in the ongoing matter with District Attorney Don Anderson.

The issue at the heart of Rivero’s dispute with Anderson is related to a February 2008 shooting in Cobb in which Rivero, then a deputy sheriff, shot at a man who was holding pepper spray.

Because it’s a personnel matter, county officials have not offered specifics. However, Board Chair Rob Brown stated on Tuesday that it was his understanding that the issue was not about the shooting itself.

Rivero’s request first appeared on the Feb. 14 agenda, after County County Anita Grant had stated that her office had a conflict of interest because the dispute involved two county officials.

At which time it was held over to allow the board to find out of Rivero would be granted representation by a legal defense fund for officers offered through the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC). The board later was informed PORAC would not offer that assistance.

On Feb. 21, when the matter came back, Supervisor Anthony Farrington reported that Anderson would waive the conflict, and proposed a compromise embraced by the board in which Grant would analyze creating an “ethical wall” to allow her staff to represent Rivero. However, later that same day an attorney for Rivero contacted Grant to say he would not waive a conflict.

Rivero did not appear due to illness at the board’s Feb. 28 hearing, and so the matter came back to the board once more on Tuesday.

Grant told the board Tuesday that Rivero was asking for the representation because of a hearing process Anderson has instituted as part of his inquiry.

“This is not a standard investigatory process,” Grant said.

Rivero said Government Code Section 31000.6, under which he was making the request for outside legal representation, has “two triggers” – that he asks for it and that county counsel declares a conflict.

Board members said they believed they had found a compromise by asking for an ethical wall, but Grant said it came down to the fact that Rivero had not waived his conflict, so her office’s involvement wasn’t an option.

She said it was up to the board to determine if the prerequisites for hiring Rivero counsel were met. “I suggest they are.”

Farrington explained that he had communicated with Rivero by e-mail and verbally, and that based on the last conversation they had, Farrington said Rivero had indicated he would accept representation from the County Counsel’s Office.

“You and I have not communicated since I presented this compromise and solution,” Farrington said to Rivero.

“I thought it was a reasonable suggestion,” said Farrington, adding that he still believed it was in the best interest of the county and the sheriff, and saved taxpayer money.

Rivero said he had asked for representation from the inception of the conflict with the District Attorney’s Office.

Brown said the matter was difficult because not all of the information about why the dispute is taking place was public. He said the board could not divulge the details to make the matter more clear, but Rivero could.

Brown also recited back to Rivero words from an e-mail exchange between them in which Rivero – responding to criticisms from Brown about using sheriff’s staff to write a press release about a collision he was involved in on Feb. 20 – said, “The days of keeping the Lake County public uninformed of what their elected officials are up to are over.”

“I agree with you,” Brown said.

Rivero reiterated that it’s about the 2008 shooting, and the reopening of an investigation into that matter. Brown countered that the shooting itself wasn’t the issue.

“This stems from that incident,” said Rivero.

Brown said the shooting wasn’t being investigated. Rivero said he wasn’t going to argue, and that Brown knew what it was about. Brown said he thought the public should know, too. Rivero said the public does know.

“What happens if we just say no?” asked Supervisor Jim Comstock.

Grant said she was sure that the sheriff will consider taking legal action, the cost of which will be borne by the county.

“So either way, we pay,” said Brown.

Warnings of precedent

Rushing said that Anderson was inventing a whole new process, and while she also thought they had a solution through the county counsel’s involvement – which Rivero’s refusal to waive the conflict nullified – she felt Rivero had a right to counsel.

Brown said he didn’t disagree that the sheriff had a right to legal counsel, but he disagreed that taxpayers should fund it.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said he thought that Rivero had been open to county counsel’s representation. “I feel like we wasted a couple of weeks by going down this path,” he said, adding, “Maybe I misunderstood.”

“You absolutely misunderstood,” said Rivero.

Stating that he’s been “strenuously advised” not to take part in the hearing process Anderson was instituting, Rivero said a potentially expensive legal battle is before the county, and he suggested the board look at Anderson, “who brought this battle to my doorstep.”

Rivero added, “I can’t sit here like a human pinata and allow myself to get beat up.”

He warned the board that there is the potential in the matter for precedent that will affect him, his deputies and law enforcement throughout the state.

Brown questioned those impacts. Rivero said there was a new “unprecedented” process, “developed apparently to apply to me.”

Brown questioned if it was because of that precedent that PORAC’s counsel was refusing to step in. Rivero said he couldn’t speak to that.

Farrington stated that he felt “a little burnt” in his efforts to help Rivero meet his counsel needs, and suggested Rivero now would need a writ from the courts to get the county to provide it.

He added that it was his understanding that Anderson was not going to pursue the original panel hearing process he had proposed, and Brown said that was his understanding as well. Grant said if that additional element no longer existed, the board had the ability to revisit the sheriff’s right to counsel.

Rushing asked Rivero directly if it he would waive the conflict. He said he would not.

She then moved that the board provide outside counsel based on the narrow scope of the hearing process, and that the board would revisit the matter if the legal costs exceeded $10,000.

The motion died for lack of a second.

Rushing’s colleagues on the board held fast to concerns about hiring outside counsel.

“I believe the sheriff can be competently represented represented by your office and I think that’s in the best interest of the county,” Farrington said to Grant.

Smith said he questioned the interpretation of the government code under which Rivero was making his request, noting that it referred to his duties as sheriff, while the issue arose from before Rivero had taken office.

“The issue is this nonstandard process,” said Rushing.

She then made a second motion to provide outside counsel, and revisit the matter if it exceeded $1,000 in cost.

That motion also died without a second.

Farrington then moved to deny the request for outside counsel, which the board approved 4-1, with Rushing voting no.

A supporter of Rivero’s said on the way out of the chambers that the decision was going to cost the county more money.

“We’ll see,” said Farrington.

Also on Tuesday, the board discussed in closed session Rivero’s ongoing U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim against the county, filed in 2009.

Rivero had alleged in the claim that he was discriminated against due to race and also was the victim of retaliation for making allegations of harassment against other sheriff’s office employees.

The board had no action to report on the item when it came out of closed session.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com , on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The California Highway Patrol said Monday evening that a collision involving Lake County’s sheriff and a pedestrian two weeks ago in Middletown was the pedestrian’s fault for crossing against the light at a signalized crosswalk.

CHP Officer Kory Reynolds of the Clear Lake Area office released the findings on the crash which occurred on the evening of Monday, Feb. 20, and involved Sheriff Frank Rivero, 53, and and 34-year-old Clinton Turney of Middletown.

Reynolds said Turney was found at fault but the CHP did not cite him nor was the agency recommending any prosecution in the case.

Turney was found at fault under Vehicle Code Section 21456(b), which states, “Flashing or steady ‘DON'T WALK’ or ‘WAIT’ or approved ‘Upraised Hand’ symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the ‘WAIT’ or ‘DON'T WALK’ or approved ‘Upraised Hand’ symbol is showing.”

The crash occurred at 7:50 p.m. Feb. 20 as Rivero, who was off-duty and driving his 2001 GMC pickup, was heading northbound on Highway 29 approaching Wardlaw Street, according to the CHP report.

Turney was walking east across Highway 29 at Wardlaw in a signalized crosswalk, according to Reynolds.

Reynolds said Turney told officers that he was crossing the street and not paying attention.

Turney told the CHP he heard Rivero’s truck but didn’t turn to look. He was hit on his right side just to the right of the middle front of Rivero’s pickup, Reynolds said.

At the time of the crash conditions were dark, and Turney also was wearing dark-colored clothing, Reynolds said.

The day after the crash Rivero’s office issued a press release stating that Turney “unexpectedly darted out” in front of him.

“That didn’t happen,” said Reynolds.

Reynolds said Rivero didn’t report to the CHP that night or at any later point that Turney “darted” in front of his vehicle.

Through a Public Records Act request Lake County News received a copy of Rivero’s cell phone conversation with Ukiah’s CHP dispatch center – where cellular 911 calls for this area are typically routed, according to the CHP – following the crash.

The call, which occurred at 7:53 p.m., was transferred to CHP by Lake County Central Dispatch. It can be heard by playing the sound file at the top of the article.

In it, Rivero tells the CHP dispatcher that he hit a pedestrian who was jaywalking against the light.

“I didn’t see him, I clipped him,” Rivero said.

While Turney was transported by air ambulance to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital following the crash as a precaution, according to the original CHP report, he suffered only minor injuries.

Neither Turney nor Rivero were required to submit to blood draws or a breathalyzer test because CHP said neither man showed any signs of intoxication.

Turney met with the CHP a few days ago. “He’s fine,” Reynolds said.

At the time of the crash Turney was not on a cell phone, said Reynolds.

Reynolds said Rivero submitted a set of cell phone records to the CHP for Feb. 20. Those records showed that he was not on his cell phone when the crash occurred.

Making matters challenging for the CHP was the lack of eyewitnesses, said Reynolds.

Rivero’s statement to the public had claimed that witnesses confirmed he was “proceeding through the intersection at a low rate of speed through a green traffic signal.”

However, as to the crash itself, “Nobody actually saw it,” Reynolds said, which proved to be “the biggest stumbling block.”

Sgt. Rick Okazaki previously told Lake County News that two people who came forward as witnesses didn’t actually see the crash, but heard it.

Reynolds said the CHP was able to find video of the intersection, but it also didn’t show the crash. It showed Rivero’s pickup coming to the intersection and then moving out of the frame. The crash happened after that point, once the truck was out of camera range.

Reynolds explained that pedestrian-related collisions are especially challenging because they don’t usually leave behind a lot of physical evidence.

While Rivero’s involvement was an issue of public interest because of his status as an elected official, Reynolds said the investigation was handled with the same amount of care as any other incident.

“We wanted to make sure we had it right,” Reynolds said.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com , on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .