Two Groups Rally Behind Sheriff Gates : Support: Police chiefs organization has urged that the county pay any punitive damages that may be assessed by the jury in gun-permit case.

SANTA ANA —  Sheriff Brad Gates’ closest supporters and the county’s police chiefs have rallied behind him in the wake of a $246,000 verdict awarded two private investigators who alleged that Gates’ gun permit process was fraught with favoritism.

Within three weeks of the Sept. 28 judgment, the Chiefs and Sheriff’s Assn. of Orange County and the sheriff’s campaign committee, the Friends of Brad Gates, sent out hundreds of letters to county leaders and Gates’ extensive network of political backers.

Some of the sheriff’s boosters view the verdict narrowly, saying Gates was cleared of major allegations of favoritism in awarding gun permits. But the lawyer for the other side contends that those charges of favoritism figured into the jury’s overall findings.

Support from the chiefs association came in the form of a unanimous vote of confidence in Gates and a specific request to the County Board of Supervisors to pay any punitive damages if they are assessed against the sheriff at a second stage of the court case set for Nov. 14.

For its part, the Friends of Brad Gates letter praised the sheriff, criticized the media and took a swipe at the winners of the case, who committee members said did not deserve gun permits.

“We are proud to stand up for Brad and tell him that we think he is doing a great job,” the mailer states. “Most important to him, though, is that you know that he has been deserving of your confidence in his conduct of the responsibilities of his office.”

But all the damage control might hurt rather than help, say Frank Ritter and his brother Ty, who won the $246,000. Their attorney is planning to use the effort on behalf of the sheriff in trying to convince a federal jury next month that Gates should pay punitive damages.

“His reaction in every single case is ‘I am innocent, I am not going to change,’ no matter what the court ruled,” said Meir J. Westreich, the Ritters’ lawyer. “To get him to stop this you need a court ruling because Gates and his supporters will argue to the bitter end that he did not do it.”

The Ritters, both of Orange County, were denied the right to carry a concealed weapon six times in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They alleged in a federal civil rights lawsuit that Gates discriminated against them and oversaw a process that improperly issued many gun permits to political backers, wealthy business people, and friends of the sheriff.

After three weeks of trial, the jury specifically found that the Ritters’ failure to support the sheriff politically was not a motivating factor in the denials of their gun permits.

Jurors found that the sheriff intentionally discriminated against the Ritters because they were in the business of private security. In addition, the jury found that Gates did not reject their gun permit applications solely because they had not shown “good cause” required for a permit.

Finally, the jury found that Gates acted with malice toward the Ritters or in reckless disregard of their constitutional rights, a finding that could result in Gates’ paying additional punitive damages.

In the wake of the jury’s decision, each side has offered an interpretation. Because the penalty phase hasn’t begun yet, jurors have not been free to comment on their findings.

After the verdict was announced, Gates declined to comment but issued a one-page prepared statement in which he said the jury “confirmed that we do not engage in political favoritism in the issuance of concealed weapons permits.”

Darryl R. Wold, the attorney for the Friends of Brad Gates, said the jury decided that the sheriff discriminated against the Ritters only because they were private investigators and made no broad finding that gun permits were issued improperly to anyone else.

Westreich said the evidence about who received gun permits--among them Gates supporters, successful business people, friends of the Sheriff’s Department--was supposed to be applied to all the findings the jury was asked to make.

“What we were showing was that some occupations and groups were favored over others. Everything overlapped,” he said.

Westreich wants to use the statements of Gates, the chiefs association and his supporters to support the Ritters’ claim for punitive damages when the issue is argued before the jury next month. He contends that the public relations efforts are ill-planned attempts to protect the sheriff and that even the jury’s verdict has not stopped Gates from showing disregard for the Ritters.

The sheriff’s defense lawyer, Eric L. Dobberteen, declined to comment because the case is still pending.

In a letter to the Board of Supervisors dated Oct. 8, the chiefs association said the members had confidence in Gates’ handling of gun permit applications. They said they want the county to pay any punitive damages because Gates was acting in good faith.

Laguna Beach Police Chief Neil J. Purcell, president of the association, said the group, which has members from 45 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, did not review the Ritter case or the gun permit process before voting to support the sheriff.

The chiefs association letter was followed on Oct. 15 by the Friends of Brad Gates mailer. Wold said members of the campaign committee thought something on the sheriff’s behalf was necessary to defend Gates and correct inaccurate news stories.

The mailer supported the sheriff’s denial of gun permits to the Ritters. It mentioned the fact that Ty Ritter served time in prison for a firearms violation, and said evidence that he and his brother were mercenaries overseas “confirmed the wisdom of the Sheriff’s Department.”

“We are not criticizing the jury. We are concerned about some of the press coverage and we wanted to give out what the jury verdict was,” Wold said. “I very carefully tried to avoid commenting on the jury verdict.”

Although Gates approved the use of his campaign funds for the letter, he did not request the mailer nor participate in its writing. Gates’ campaign manager, Eileen Padberg, helped with the mailing lists, Wold said.

Gates declined to comment except to say, “I did not write the letter. I got a copy of it in the mail.”

THE JURY’S DECISION ON GATES

On Sept. 28, a federal jury awarded $246,000 to two private investigators who alleged that Sheriff Brad Gates’ procedures for issuing gun permits were unfair and discriminated against them. Among several findings were the jury’s conclusions that:

1. The failure of plaintiffs Frank Ritter and Ty Ritter “to support the sheriff’s political program was not a substantial or motivating factor in the denial of” their applications for concealed weapons permits.

2. The sheriff intentionally discriminated against the plaintiffs in denying their applications for a concealed weapons permit “because they were in the business of private security.”

3. “In light of the discretion given the sheriff by California statute,” Gates did not deny the plaintiffs’ applications for concealed weapons permits “solely because he reasonably believed that the plaintiffs had not shown ‘good cause’ ” for a permit.

4. In denying the plaintiffs’ applications to carry concealed weapons, the sheriff “acted with malice toward them or in reckless disregard of their constitutional rights.”

On Nov. 14, the jury will be asked to determine how much, if anything, Gates should pay in punitive damages to the Ritters.