For the years that Supervisor Todd Spitzer has eyed the Orange County district attorney post, I’ve heard from political observers who say something to this effect: “Spitzer is smart, savvy and energetic, but it wouldn’t be wise to trust him with subpoena power.” Few worry about his skills, but many worry about the judgment he might show at the helm of an office with vast powers to prosecute people.
After the court forced the county to release emails related to Spitzer’s citizen’s arrest of a preacher in a Wahoo’s Fish Taco on Good Friday in 2015, it’s clear these critics are right. Spitzer doesn’t have the right temperament to serve as district attorney. The bizarre incident, and his handling of the public relations blowback, portray a man with tendencies that are the direct opposite of what we should expect from the county’s top prosecutor.
Prosecutors are obliged to pursue justice, not be punitive or vengeful. They need to be calm and professional. They need to focus on issues of public concern, not personal matters. They need to value transparency and respect the role of the media. They should be willing to admit mistakes, take advice and shrug off criticism. Sometimes a good prosecutor just needs to let things go.
Now consider what transpired at the taco restaurant in Foothill Ranch, according to various news reports. Spitzer said he was having lunch when a man approached him to talk about the Bible. Spitzer said he told him to go away, but the man persisted. The man reportedly went to another table after an employee asked him to do so. Spitzer claims the man kept staring at a knife on the table.
So the supervisor, who was a reserve police officer in the 1990s, left Wahoo’s and called 911, then went to his car and grabbed a loaded gun and handcuffs, according to reports. “He’s like harassing me. … I’m concerned for my safety,” Spitzer said, according to the recording of the 911 call. Spitzer reportedly handcuffed the compliant man and waited for police. Spitzer alleges the man came toward him again after the supervisor returned from his car, but VoiceofOC found no corroboration for that part of Spitzer’s account. No one was hurt or arrested.
We all occasionally are approached by strangers, but few use force in these uncomfortable situations. If there were a pressing danger, why leave the restaurant and come back? But Spitzer’s reaction afterward arguably was worse than the initial event. VoiceofOC filed a public records lawsuit attempting to access emails between Spitzer and the county’s spokesperson.
The county fought their release and tried to depose the news site’s publisher, Norberto Santana, regarding his reporting. That’s problematic treatment of a reporter doing his job. Fortunately, the court sided with the news site, leading to the recent publication of the email correspondence and Spitzer’s proposed statement. The correspondence makes Spitzer seem overwrought, self-aggrandizing, oblivious to sound advice and willing to use county resources on what’s essentially a personal matter.
Let’s start with overwrought. After detailing his “hours of training on edged weapons,” Spitzer concludes that “police officers are trained not to allow anyone either armed with a knife or ready access to a knife to come within 10 feet. Use of deadly force is justified under those circumstances.” Well, the man was sitting near Spitzer at a restaurant, where knives are used as utensils. That’s hardly the same thing as an armed man approaching an officer, yet Spitzer seems to be suggesting it would have been within his right to have used deadly force. He lists some violent crime incidents in the county. Violent crime certainly is a scary thing, but it doesn’t shed much light on what happened at Wahoo’s.
Then there’s self-aggrandizing. His proposed statement headline was, “I WILL NEVER TURN MY BACK ON THE PUBLIC OR ITS SAFETY.” This incident seemed mostly about Spitzer himself, yet he is depicting his reaction as that of a man selflessly protecting the public.
Regarding sound advice, the spokesperson suggested, “Why don’t you invite the gentleman to lunch at Wahoo’s to show how much the incident is behind you?” She recommended “against making any other statements regarding this incident.” The statement never was sent out, but Spitzer released one on June 30 regarding the records lawsuit. He apparently couldn’t help himself.
In that new statement, Spitzer depicted government transparency as one of his “paramount concerns.” Then why, as Santana asked, did he fight “viciously against the release of these records for more than a year” and “[waste] countless hours for county counsel … as well as taxpayer money to keep these records shielded”?
There’s no question the current scandals embroiling the district attorney’s office are deeply troubling. But something bad ought not to be followed with something worse. After learning about Spitzer’s Wahoo’s incident and reading the released emails, it’s reasonable for county residents to wonder whether he should be trusted with so much power.
Steven Greenhut is a Sacramento-based journalist. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998-2009.