Police Forces Ignore Rights of Suspects, Groups Say : Courts: Los Angeles, Santa Monica departments are targets of litigation expected to be filed today.

In a lawsuit expected to be filed in federal court today, lawyers for the ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and others allege that the Los Angeles and Santa Monica police departments routinely violate the Miranda rights of suspects they arrest.

According to the complaint, the two departments’ “actions corrode the panoply of rights belonging to a criminal suspect, destroy the ability of defense counsel to pursue a vigorous defense and injure the overall administration of criminal justice. Unless enjoined, the rights secured by Miranda will become elective at the will and whim of the . . . police departments.”

Named as defendants in the complaint are Santa Monica Police Chief James Butts, Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams, four police officers and the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles. The plaintiffs seek a court order to bar the departments from continuing their interrogation practices and are asking for damages for two suspects who say they were illegally interrogated.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda case, decided in 1966 and formally known as Miranda v. Arizona, established the requirement that police inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and to be represented by a lawyer. Under Miranda, police also are obligated to tell suspects that anything they say can be used against them.

But according to attorneys who prepared the lawsuit, officers routinely continue questioning suspects long after they have asked to speak with a lawyer. Officials with the two departments said Tuesday that they have not yet seen the complaint and could not comment on its allegations.

“Based on my experience and the experience of other lawyers I’ve spoken with, this practice can fairly be described as common, if not frequent,” said William J. Genego, a lawyer who helped put together the lawsuit. “The police have figured out that there is something to be gained from violating Miranda.”

Far from punishing those who violate Miranda rights, Genego said, departments actually encourage the practice and train officers to do it.

Genego said officers in the departments have ignored suspects’ requests to stop questioning until they can consult lawyers. Initial interviews can create significant problems for criminal defendants, both because information gained from the questioning can help police build cases and because defendants often are reluctant to take the stand in their own defense knowing that the police have such statements.

Although the Supreme Court warned against police using interviews to intimidate defendants out of testifying, police are doing just that, Genego said.

“The Supreme Court created an incentive, and contrary to its expectations, the police are exploiting it,” Genego said.

While the legal organizations want the two departments enjoined from the alleged Miranda rights violations, two jailed defendants also are suing for damages, saying that their rights were violated by officers of the LAPD and Santa Monica Police Department.

According to the complaint, James McNally was questioned by Santa Monica police on March 3, 1993, and invoked his right to remain silent. But police continued to grill him anyway, the complaint alleges, and McNally was convicted of manslaughter.

Similarly, LAPD officers allegedly ignored the request of James Johnson Bey to remain silent during questioning on March 6, 1991.

“Officers convinced Mr. Bey to answer their questions by assuring him that what he said could not be used against him,” the complaint contends. “Mr. Bey was subsequently convicted of murder.”

Attached to the complaint is a partial transcript of one police interview, in which two detectives persistently questioned McNally despite his requests to speak to a lawyer.

“It’s, it’s too scary for me right now,” McNally said at one point. “I’d, I’d rather talk to a lawyer.”

After a few more questions, a detective responded: “Let me explain to you what’s happened. You’ve basically invoked your right to have an attorney. . . . OK? At this point, nothing that you say can be used against you in court. . . . I still would like to know what happened now because . . . I don’t trust anything that anybody tells me after they’ve talked to an attorney, and the D.A. that will be working with us on this case doesn’t either.”

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal organizations have scheduled a news conference for noon today to announce the filing of the lawsuit.