Lungren Declines to Seize Profits on Koon’s Book : Politics: Legislator says the attorney general is ducking the law because he doesn’t want to lose support in an election year.

As if he hasn’t been in enough controversies already, former Los Angeles Police Sgt. Stacey C. Koon is now at the center of a political dispute between Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and a ranking Democratic assemblyman over a law barring criminals from profiting from their crimes.

Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento) called on Lungren nearly three weeks ago to use the state’s so-called Son of Sam law to block Koon from making money off the sale of his autobiography and a related fund-raising campaign that has attracted nationwide support.

Isenberg argued that the book and campaign are based on an illegal deed for which Koon is now in prison--violating the civil rights of Rodney G. King in the police beating that led eventually to the 1992 riots.

Lungren responded by letter Thursday that because the constitutionality of California’s Son of Sam law has never been tested, he wants to wait until a better case comes along but will continue to review the matter.

On Friday, Isenberg said that because of Koon’s popularity among conservatives and police associations that make up part of Lungren’s potential base of electoral support, Lungren--a staunch law-and-order Republican running for reelection--has been ducking the issue.

Lungren declined to answer Isenberg’s assertions directly, and instead responded through his aides.

The aides said the attorney general is not hesitating for political reasons, but is wary of testing the California law because a similar New York state law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 as violating constitutional guarantees of free speech.

Lungren spokesman Dave Puglia said an effort is under way to amend the law to make it “constitutionally bulletproof” before it is used.

Lungren has been a vocal supporter of the Son of Sam law and is leading the campaign to amend it so it can be used more broadly. The controversy was launched after a dispute erupted recently over whether convicted murderer Charles Manson could collect royalties from T-shirt sales and a song he wrote.

Isenberg, a member of the Assembly’s Criminal Justice Committee and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said it seems to him that “if the law means anything at all, everyone has to be treated equally--the crooks you like and the crooks you don’t.”

“It’s hard for me to believe you want an expansion of the law if you are unprepared to apply the existing law equally to everybody who is convicted of a felony and makes money off their crime,” he said in an interview.

A constitutional law expert agreed, saying legislators enacted the law to prevent felons from profiting from their crimes and to enable their victims to be reimbursed, and that it clearly applies to the Koon case.

“Convicted felons who happen to be Los Angeles police officers should not be treated differently from any other convicted felons with respect to applying the law,” said Robert Pugsley, a professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles.

Under the law, Lungren could petition a civil court judge to set up an involuntary trust for the benefit of Koon’s victim--in this case King, who was beaten by police officers under Koon’s supervision after a car chase in 1991. The proceeds also would be used to pay legal bills associated with the case. Such trusts under the law could be used to collect profits from the sale of books, movies, T-shirts and even interviews and TV appearances.

In his March 21 letter to Lungren, Isenberg asked the attorney general to set up such a fund immediately.

“You are a strong and vocal proponent of anti-crime measures and I assume you object to Mr. Koon exploiting the commercial value of his felonious conduct,” Isenberg wrote. “I acknowledge the sensitive nature of this subject. However, the fair and uniform application of our laws requires your office to fully investigate Mr. Koon’s activity . . . and make a public pronouncement on your decision of whether to proceed against Mr. Koon.”

On April 5, Isenberg sent another letter to Lungren, reminding him of his vocal support for the Son of Sam law and its proposed expansion. “As we attempt to expand,” he wrote, “it is critical that we aggressively enforce the existing law.”

Koon’s publisher, Alfred S. Regnery, would not say how much Koon has received from his book--”Presumed Guilty, the Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair”--or the fund-raising campaign. He did say that in 18 months it has sold at least 28,000 copies, and Koon had a common publishing arrangement giving him as much as 15%. At the book’s listed price of $19.95 each, 15% would amount to more than $80,000.

The publisher said a letter in which Koon asks for financial help also continues to bring in money. Isenberg said the fund-raising money would be fair game under the law, because Koon promises to send a copy of the book to anyone who sends $30.

Koon, convicted on federal charges of violating King’s civil rights, is serving a 30-month sentence in federal prison.