High Court Will Hear ACLU Suit on LAPD’s ‘Ram’

The state Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of the so-called battering ram to burst into fortress-like homes of suspected drug dealers is constitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union charges that use of the 14-foot steel ram mounted on an armored personnel carrier is “an immediate threat to the precious and irreplaceable constitutional rights of privacy, security and freedom from physical harm at the hands of the police.”

The ACLU brought the suit on behalf of, among others, a mother and her two children who were visiting a Pacoima home in February when police used the machine to break in. A trace of cocaine was found, but no weapons were there, police said.

The ACLU claimed that the children, ages 5 and 9, were playing in a room with another 5-year-old minutes before police broke down the wall. They might have been in the room when the wall was crushed if their mothers had not called them into the kitchen to eat ice cream, the ACLU said.

‘Biblical Innocence’

Deputy City Atty. Jack Brown, representing the Police Department, charged that the ACLU misrepresented the facts to “paint a picture of almost biblical innocence” at the Pacoima home.

In his brief urging the court to refuse the case, Brown said an informant had bought cocaine at the house in the week before the raid, and he noted that the home was fortified like a so-called “rock house,” with steel doors and bars on the windows.

Police say they rarely use the battering ram--only three times since it was first used in Pacoima--and only in extreme cases where they fear that officers’ lives are in danger because occupants are heavily armed.

Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Stanley Mosk, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin voted to review a Superior Court judge’s decision against prohibiting use of the battering ram. The court made it clear that it wanted to hear the case quickly, asking lawyers to have all their written arguments in by Oct. 11.

State Reimbursement

In other cases, the court:

--Agreed to determine whether the state must reimburse counties when it passes cost-of-living increases in various programs. Friday’s case involved Los Angeles County’s claim that the state should have helped pay for a $31-a-week raise in workers’ compensation benefits and a $20,000 hike in death benefits in 1980. The state contends that it does not have to offset increased local costs if the increase is because of inflation. An appeals court agreed.

--Let stand an appeals court opinion reinstating a libel suit against Penthouse magazine by Rancho La Costa resort founders Morris (Moe) Dalitz and Allard Roen. The suit involves a 1975 article accusing the two of being gangsters and saying that La Costa is frequented by organized crime figures.