Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
671025.04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
KEKER & VAN NEST LLPAJAY S. KRISHNAN - # [email protected] Battery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111-1809Telephone: 415 391 5400Facsimile: 4153977188AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONFOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIALINDA LYE-#[email protected] Drumm StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: 415 621-2493Facsimile: 415255-1478
Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK POTTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
MARK POTTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF TRINITY; TRINITY COUNTYSHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and BRUCEHANEY, Sheriff of Trinity County,
Defendants.
Case No.
DECLARATION OF LORRAC CRAIGIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FORPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Declaration of Lorrac Craig ISO Mot. For Prel. Inj.Case No.
Case 2:12-cv-01793-JAM-CMK Document 8 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 3
671025.04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
I, Lorrac Craig, declare as follows:
1. I am the former Sheriff of Trinity County. The information set forth in this
declaration is based upon my personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I could and would
competently testify thereto.
2. I served as Sheriff from January 2003 through December 2010.
3. Mark Potts was a deputy sheriff in my Department when I served as Sheriff.
Employees in the Sheriffs Department are routinely evaluated and I personally signed off, as
Department Head, on Mark's performance evaluations. Mark has a very good work ethic and
consistently performed his job well.
4. I know from reading the local newspaper, the Trinity Journal, that Mark has been
writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper for many years on a variety of topics.
5. When I was Sheriff, District Attorney Michael Harper approached me about
Mark's letters to the editor and urged me to restrain Mark from writing any letters to the/
newspaper. District Attorney Harper expressed to me his concern that if Mark testified in a
criminal case that he had investigated, his letters to the editor might become an issue in the trial,
I told the District Attorney that if it actually came up in a case, I was sure Mark would handle
himself well on the stand. My approach was that we could deal with it, if a problem actually
arose, but no such problem ever arose when I was Sheriff.
6. My position, which I told District Attorney Harper, was that as long as Mark did
his job, I did not have a problem with his editorial writing. I therefore refused to stop Mark from
writing letters to the newspaper.
7. As someone who worked in law enforcement for approximately 30 years, what
mattered to me was how my deputies performed their job, and not their political opinions. Mark
always did his job diligently. While I was Sheriff, Mark's personal opinions on his political
matters as expressed in his letters to the editor never affected what he actually did while in
Declaration of Lorrac Craig ISO Mot. For Prel. Inj.Case No.
Case 2:12-cv-01793-JAM-CMK Document 8 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 3
671025.04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
uniform and did not disrupt any workings of the Sheriffs Department. For that reason, I found
his political opinions irrelevant to my assessment of whether he was a good deputy.
8. I did not have any concerns that Mark's letters would somehow bring discredit
or reflect negatively on the department because, as far as I am aware, he wrote about general
political and policy issues, I would have had concerns if he had accused the Department of
being corrupt, or doing things unconstitutionally; in other words, specifically attacking what
the Department was doing. But as far as I am aware, his letters never discussed specific
Departmental actions.
9. Mark's letters, in which he expressed his views on various legal and policy issues,
did not cause me the concern that he would be lenient about enforcing marijuana or other laws.
When it came to his work, he took his duties seriously. I never had any evidence to indicate that
he allowed his personal political opinions to influence his investigations.
10. I am familiar with the Department's policies, and the Law Enforcement Code of
Ethics, Generally speaking, these policies and the Code of Ethics prohibit speech or conduct
that brings discredit to the agency or interferes with its mission, function, reputation, or
professionalism. I never understood these policies or the Code of Ethics to restrict speech by
my employees made in their private capacity about general political and policy issues. For this
reason, I did not believe that letters to the editor about general political and policy issues violated
any Departmental policies or the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and California that
the foregoing is true and correct. ^f€- -^ /I
Executed on this 2? day of June 2012 in /£./M/TV I '&M7t&Lr » California."* * ' JF " ^*""n ' ' * ™*̂
,_LLORRAC CRAIG7
Declaration of Lorrac Craig ISO Mot. For Prel. Inj.Case No.
Case 2:12-cv-01793-JAM-CMK Document 8 Filed 07/10/12 Page 3 of 3
