San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges, who is being sued by one of his top-ranking deputies for allegedly violating the deputy's constitutional rights, won't face criminal charges for eavesdropping on the officer, according to the state attorney general's office.

Hedges and Undersheriff Steve Bolts were accused of violating the state's eavesdropping laws when the pair allegedly videotaped a private meeting between Chief Deputy Gary Hoving and Sgt. Jay Donovan in October 2006.

State law, specifically penal code 632, prohibits the unlawful recording of, eavesdropping upon and filming of confidential communications, unless it's for the purpose of a criminal investigation or both parties have agreed in advance.

The attorney general's office said Wednesday that it declined to prosecute Hedges and Bolts for a variety of reasons, including the belief that there wasn't sufficient evidence to file criminal charges.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Jerret Gran said Thursday morning that he hasn't spoken with the San Luis Obispo County district attorney about the attorney general's decision yet, but he didn't think his office would be pursuing the case any further, either.

“We referred the case to them, and will leave the decision up to them,” Gran said.

Hedges, who wasn't available for comment, has always maintained he was investigating alleged criminal activity within the department's Narcotics Division, which is overseen by Hoving, when he taped the private meeting.

Advertisement

“The undersheriff and I are pleased, but far from surprised by this outcome,” Hedges said in statement. “There was never any real dispute as to what occurred, nor that we were investigating alleged criminal conduct ... This is obviously the conclusion reached by the attorney general.”

Hoving, who has been on administrative leave since August 2007, sued the sheriff, Bolts and the county for videotaping the meeting, which he alleges violated his civil rights, including the right to privacy, and that the action and subsequent fallout hampered his ability to work at the department.

His attorney, Michael Stone, who also wasn't available for comment, said in a statement the attorney general's decision doesn't have any bearing on Hoving's lawsuit.

“We continue to believe that the federal case is strong, and we intend to proceed to trial on all claims, including violation of state privacy law, which is certainly not foreclosed simply because the attorney general decided not to indict.”

Hoving's case is expected to be heard next month in federal court in Los Angeles.

August 22, 2008