Detective Refuses to Testify Further in Vandalism Trial : Police: The officer cites 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself in the raid at 39th and Dalton. But that opens himself up to possible department discipline.

A detective who has been testifying in the Dalton Avenue police vandalism case for three days has refused to answer any more questions because he is now under investigation for possible perjury.

By exercising his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself, Detective Robert Clark opens himself up to possible discipline and firing by Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, according to the city attorney’s office.

Written policy in the Los Angeles Police Department manual says officers must testify, even at the risk of self-incrimination, said Deputy City Atty. Philip J. Sugar, who represents other officers scheduled to take the stand.

Because of Clark’s testimony last week, the district attorney and police Internal Affairs Division had begun an investigation into whether the detective may have perjured himself, said Clark’s attorney, Arthur Rutledge.

“We didn’t have a choice,” Rutledge said of Clark’s refusal to continue his testimony. “The D.A. got a search warrant and broke into his locker and desk after he testified. So that changed the tide.”

Outside court, Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden said the Clark issue could cause some “serious problems” for his case. He said defense attorneys could imply that his witnesses were not credible because they were being compelled to testify by Gates.

Darden said last week that his office intended to investigate whether Clark intentionally presented false evidence when a photo he showed the court turned out to have been taken a year later than he stated it was.

Three officers are being tried for misdemeanor vandalism in the August, 1988, drug raid that left four apartments at 39th Street and Dalton Avenue in South Los Angeles a shambles. The raid resulted in the seizure of one rifle, 18.6 grams of rock cocaine and five ounces of marijuana. Two people were charged after the raid.

Before the beating of motorist Rodney G. King, the incident had been the Police Department’s most notorious misconduct case. It cost the city more than $3 million in civil court settlements.

Clark--who was testifying for the prosecution--surprised Darden when he produced a Polaroid photo of gang graffiti threatening the lives of Southwest Division police officers. Clark testified that he took the photo in July, 1988, before the Dalton raid and had found it in some personal belongings two months before the trial started.

After that testimony, prosecutors and investigators from the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division checked the serial number on the photo with the manufacturer and learned that the film had not been made until 1989.

Clark later testified that he had been mistaken about when the photo was taken.

Rutledge said his client’s testimony was that the photo was not specifically related to the Dalton case, but to other investigations he had conducted.

Clark, who faces departmental charges stemming from his actions during the Dalton incident, obtained the search warrant for the raid.

Los Angeles Municipal Judge Larry Fidler had ruled last week that Clark waived his right to take the 5th Amendment because he voluntarily testified for three days. Fidler said Monday that a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision granted that right to officers forced to take the witness stand, even after they had begun testifying.

Fidler said Darden could give Clark immunity. The prosecutor said he has not decided whether he will do so.

“I think one of his (Clark’s) motivations was to somehow help the defendants, given that they are all police officers,” Darden said. “It’s an example of what happens when you allow your biases to overwhelm your sense of duty. If he had just presented the photo to me, . . . but he was treating me as some kind of an adversary.”

Fidler said he still might order Clark’s testimony stricken and instruct the jury to disregard it. The judge ordered Clark to return to court Wednesday.

Defense attorneys said they would fight such an order because the jury would be prejudiced by what it had heard. The lawyers have not yet cross-examined Clark.

Sugar labeled the Clark matter a special situation and said he foresees no reason his client-officers will not testify. The deputy city attorney said he believes the officers’ testimony could not be used against them in subsequent cases because department policy compelled them to testify.

“You have to convict a person based on independent evidence,” he said. “You can’t force them to convict themselves.”

On trial are Capt. Thomas Elfmont, Officer Todd Parrick and Sgt. Charles Spicer. A fourth officer charged in the case, Charles Wilson, pleaded no contest and has agreed to testify.