Merced DA being investigated over firearm

The California attorney general’s office on Friday launched an inquiry into whether Merced County District Attorney Larry Morse II broke any laws when he stored his personal firearm in his Main Street office, the Merced County sheriff-elect confirmed.

Morse has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing by any law enforcement agency, Sheriff-elect Vern Warnke said. State prosecutors are reviewing whether Morse was legally allowed to keep a personal weapon in his government office.

“I have been in personal contact with the attorney general’s office regarding the allegations that were recently brought to my attention, and they’ve told me they’ll review the matter and make a determination whether or not any crime was committed and let me know what they determine early next week,” Warnke said.

David Beltran, spokesman for the attorney general’s office, declined to comment Friday.

Warnke, who was sworn in as sheriff Tuesday and formally assumes command Dec. 27, said he became aware this week that the firearm had been stored in Morse’s office, a government building owned by Merced County.

“It’s my job to bring any questions of possible violations of law involving any public officials to the attention of the attorney general,” Warnke said. “I’m unaware whether or not there’s been a violation of law, and I want the attorney general to make a determination.”

Morse said no laws were broken. “My possession of a firearm in my office is not unlawful,” Morse said, declining to comment further.

Morse, who is not a sworn peace officer, does not have a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm. Merced Police Department records show his last permit to carry a personal firearm expired in 2008, Capt. Tom Trindad confirmed.

Morse earlier this year told sheriff’s investigators that he kept his firearm, a .38-caliber handgun, in his office for about two or three years, according to the Sheriff’s Department.

Morse surrendered the firearm to sheriff’s investigators Aug. 6 as part of a homicide investigation in which his son was implicated, according to a copy of a search warrant affidavit obtained by the Merced Sun-Star.

Ethan Morse was arrested July 25 and charged as the driver of a getaway vehicle in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Bernabed Hernandez-Canela. The younger Morse was released without charges following a preliminary hearing in November by Judge Ronald W. Hansen, who formally declared that Ethan Morse was not involved in the homicide as charged in the criminal complaint.

The victim in the homicide case was shot with two different types of bullets, one of which possibly came from a .38-caliber handgun. Investigators examined the district attorney’s gun to determine whether it was involved in the homicide and the examination confirmed that it was not, Detective-Sgt. Chuck Hale said.

The warrant, which was signed by Judge Hansen, allowed investigators to search the district attorney’s home for the firearm. However, Morse’s home was not searched by the Sheriff’s Department.

“The warrant was very specific; it was for getting the gun and that was produced for us, so there was no need for us to search the house,” Hale said.

Questions raised

While the gun did not become part of the case, there are questions of whether a firearm can be kept or stored in a county-owned building such as the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department said.

Deputies said California Penal Code section 171b prohibits anyone from bringing a firearm into a “public building.” However, that section of the Penal Code does not formally define whether “public building” refers to any building owned by government or any building accessible to the general public.

A person found in violation of that law can be charged with either a felony or a misdemeanor, punishable by “imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison ... ,” according to the Penal Code.

Harold Nutt, a chief deputy district attorney, said California Penal Code section 25605(b) says a firearm can be kept in a person’s “place of business.”

“If a business owner can keep a gun, why couldn’t the district attorney, who has received specific threats on his life over the years, keep a firearm,” Nutt asked, calling the legal inquiry “pointless.”

Mike North, Merced County spokesman, confirmed that state law prohibits county employees from bringing firearms into their offices, with the exception of sworn peace officers.

Nutt argued that Morse would be allowed to legally carry a firearm as “the head law enforcement official in the county.”

“Larry is the head of the building, the head of the agency. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to carry a firearm?” Nutt asked. “We’re staunch supporters of the Second Amendment and support everyone’s right to carry a firearm legally.”

Warnke, who recently won election in part on the support of gun-rights groups such as Merced County Citizens of Concealed Carry, said it’s up to the state attorney general’s office to interpret the law on the books in this case.

Rob Carroll, another chief deputy district attorney, called the inquiry “ridiculous.”

“It was never a secret that he had the gun. It’s a lawfully registered gun, and over the years he’s received threats from gang members, Hells Angels and been involved in many high-profile trials, including two death-penalty cases in his career,” Carroll said. “I don’t think anyone would dispute his right to defend himself and anyone in this office.”

Timecard dispute

Fallout from the homicide investigation involving the district attorney’s son continues to reverberate between Morse and members of the Sheriff’s Department.

Disputes between Morse and sheriff’s deputies first came to light in November when the Sun-Star learned Morse was considering placing the detective who arrested his son on a list of law enforcement officials whose credibility can be questioned in court, the Brady List.

Morse said the detective, Deputy Roy Tighe, was being paid out of grant monies used exclusively to fund agricultural crime investigations, but that Tighe was actually working on unrelated cases, including the one involving his son.

Morse asked the attorney general’s office to determine whether Tighe broke any laws when he submitted the timecards, which, Morse noted, were signed under penalty of perjury. Morse said Tighe’s timecards were previously scrutinized in 2009 for the same issues. He adamantly denied seeking reprisals for his son’s arrest or having any personal motives.

Morse said prosecutors are obligated to bring up any potential Brady issue and can face liability personally if such information is not disclosed to the defense. He said the timecards were an issue because law enforcement authorities are held to a “higher standard.”

The attorney general’s office reviewed the timecard issues and determined there was no wrongdoing or dishonesty on Tighe’s part. Morse said his office was “not bound by the attorney general’s decision” and that he would continue to review the matter.

Warnke on Friday said raising the gun issue was “not connected in any way to any other issues.” The sheriff-elect said he is legally required to alert the attorney general’s office to any potential legal violations on the part of public officials when he becomes aware of them.

“I’m responding to questions raised (this week) and, as the chief law enforcement official in the county, I have concerns that everyone in law enforcement be held to the same high standard,” Warnke said. “This needs to be looked into and, if no crime was committed, we need to move on, and if one was committed, we need to deal with it.”

Warnke said he asked the attorney general’s office on Friday to look at the issue to “put it to bed once and for all.”

This story was originally published December 19, 2014 at 4:32 PM with the headline "Merced DA being investigated over firearm."