An assistant district attorney in Santa Clara County claims his office fought against him by issuing “unprecedented” safety warnings after he was given an indefinite leave of absence.
San Jose Spotlight released a comment Thursday from assistant prosecutor Daniel Chung who said the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office put him on paid administrative leave after writing unauthorized editorials criticizing the office. Chung’s latest article accused District Attorney Jeff Rosen of multiple violations, including using campaign funds to reimburse Chung for private expenses outside of the campaign.
One of the most serious allegations was allegations that Rosen issued “be on guard” notices – also known as BOLOs – for Chung after his leave of absence on May 28. Chung shared copies of the BOLOs and other records with San Jose Spotlight to confirm his claims.
Sean Webby, a district attorney spokesman, told San Jose Spotlight they would not discuss internal issues. He repeated this in response to follow-up questions on BOLOs.
“The law forbids us from talking about personnel matters,” said Webby. “Common sense forbids us to talk about security matters.”
Chung notified San José Spotlight of both BOLOs that spoke to him. The first was issued on May 31st and was titled “DDA Daniel Chung Administrative Leave”. The memo, addressed to “District Attorney’s Office”, states that “DDA Chung is not allowed on the county property until further notice.” The memo includes a photo of Chung, which he said was from a news interview.
Chung alleged that the use of his photo was intended to embarrass him and serve as a warning that when MPs speak to the press, “we will stick your face on a police bulletin,” he said.
The second BOLO, issued on June 2, states that Chung is not allowed on the district property occupied by or associated with the prosecution. The memo includes a working photo of Chung. Michael Whittington, a captain of the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation, posted both BOLOs to everyone in the office.
Chung only found out about the BOLOs after colleagues in the prosecutor’s office contacted him to ask how he was doing. Chung said he had only seen a handful of BOLOs issued by the office during his three-plus year tenure – and they had dealt with people who physically threatened the office with violence. Chung said he had no record of violence in his disciplinary file.
He said his union immediately reached out to Rosen’s office to request that the initial notice be withdrawn, or at least changed, so that Chung would not be mistakenly banned from all properties in the county. Chung said the union officials told him they had never seen the office issue a BOLO to a lawyer on leave.
A Santa Clara District Attorney General who represents Chung did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Assistant Attorney Daniel Chung, who is the subject of a security notice, is pictured with his boss, District Attorney Jeff Rosen. Photo courtesy Daniel Chung.
Chung said the district attorney’s office not only violated his confidentiality by submitting his work matter to the office, but also used vague language in the BOLO to create the impression that the administration is legally prohibited from addressing each other or to clarify.
“You can’t use what a sign is supposed to be for the employee as a sword by talking about it in the vaguest and most incomplete terms and attaching it to a fire report,” Chung told San Jose Spotlight. “That is just absurd. You can’t talk about it and talk about it at the same time. “
A representative for an assistant district attorney in southern California told San Jose Spotlight they had never heard of a prosecutor issuing BOLOs for a lawyer on administrative leave. They said that distributing such a notice would likely violate the confidentiality of an employee’s personnel file.
“One must not discuss personnel matters, especially not if it is an ongoing administrative procedure,” said the representative, who requested anonymity because he did not want to be perceived as interference in a work matter. “I’ve never seen this practice in my office.”
The representative had also never heard of an office that forbids an employee to use any property in the county.
“How should he pay his property tax?” They said.
The representative found that a BOLO is appropriate when a person threatens physical violence against an office.
“You always have to think about the possibility of violence in the workplace,” said the representative, adding that prosecutors should not expose security risks.
The first BOLO went off just days after the mass shooting at the VTA city train station in downtown San Jose, one block from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office.
In connection with the recent violence, it is possible that the prosecutor’s office issued the BOLO out of caution, a law enforcement chief said.
But Chung said it was a seditious and unnecessary gesture because he never committed violence in the workplace.
“The word violence was only associated with the office because I was in the violent crime department,” Chung said. “If they had some kind of professional history of mine like, ‘Oh, this guy did physically violent things or said violent things that affect us …’ it would make a little more sense. But (they) have no story about me. “
Contact Eli Wolfe at [email protected] or @ EliWolfe4 on Twitter.