Pellicano’s Attorney Fights Basis of Search

Anthony Pellicano’s attorney on Monday challenged the federal government’s search of the indicted private eye’s office, claiming that authorities misled the courts about their reasons for going after the investigator’s records.

In obtaining a warrant to search Pellicano’s Sunset Strip offices four years ago -- a search which yielded tape recordings and thousands of pages of computerized records -- FBI agents stated that they were investigating Pellicano’s alleged links to a threat against Los Angeles Times reporter Anita Busch.

But Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney, said in a nine-page motion filed after a status conference in the widening probe that the government’s story was a “subterfuge and ruse to get into Mr. Pellicano’s office in order to search the premises for other suspected wrongdoing.”

Gruel said the government’s interest in Pellicano predated the threat against the reporter and may have originated in 2001 with the FBI investigating whether one of its agents had been overheard by Pellicano using an illegal wiretap placed on behalf of clients in an unrelated matter.

In the motion, Gruel also questioned whether the U.S. attorney’s office and the FBI may have violated Pellicano’s rights at a time when he was acting as his own attorney by seeking information from a former girlfriend after her visits to Pellicano in prison.

The accusations by Gruel, a former federal prosecutor from San Francisco, represent the most dramatic attack to date on the government’s case, which so far has resulted in a dozen people being charged with hiring -- or helping -- Pellicano uncover embarrassing information on others.

Four people have pleaded guilty in the case. The others, including Pellicano, have denied wrongdoing.

“If we can suppress the initial search for evidence, then the whole apple cart gets turned over,” Gruel said in an interview after filing his motion. “It could have a domino effect on the entire case.”

Describing Gruel’s motion as “the initial shot across the bow,” Loyola Law professor Laurie Levenson said it suggests the attorney “will play hard ball, that he will show the court and the world that this was a dirty prosecution.”

However, Levenson said the search of Pellicano’s offices had already been upheld on a 2-1 vote of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal after a challenge on different legal grounds by Pellicano’s previous attorneys.

In his motion, Gruel said FBI Agent Stan Ornellas stated in a search warrant affidavit that authorities wanted to seize Pellicano’s office computers, suggesting a far broader investigation than the threat against Busch.

Gruel noted that long before the search of Pellicano’s offices, the FBI had become aware of allegations that one of its own agents had illegally wiretapped while investigating a dispute over control of a $40-million Internet business. Two brothers involved in that dispute have now been charged with benefiting from Pellicano’s use of illegal wiretaps.

In questioning the role Pellicano’s former girlfriend played in the case, Gruel said it may have been improper for a “cooperating” government witness to be visiting Pellicano in prison at a time when he was representing himself.

Sandra Wil Carradine, the former girlfriend, pleaded guilty last year to hiring Pellicano during a dispute with her ex-husband and has agreed to cooperate with the government’s investigation.

Her attorney, Peter Knecht, disputed that Carradine had ever been asked by the government to visit Pellicano in prison for the purpose of obtaining information.

“The government is not stupid,” he said. “They were always aware there could be misconduct allegations ... so they made it very clear to her that if she wished to visit [Pellicano] in prison, it was on her own terms and they were not interested in anything that pertained to his case and how it would be defended.”

Federal prosecutors declined to comment Monday on Gruel’s claims, saying instead that they would present their responses in writing to the court.

Gruel filed his motion after a hearing in which Pellicano told U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer that he wanted to represent himself in the case to rapidly move it to trial.

“I don’t want to disrupt the court ... but it has been almost four years now,” Pellicano said, referring to the time he spent imprisoned, first on an explosives conviction and now on wiretap and racketeering charges. “What have [authorities] been doing all this time?”

But Pellicano backed away from his request after the judge made it clear the trial was not going to start anytime soon because prosecutors and defense attorneys need additional time to review the evidence amassed to date. Fischer also said she would not accept a proposal allowing Gruel to sign legal papers on behalf of Pellicano if Pellicano serves as his own attorney.

Federal prosecutors Dan Saunders and Kevin Lally told the packed courtroom that they already have turned over 2,000 pages of documents and 25 hours of audio files to defense attorneys in the case. At the same time, they said they have plenty of confidential information to pore over before it could be shared with defense attorneys or their clients, most of whom are accused of illegally accessing police records or conspiring to wiretap others.

With eight defendants awaiting trial, Saunders has said he expected to file another indictment before the middle of next month.

During the hearing, government prosecutors and defense attorneys spent considerable time discussing a proposed protective order that would cover the dissemination of confidential information, including phone numbers, addresses and Social Security numbers.

Fischer put off a decision on the order as both sides hammer out its wording.