Sheriff Seeks to Quash Subpoena for Interview About Gangs in Department

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva is seeking to quash a subpoena requiring him to sit down with Inspector General Max Huntsman on Thursday to discuss deputy “secret societies” that many criminal justice advocates characterize as gangs.

Huntsman’s office issued a subpoena on Feb. 25, calling on the sheriff to appear under oath for a 90-minute virtual interview on deputy secret societies.

Villanueva said the timing, at 10 a.m. Thursday, was inconvenient and asked to answer questions in writing instead.

The issue came up during a 2014 sheriff candidates forum in Pasadena moderated by then Pasadena Weekly Editor Kevin Uhrich and Deputy Editor Andrè Coleman. At that time, a candidate claimed he did not believe there were gangs in the department.

Two other candidates said they were willing to lift their pant legs to prove they had no tattoos.

Then Undersheriff Paul Tanaka admitted that he had a tattoo, which represented his membership in the Lynwood Vikings, a notorious sheriff’s gang. 

In 1996, a federal judge deemed the Vikings a neo-Nazi white supremacist gang. Tanaka is Asian American. According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County paid $9 million in fines and training costs to settle lawsuits regarding what was termed “racially-motivated hostile activity” by the Vikings. Tanaka was not named in that lawsuit.

Tanaka said the Viking was a mascot of the station beginning in the 1980s. Tanaka told the crowd he got the tattoo before the Vikings turned sinister and he would have gotten a different tattoo if he could do things over. 

While on trial for corruption in 2016, Tanaka was grilled by prosecutors about his membership in the group. 

Tanaka lost the race to former Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell. He was later found guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice in connection to a federal civil rights investigation of corruption and abuse inside LASD-run jails. 

Prosecutors claimed Tanaka led the scheme to hide FBI informant Anthony Brown once the LASD learned Brown was working with the bureau from behind bars.

In the writ filed Monday, Villanueva’s lawyers pushed back on the idea that the interview was necessary, noting that the sheriff previously appeared before the Civilian Oversight Commission on Dec. 18 to answer an hour’s worth of questions on the same topic and shared a related video with the commission on Jan. 21.

In a Feb. 25 letter to the sheriff accompanying the subpoena,

Huntsman said the sheriff had asked the commission for feedback on that Jan. 21 video.

“We asked to meet with you to, among other things, obtain necessary information to provide the feedback you requested,” Huntsman wrote.

Villaneuva suggested the OIG could reach out to lower-level managers to get the information he needs, but that Huntsman is seeking to embarrass the sheriff with “gotcha moments” over inconsistencies.

“Rather than use a less intrusive means of obtaining information, such as a series of questions or interviewing lower legal sheriff personnel who are involved in the day-to-day implementation of the policies and practices of the Sheriff’s Department, the inspector general is leap-frogging right to the top and threatening Sheriff Villanueva that ‘any statement you make during our meeting may be used in a future criminal proceeding against you,’” according to the writ.

Huntsman said in his letter that written questions are no substitute for an in-person interview and “members of your staff have consistently told the Civilian Oversight Commission that only you can address ultimate questions of policy.”

Huntsman also pointed out that he has had little to no opportunity to speak with Villanueva directly about any of the department’s policies since the sheriff took office more than two years ago. He told the sheriff his office “is sincerely interested in establishing a strong and positive working relationship with the department.”

 Lawyers for Villaneuva counter that the subpoena is too broad and harassing and lacks compelling reasons to require the interview of a senior public official, pointing to a recent federal decision to prevent the deposition of Gov. Gavin Newsom as support.

Villanueva is seeking a protective order to stop the virtual interview from going forward.