The Strange Case Of Howard Pearl

The Strange Case Of Howard Pearl:
Discretionary Abuse In Florida Before 1987

By Jim March 5/15/02

(The file linked requires the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

Is discretionary CCW issuance abuse purely a California phenomenon?

All through the late 1980's and early 1990's, a series of Florida criminal appeals cropped up under the general category of "Howard Pearl issues".

Criminal defendants all of a sudden realized that their court-ordered public defender turned out to be a cop...and complained rather loudly about the obvious conflict of interest.

There were at least half a dozen of these cases, some of them death penalty cases, and lots of legal wrangling. But for our purposes, the best description of what was going on came from a prosecutor's brief clarifying the situation to the court in the Teffeteller case, one of the death row inmates complaining.

The prosecutor cared about keeping this guy's date with the electric chair intact, versus giving away interesting details on a very cozy relationship between a lawyer and his Sheriffs.

The full brief is at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/73241/73241ans.pdf - requires the Acrobat Reader.

To quote Assistant AG Nunnelley:

Mr. Pearl became a "special deputy" on August 21, 1970, under the administration of Mr. Moreland's predecessor. Mr. Moreland [Sheriff from '73 to '93] merely continued that status. Mr. Pearl was never an employee of the Marion County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Moreland described Mr. Pearl's status as honorary, for the specific purpose of being allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Mr. Pearl resigned his special deputy status on May 1, 1989. Mr. Moreland's letter in response to the letter of resignation (1989) indicates that Mr. Pearl's status with the Marion County Sheriff's Office was "a special deputy sheriff only to carry a weapon." ... Mr. Pearl was never asked to perform any law enforcement functions, and had no responsibility to do so. Mr. Moreland described Mr. Pearl's status in the following way:
...it was strictly honorary, it was one of those things, and I can show you a number of those people on that list who had a clear understanding that this was an honorary, weapons-carrying authority, only; for that reason, it could be used, but it was never meant that they could go out and make cases, make investigations and bring in inmates or prisoners.

At a later point, reference is made to a prior case (different defendant, name of Harich) already decided in Volusia County involving the same sorts of claims regarding Pearl's alleged conflict of interest - and a shocker pops up:

Pearl became a special deputy sheriff for Marion County in 1970. This status continued until Pearl resigned in May of 1989. Pearl paid liability insurance each year and he was bonded [elsewhere it's mentioned that regular deputies needed neither]. He was issued a deputy's card, and the card erroneously identified him as a regular deputy. He also took an oath of office. Pearl also purchased a deputy sheriff's badge from a gun shop.
Pearl's sole reason for becoming a special deputy was to permit him to carry a firearm. He wanted a "gun toter's permit."

We also learn he had more of these things, in Lake and Volusia Counties. There was some confusion at the time as to whether or not the carry rights were good statewide in such circumstances.

We also learn from this document that this sort of "carry permit" was common at the time, that it was the only way of carrying in the years just before the shall-issue bill of 1987, and that Pearl switched over to a regular CCW permit sometime after they became widely available post-reform.

What are the lessons here?

The "elitism" displayed is very similar to what we've seen in Sacramento and Contra Costa Counties (California), including the "honorary deputy sheriff" routine in Sacramento and the "Sheriff's Posse" (complete with oath of office and swearing-in ceremony just like Pearl got) in Contra Costa.

Were the courts correct that there was no conflict of interest? Perhaps not, if the question is "was Mr. Pearl a cop?". But I would submit that that's the wrong question! The right question is: "did Mr. Pearl feel like he should display "gratitude" to the top cops who gave him the privilege of being able to save his own life, and return quid pro quo when necessary?".

The courts in California have consistently viewed CCW permits as some sort of "hobby aid", or "nice thing to have but attaching no liberty or financial interest". They either don't get out much, or don't hang out in bad neighborhoods. I'd bet on both. They consistently underestimate the value people put on these permits, and the desperate lengths people will go to in getting and KEEPING one.

If a defense attorney showed particular zeal, and a "hardball attitude" on every case, and proved an embarassment to law enforcement...what are the odds he'd keep his permits?

Slim to none.

This was the sort of garbage that led to the Florida reform to shall-issue in 1987. As in every other state to so convert, there's been no problems resulting from fair and unbiased self defense.

Graphics by Oleg Volk, http://www.a-human-right.com