D.A. Letters Detail Alleged Rebuffs by Police

The Los Angeles district attorney’s office has identified 28 potentially evidentiary items--including videotapes, audiotapes, shooting reports and interviews--that Los Angeles police officers, acting on orders from their superiors, allegedly refused to let prosecutors see or copy, according to confidential documents obtained by The Times.

The material is spelled out in five letters, all dated March 16 and all naming specific instances in which prosecutors say they asked for information related to the Rampart police scandal. In four cases, prosecutors say they were denied access outright, while in the fifth, a deputy district attorney alleges that he was put off by a lieutenant who said he needed to check with his supervisors. Copies of the letters were delivered under seal to the Los Angeles Police Commission last week.

“On March 14, 2000, you indicated to me that our scheduled meeting had to be canceled because you had been instructed by your supervisors that you were to no longer turn over any information to our office and not to meet with me as planned,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Anne Ingalls wrote to Det. William Cox. “You also indicated that you had been instructed you were to deal only with the U.S. attorney’s office, putting our working relationship in a sort of ‘limbo.’ ”

The five letters, filed under seal because they refer to specific cases under investigation, offer a damning, detailed picture of LAPD intransigence. They also provide a road map for Inspector General Jeffrey Eglash, who has been directed to investigate the alleged obstruction and determine whether officers were specifically ordered to refuse cooperation with the county prosecutor and his staff.

Although LAPD investigators have yet to finish their review of the prosecutors’ letters, one top Police Department official said the requests for information in many instances referred to material already provided to the district attorney’s office. As a result, that official characterized the requests as frivolous attempts to make the LAPD look bad.

But even if the requests were redundant or cynically motivated, it does not explain why LAPD officers would refuse them, because police officers generally are required to cooperate with prosecutors--and do not have the discretion to make decisions about what material to provide or withhold.

In an interview, Police Chief Bernard C. Parks said some of the prosecution requests also reflect that agency’s lack of sophistication about the complex problem of how to build cases untainted by exposure to statements officers were compelled to make in violation of their constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Department regulations require officers to answer questions they could not be forced to answer in any other forum.

One letter, for instance, cites the LAPD’s refusal to turn over audiotaped interviews with five Los Angeles police officers, whose statements were sought in connection with the possible prosecution of Officer Michael Buchanan, a former Rampart CRASH officer who has been relieved of duty in connection with the corruption probe. Parks has been particularly public about his desire to see Buchanan prosecuted for perjury.

Parks said the problem with those tapes is that the officers who were interviewed were ordered to respond by their superiors. Depending on the circumstances of the case--and the possibility that other officers might be charged in it--that could make the interviews difficult, if not impossible for a prosecutor to use in trial, because the Constitution prohibits defendants from being forced to give testimony against themselves. Evidence gained as a consequence of the interviews would be similarly tainted.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles has strict guidelines governing the collection and use of compelled statements, and Parks warned that the county prosecutors may inadvertently taint their cases by failing to adhere to those guidelines.

“If they’re doing a criminal investigation, they’re falling into the trap that the U.S. attorney says they’ll fall into,” Parks said.

Nevertheless, the chief insisted that his officers would not block the release of those reports to the district attorney, despite their reservations about how they might be used.

At its meeting last week, the Police Commission directed Eglash, its inspector general, to investigate whether the LAPD had blocked the release of information to the district attorney. Among other things, Eglash is charged with determining whether officers who turned down prosecution requests--if indeed, they did--acted on their own or under orders.

On Tuesday, Eglash confirmed that he will try to figure out whether orders to withhold information were given and, if so, by whom.

In addition to the insights they offer into the relationship between the LAPD and district attorney’s office, the letters provide some clues as to the direction of the district attorney’s investigation into the Rampart scandal.

Ingalls, for example, is in charge of the D.A.’s trial team. Her letter to Cox suggests that significant investigation may remain to be done on the shooting of Javier Francisco Ovando, a case that many see as the centerpiece of the corruption scandal.

Requests for Documents

The scandal broke in September when ex-Officer Rafael Perez, as part of plea bargain on drug theft charges, implicated himself and a former partner in the shooting of Ovando, an unarmed 19-year-old gang member. Perez said he and his partner then planted a gun on Ovando and falsely testified in court that Ovando had attacked them, helping to send the young man, now disabled as a result of his wounds, to prison for 23 years.

“As I previously mentioned, there are many LAPD documents that need interpretation,” Ingalls wrote. “I also have a list of follow-up investigation that I would like to discuss with you. I would also like to continue our discussion as to the interpretation of physical evidence in that shooting.”

The Buchanan case also has attracted considerable attention, and has helped widen the rift between the Police Department and local prosecutors.

That case involves allegations by Perez that Buchanan perjured himself in court to back Perez. During interviews with LAPD investigators this fall, Perez said Buchanan agreed to falsely testify that he watched Perez pull a loaded weapon from a suspect’s trunk, when in fact Buchanan was not present. Buchanan has since been relieved of duty in connection with the scandal.

In a letter to LAPD Sgt. Jeff Pailet, Deputy Dist. Atty. Margo Baxter said that she had been denied audiotapes of interviews with four police officers and a sergeant who were questioned in connection with the case.

“At the time of my request you told me that you were unable to provide me with these items based upon an order that you had received,” Baxter wrote. “At this time I am renewing my request.”

Another request involved the now-infamous station house beating of Ismael Jimenez. Former Rampart CRASH Officer Brian Hewitt was fired for that beating last year, but the D.A.’s office rejected a criminal case against the ex-officer, saying that the physical evidence was insufficient to bring charges. D.A. officials have since said they are looking at the case again in light of Perez’s allegations about Hewitt and other officers at the Rampart station.

But according to a letter from Deputy Dist. Atty. Thomas R. Wenke to LAPD Det. Patricia Ferguson, Wenke was denied access to audio and videotape interviews and other information relevant to the case. Once again, the stated reason for the denial was that the LAPD detective was under orders not to provide the information, Wenke said in his letter.

Although Parks in the past has accused Garcetti of lying, one district attorney’s source said the letters submitted to the Police Commission undermine that claim.

That source noted that all of the letters are signed by experienced prosecutors who are placing their reputations at stake in support of a man who is faced with a tough reelection fight.

“These people are not going to lie for him [Garcetti],” the source said. “That just ain’t gonna happen.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

A Question of Access

According to several confidential letters by prosecutors, Los Angeles police officers would not release tapes, shooting reports and interviews to the Los Angeles district attorney’s office. One of the letters is excerpted below.

*

* HAHN CHANGES POSITION

City attorney now calls for independent Rampart probe. B1

* MORE DETAIL ON PEREZ

Memo says supervisor knew of Perez problems. B1