Ex-Vice Officer’s Firing Goes to State High Court

The state Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether a former Los Angeles vice officer, fired in 1980 in an internal investigation of sham bookmaking arrests, is entitled to reinstatement because he was not fully informed of his rights.

In a brief order, the justices said they will hear a challenge by the City of Los Angeles to a state appeal court ruling that Officer John D. Williams was due back pay and benefits and that damaging admissions he made could not be used against him in any future inquiry.

The appellate panel upheld a decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John L. Cole that investigators violated a 1978 state law, known as the “policeman’s bill of rights,” by failing to tell Williams that although he could be fired for not answering their questions, any statements he did make could not be used in a criminal proceeding.

Los Angeles officials, backed by law enforcement authorities throughout the state, contended that in contrast to criminal proceedings, courts lacked authority to exclude improperly obtained evidence from administrative disciplinary proceedings.

‘Demonstrated His Unfitness’

Reinstating Williams with back pay will cost the city “hundreds of thousands of dollars” and is contrary to the public interest when an officer “has so clearly demonstrated his unfitness for the job,” the city said in its appeal to the justices.

Deputy City Atty. Arthur B. Walsh welcomed Thursday’s action by the court, saying the remedy imposed by the lower courts was excessive for what amounted to a “technical violation” of the law.

Williams suffered little harm from the violation because, either way, he stood to lose his job--either from refusing to answer questions or from admitting wrongdoing, Walsh said.

“The case will have statewide impact,” he said. “Every police agency that conducts these kinds of internal investigations needs to know the legal consequences of any rule violations.” Mary Ann Healey, a Los Angeles attorney representing Williams, expressed hope that the justices would uphold the appeal court decision, making it binding throughout the state.

“The city admits there was a violation,” she said. “Now there must be a remedy. And how else do you remedy the violation without reinstatement and suppression of statements the Police Department wrongfully obtained?”

Williams was one of four vice squad officers implicated in an LAPD investigation of bookmaking arrests in South-Central Los Angeles eight years ago.

The inquiry found that vice unit members warned bookmakers of raids so the criminals could place others with no previous convictions on the premises, resulting in lesser punishment after arrest. Meanwhile, the vice unit retained high rates of arrests and convictions as cooperating bookies agreed to preserve incriminating evidence. No money was given to officers, the investigation found.

One officer, Michael Lybarger, who refused to answer questions, was found guilty of insubordination and was fired. But in 1985, the state Supreme Court ruled that officers must be informed of their procedural rights under the Constitution and the 1978 state statute. Lybarger must be reinstated because he was not properly advised, the court said.

In his case, Williams was told his refusal to answer questions could result in dismissal but was not told any statements could not be used in a criminal proceeding. He freely admitted his participation in prearranged bookmaking arrests and was dismissed from the force.

Deprived of Rights

In December, 1986, Judge Cole found that Williams had been deprived of his rights and ordered his reinstatement with back pay and benefits, less the salary he had been earning as a school security guard after his dismissal.

A state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, upholding the ruling last February, stressed that failing to advise an officer of his rights in a disciplinary proceeding was unlawful and concluded that “the remedy most certain to deter such unlawful behavior in the future is to nullify the resulting interrogation.”

The city could proceed with a new investigation of Williams, properly advising him of his rights, but could not use his previous statements against him, the appeal court said.

Thursday’s order by the high court was signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justices Stanley Mosk, John A. Arguelles and Marcus M. Kaufman--the minimum four votes required to grant review.