|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Alabama Ethics Commission should review the behavior and practices of its investigative agents and staff following a “damaging,” “illegitimate” and “unnecessarily lengthy” investigation of Jefferson County Sheriff Mark Pettway, according to a letter sent by Pettway’s attorney and former state prosecutor Matt Hart to Ethics commissioners.
Pettway was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing by both a Jefferson County Personnel Board and the AEC, and the complainant who sparked the investigation – a subordinate within the Sheriff’s Office – admitted to fabricating several claims.
Still, Hart, who once led the state’s white collar investigations unit at the Alabama Attorney General’s Office and successfully prosecuted numerous lawmakers, including former House Speaker Mike Hubbard, was sharply critical of several tactics employed by AEC investigators. Those tactics, Hart said, ran afoul of the law, deprived witnesses and Pettway of constitutional rights to counsel and seemingly sought to damage Pettway personally and professionally.
Hart recommended that the commissioners should examine the tactics and propose rule changes to guard against future abuses.
“Sheriff Pettway’s reputation and effectiveness were unfairly harmed,” Hart wrote in the letter to the commissioners. “Much of this harm was a direct result of the way the AEC combined illegitimate procedures with unprofessional performance in the conduct of the investigation. I hope this letter generates productive review of these issues. In any case, this letter will be followed by productive and satisfactory communications with the AEC, and/or a Petition for Rulemaking pursuant to the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act relating to the aforementioned investigative practices.”
Hart’s primary grievances in the letter centered on what he deemed a misuse, or even “abuse,” of the state’s grand jury secrecy law. Hart says the law is being twisted to force witnesses to respond to subpoenas for hearings at which they are denied the use of legal counsel and instructed they could face penalties for disclosing what is discussed.
“The incoherent and legally unsupported process by which the investigation was conducted is, truly, indefensible,” Hart wrote.
Tom Albritton, the executive director of the AEC, said that while he disagrees with Hart, state law prevented him from responding to the specific complaints. However, Albritton did say that the state’s ethics act allows the Commission to issue subpoenas – “a fact that has been well established for years.”
“While I disagree with the allegations raised and the conclusions Mr. Hart draws, he knows I am unable to comment publicly because it would be illegal and unprofessional for me to do so given the grand jury protections that surround all ethics investigations,” Albritton said in a statement. “These restrictions are intended to protect respondents, complainants, witnesses, and any potential investigations of other law-enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction over ethics allegations. Therefore, as much as I want to, I am unable to respond substantively to the letter Mr. Hart has shared with you.”
The allegations against Pettway stemmed from the demotion of a sheriff’s office sergeant earlier this year. Pettway said he removed Sgt. Judge Washington for violating numerous department rules and regulations and for behavior unbecoming of an officer. Washington then claimed that the demotion stemmed from rumors that Washington was working with federal authorities to launch an investigation into Pettway and the sheriff’s office.
Throughout the AEC investigation, Hart’s letter claims, the AEC agents acted favorably towards Washington, often treating him as if the AEC agents were “part of (Washington’s) defense team.” Their actions, Hart said, gave weight to the false allegations being pushed by Washington against Pettway and drove a wedge between the sheriff and his deputies.
During this time, rumors of various misdeeds committed by Pettway began to circulate around the state, along with whispers of a soon-to-be-launched FBI probe into the sheriff’s dealings. Often, those rumors also involved Pettway’s brother, Bruce Pettway, a prominent businessman who has been the target of a failed investigation by the AG’s office. The investigation of Bruce Pettway centered on his alleged involvement with so-called illegal gambling operations in Jefferson County and the belief by AG Steve Marshall that Mark Pettway was not properly enforcing state gaming laws in deference to his brother’s financial interests.
Bruce Pettway later sued Marshall for harassment over the seizure of a bank account, but a federal judge ruled that Marshall was immune from the lawsuit by virtue of his office. However, the judge also noted that Marshall’s “actions against the plaintiffs were politically or personally motivated, have been procedurally tainted, were all with the intent to harass plaintiffs, and were all in bad faith.”
This also isn’t the first time the tactics of the Alabama Ethics Commission’s investigators have been called into question. In fact, two years ago, Marshall stripped general counsel Cynthia Raulston of her deputy AG status over allegations that she behaved improperly during an investigation of former Montgomery police chief Ernest Finley. The AG’s office and AEC have maintained a contentious relationship since.
