2 LAPD Officers File $20-Million Claim Against Chief

In a move that creates a host of new political and legal problems for Police Chief Willie L. Williams, two police officers Wednesday filed a $20-million claim against the chief, and their union called on the city government to open an investigation into Williams’ management and ethics.

“Through the course of Chief Williams’ tenure in Los Angeles, the rank and file of the LAPD and the residents of the city of Los Angeles have been witness to an ongoing and evolving pattern of behavior by the chief that has called into question his personal ethics, his professional standards and his management style,” Police Protective League President Bill Harkness said in a letter written on behalf of the union board and delivered to all council members and Mayor Richard Riordan.

After listing various allegations of wrongdoing or questionable judgment involving the chief, the letter added: “Chief Williams’ time with the LAPD has been marked more by scandal than by innovation or excellence.”

If launched, such an investigation could not come at a worse time for Williams, who is in his final year of a five-year term and who has said he would like reappointment to another one.

Williams and other top department officials declined comment Wednesday. A spokesman said they had been advised by the city attorney not to discuss the matter publicly.

The letter, the claim and the call for an investigation create several new conflicts for Williams, who already is struggling with tentative political support and a strong but falling public job approval rating. Although forced to fend off criticism from a variety of sources in recent months, until now Williams has enjoyed a hiatus in his disputes with the city’s politically powerful police union, largely because the league was focused on securing a new contract for its members.

The league was an early critic of Williams; “all foam and no beer” was then-league President William Violante’s well-known description of the chief. But the latest attack marks the first time the union has called for an investigation of Williams.

The league’s public call for action against the chief potentially clouds Williams’ political standing, but the legal claim, precursor to a lawsuit being filed against a public official, creates a different set of problems for him and the city. In their claim, the two detectives allege that the chief and the city of Los Angeles owe them $10 million each because of the damages they suffered as a result of Williams’ public denunciation of them.

On Sept. 1, 1995, Williams held a press conference at police headquarters in which he accused the two detectives, Andrew Teague and Charles Markel, of perjury and evidence-tampering, among other things. Williams said Teague had forged signatures on police documents and had lied about it in court. Markel, according to the chief, had covered for Teague and failed to tell authorities about the forged documents.

“We will not tolerate this type of action from any employee, new or veteran, inside the Los Angeles Police Department,” Williams said at the time. “We have to continue to send a message out that these exceptions to the rule . . . do not reflect the work of detectives and police officers and the majority of the men and women in this department.”

The press conference at which Williams made those comments and publicly announced the detectives’ suspensions was held during the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, when international attention was riveted on the LAPD. As a result, the allegations of wrongdoing were broadcast worldwide--amplified further by the revelation that Teague was one of 44 officers whose complaint histories made them the subject of scrutiny by the Christopher Commission, which examined the use of force by LAPD officers and made sweeping recommendations for reform.

But Williams made his comments before a police review board had examined the evidence against the two detectives. When it did, a board of rights found Teague and Markel not guilty of all but minor administrative violations. Teague was suspended for one day for failing to prepare adequately for court. Markel was given an official reprimand but was not suspended.

They are still working for the LAPD as detectives but not in homicide, where they were before Williams’ press conference.

*

What particularly outraged many police officers about Williams’ decision to publicly dress down the two officers was that the chief made his remarks the same month that he filed his own $10-million claim against the city for violating his privacy--allegedly by allowing The Times to obtain excerpts from his personnel file.

According to Harkness and other union leaders, the effect of Williams’ actions was to show that he felt it was wrong to violate his privacy but OK to violate that of officers who work for him.

“We believe it is time for the chief’s ‘do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do’ policy to be seriously scrutinized,” Harkness said in a statement.

Unlike many cases in which Williams is named as a defendant because of his role as the LAPD’s general manager, the claim asserts that he personally caused the damage to the two defendants. Enrique A. Hernandez, general counsel to the league, said he could not recall any other case in which police officers accused an LAPD chief of slander and pressed a case against him.

Faced with legal claims or lawsuits, city officials often claim immunity by asserting that their actions were taken as part of their official duties. But Matthew Biren, the lawyer for the detectives, said Williams’ comments violated LAPD policy and state laws, making it inappropriate for him to assert immunity in this case. Neither Williams nor representatives of the city attorney’s office would comment on that assertion.

In interviews Wednesday with The Times, Teague and Markel said they were aware that their decision to file the claim was unorthodox, but added that they felt they had no choice.

“What happened to my partner and me was absolutely wrong,” Markel said.

“This has pretty much destroyed my career,” Teague said. “The only thing you have in this life is your word. The chief took that away from me. He called me a liar.”

Teague and Markel, who each have more than 19 years of experience with the Police Department, said no one from the LAPD has apologized to them. The detectives said neither of them has ever spoken with Williams about the issue.

“I’ve been waiting for an apology,” Teague said. “The phone hasn’t rung.”

Although Teague and Markel are represented by their own lawyers in their case against Williams, the league’s open endorsement of the move demonstrated its new resolve to put pressure on the chief. In its letter, the league also accused Williams of contributing to the LAPD’s morale and image woes.

“We believe that the morale and public image of the department . . . is still in decline as a result of ongoing questions about the chief’s performance to date and qualifications to hold his position,” the letter said.

League officials stressed they are seeking an overall investigation into Williams’ performance as chief, not just a review of the way he handled the Teague and Markel matter. As evidence of the problems surrounding Williams, the league cited allegations that the chief accepted gratuities in Las Vegas, that he accepted free tickets to Germany and that he lied to the Police Commission about his acceptance of comped rooms in Las Vegas.

*

The league did not specify whom it wanted to take up the investigation--the City Council, the mayor or the Police Commission. For the council to launch an investigation, a member would have to propose it and the idea could then be forwarded to a committee. Likewise, a police commissioner would need to introduce a motion for that body to investigate. It would take the backing of a majority of the five-member commission for an inquiry to begin.

In the past, the council has been wary of wading into controversy surrounding the chief. Although embattled for more than a year, Williams remains one of the city’s best known public officials. When he appealed a reprimand imposed by the Police Commission, council members voted to overturn it without ever opening the file of evidence supporting the reprimand.

On Wednesday, several council members declined comment, saying the matter appeared to be headed for litigation and thus was not appropriate for them to discuss publicly. Similarly, a spokeswoman for Riordan said he would not comment on the issue.

At the city attorney’s office, meanwhile, a spokesman said officials there had not had time to digest the claim and thus could not discuss its merits.