Attorneys Won’t Be Prosecuted in DMV Case

Six attorneys who curried favor with a hearing officer for the state Department of Motor Vehicles by buying him meals, giving him money or offering other help will not be criminally prosecuted, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office announced Tuesday.

In a report on the office’s 17-month investigation, Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Healey said prosecutors believe that former Long Beach hearing officer Michael R. Tarrish was truthful when he told investigators of the gratuities that the lawyers provided.

However, Healey said, there is not enough independent, corroborating evidence to support a criminal prosecution for bribery or obstruction of justice. In addition, Healey wrote, Tarrish’s accounts of what happened are at times so vague or conflicting as to make him an unconvincing witness.

In a summary of one incident, Healey wrote: “Tarrish has said he was bribed, and we believe him. But the criminal law requires more than just Tarrish’s word for it, and Tarrish’s word is pretty much all we have.”

Later in the report, the prosecutor added, “That is not to say that the wrongs done here must remain unredressed.” Healey said his office is referring the case to the State Bar of California, which may consider disciplinary action against the lawyers. A Bar hearing officer has already recommended disbarment for one of the attorneys, Healey noted.

Tarrish, 48, pleaded no contest last year to a single bribery count and was placed on probation for three years. A 20-year veteran of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Tarrish was fired from his post as a principal driver safety referee in January, 1987, after he spent hours with DMV investigators describing his relationship with the lawyers. The DMV began investigating Tarrish after receiving a complaint.

Tarrish was one of nearly 140 safety referees who have wide latitude to uphold or set aside actions taken by the DMV to revoke or suspend the licenses of drivers who have accumulated too many tickets or who have drinking or medical problems that threaten their ability to drive.

In the report released Tuesday, Healey named these attorneys:

- Daniel Nishiyama, 44, of San Pedro and Long Beach. Tarrish told investigators that in August, 1986, Nishiyama paid him a $300 bribe to restore the license of a negligent driver whom Nishiyama represented. However, Healey wrote, “Tarrish’s story does not have the clarity and consistency that persuades juries. . . . We do not believe that this evidence will convict Nishiyama beyond a reasonable doubt.”

- William L. Streitfeld, 47, of Torrance. Streitfeld helped Tarrish obtain smog certificates for two vehicles that were not tested, Healey wrote. Tarrish told investigators that Streitfeld’s help probably disposed him to rule in favor of Streitfeld’s clients, but said he made no specific agreement with the lawyer. “A generalized desire to remain on good terms with Tarrish is not the same thing as a specific intent to bribe him,” Healey wrote. “Streitfeld’s intent must be reconstructed from circumstances as described by Tarrish, whose account, we have seen, is somewhat murky.”

- Barry G. Sands, 45, of Torrance. Tarrish told investigators that he ruled on cases involving many of Sands’ clients in 1985 and 1986 and that Sands took him to lunch eight or nine times during that period. On three or four occasions, Sands passed him cash payments of $100 in matchbook covers, Tarrish said.

However, he told investigators that the money was not linked to any specific case. Sands admitted to investigators only that he took Tarrish to lunch. Unlike the lunches, the cash payments cannot be independently corroborated, Healey wrote. “The lunches, in our view, are not enough,” the prosecutor concluded. A State Bar hearing officer already has recommended Sands’ disbarment for his conduct in this and other cases.

- Randall E. Fine, 36, of Huntington Beach. Beginning in 1985, Tarrish said he accepted the first of many free lunches that Fine offered him. In early 1986, Tarrish arranged to have a license hearing for Fine’s sister, Rita, moved from Riverside to Long Beach so he could handle the case, Healey wrote. The DMV earlier had decided to revoke Rita Fine’s certificate to operate a school bus because of her involvement in a 1985 accident.

About that time, Randall Fine gave Tarrish a check for $400. In April, Tarrish set aside Rita Fine’s license revocation. Randall Fine subsequently gave Tarrish another check for $135.

“There is little question that these facts paint a picture of cynicism and corruption,” Healey wrote. However, he added: “The main difficulty is that Tarrish refuses to admit that his decision in Rita’s case was induced by bribery. . . . He insists that the two checks Fine gave him were ‘loans’ which he intended to pay back.”

- James M. Gleeson, 43, of Torrance. Gleeson, Healey wrote, “proved to be Tarrish’s most reliable benefactor.” The lawyer gave Tarrish perhaps 25 free meals, cash handouts of about $300 and a loan of $350, of which Tarrish said he repaid $210, Healey said. Tarrish did not always find in favor of Gleeson’s clients, Healey explained, but he “did so frequently enough that the relationship remained warm on both sides.”

However, Healey concluded: “The Gleeson case offers an example of the obstacles that Tarrish throws in the path of successful prosecution of his attorney accomplices. ‘Prior agreement’ on the results of cases is essential to prove either bribery or conspiracy to obstruct justice. But ‘prior agreement’ is exactly what Tarrish will not admit to.”

- Robert E. Courtney, 52, of Redondo Beach. Tarrish told investigators that he accepted as many as 15 free meals at a restaurant where Courtney maintained a running tab, that he handled cases involving about 30 of Courtney’s clients and that he often ruled in their favor.

However, Tarrish said, he and Courtney had no specific agreement on the disposition of cases. “With no words spoken, the two men simply fell into a pattern of behavior from which each derived benefit,” Healey wrote. “There is reason to be suspicious. But there is no direct proof.”

Reached at his office Tuesday, Fine said: “The bottom line is, if Tarrish was taking bribes, which he evidently was, I think what happened is I was deemed guilty by association. But Tarrish’s own testimony under oath substantiates the fact that mine was merely a loan. . . . I did not bribe anybody.”

Streitfeld said, “If any attorneys who are under investigation were guilty of any wrongful conduct, the State Bar should act appropriately.”

Nishiyama and Sands declined comment. Courtney and Gleeson were not available.