Officer Fired in Scandal Inquiry Wins $2.9 Million

A federal court jury Wednesday awarded $2.9 million to a veteran Los Angeles police sergeant after determining that the Police Department trampled his rights in investigating his alleged role in a 1982 Hollywood Division burglary and sex scandal.

Roger M. Gibson was fired after 16 years on the force when a police Board of Rights determined that he had made false statements to Internal Affairs Division investigators in denying he was present at a supposed Hollywood Hills sex party and was insubordinate when he refused to permit investigators looking for a stolen auto battery to search his house.

The Board of Rights, an administrative panel, found Gibson not guilty of stealing the battery, and the district attorney’s office never charged him with any crime.

Gibson got caught up in the scandal when an officer who admitted to committing 100 on-duty burglaries said he had heard third-hand that Gibson needed a battery, according to Gibson’s lawyer, Gregory Petersen.

“The comment was true,” the lawyer said. “Gibson did need a battery. . . . He had just bought one.”

Suspect in Burglary

However, Gibson became a suspect in the burglary of a Hollywood auto store where a battery had been taken, the lawyer said.

In the ensuing months, Gibson consented to several searches of his locker, his person, his house and his car, Petersen said. But finally, in April, 1982, he had had enough. When investigators showed up at his house to search his garage and cars again, he said no at the urging of his family.

By then, the lawyer said, Gibson was so upset about having become a burglary suspect that he had begun seeing a psychiatrist who was treating him for “suicidal tendencies.”

The psychiatrist prescribed codeine for him and said he should not be questioned by investigators, but investigators questioned him anyway, Petersen said. Under questioning, he falsely denied being present at the Hollywood Hills party, the lawyer said.

Gibson, 47, of Canyon Country now works as a carpenter. He could not be reached for comment.

Gibson was one of 12 officers who resigned or were fired in the scandal. Only two were convicted of crimes. No others have sued.

Deliberated 3 Days

The six-person jury in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Richard A. Gadbois Jr. deliberated for three days after a four-week trial and found that Los Angeles police knew or should have known that the battery theft charge was untrue and failed to give him an adequate opportunity to clear his name.

Gadbois had previously ruled that Gibson was deprived of due process by his inability to personally discuss his case with Police Chief Daryl F. Gates--”the individual with authority to suspend” him. Gadbois had also ruled that the order to search Gibson’s garage and cars violated his rights.

The jury assessed general damages of $1.4 million against the City of Los Angeles and $1.5 against seven present and former police officials, including Gates, who were involved in the investigation. The city, however, is legally liable for general damages against employees performing their jobs.

Jurors also assessed $55,000 in punitive damages against Don Vincent, the head of the the Internal Affairs Division during the probe who has since retired from the force and become a deputy city attorney. It is not clear who must pay punitive damages. A call to Vincent’s office was not returned.

Deputy City Atty. David Hotchkiss, who defended the case, commented: “All I can say is that we’re examining the verdict and considering the various options that are available to us. . . . They range from a motion for a new trial to appeal.”

Asked to comment on the jury’s findings, he said: “Each of the issues was rebutted by the testimony and the evidence produced by the city. Beyond that I really can’t say anything.”

The Police Department’s chief spokesman, Cmdr. William Booth, declined comment.

Dave Baca, secretary of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which paid for Gibson’s attorney, said: “The reason the taxpayers are going to have to pay out this money is because of the arrogance and the incompetence of the chief of police and the way he runs the Police Department. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that you can’t just waltz into somebody’s home and order them to consent to a search.”