Council Heard in ’96 of Rampart Trouble

Three years before Rafael Perez blew the whistle on allegedly rogue officers at the LAPD’s Rampart Division, the specter of a group of problem officers, referred to at the time as the “Rampart Reapers,” was raised during a closed-door session of the City Council, according to transcripts of the meeting.

Council members and other high-ranking city officials--including several contenders in next week’s city elections--were secretly debating whether the city should pay punitive damages incurred by a Rampart officer with an extensive disciplinary record.

Although there were only a few passing remarks in the lengthy debate about the officer, the transcripts show that top city leaders were warned of potentially widespread problems in the Rampart Division. The discussion occurred in 1996--the very time that Perez, in interviews years later, said he and his cohorts were routinely framing and beating suspects, among other things.

The transcripts show that city officials knew there was one problem officer at Rampart--one who had been suspended for more than 150 days in his career--and discussed whether the problem was more widespread, but did little about it.

Among those who were present for the 1996 meetings: City Councilman Joel Wachs, a candidate for mayor; Councilwoman Laura Chick, who is running for controller; Councilman Mike Feuer, who is running for city attorney; and a representative of City Atty. James K. Hahn, who is running for mayor.

With those and other city officials on hand, Councilman Mike Hernandez interjected into the closed council debate an early--and prescient--warning about possible police misconduct in the Rampart Division.

“Prior to me coming into office Rampart had a reputation for having . . . problem officers. And there were indications of officers who . . . were basically part of a problem team,” Hernandez said. “Any indication that this would be one of those officers?”

Then-Chief Willie L. Williams, who attended the council session, said he was unaware of the officer, John Shafia, being part of any problem group.

“Rampart Reapers,” Hernandez said. “Rampart Reapers.”

LAPD officials shrugged off Hernandez’s alarm.

“I’m not familiar with that term,” responded LAPD Cmdr. Dan Watson, who served as Williams’ aide during the council session.

While it is unclear what the councilman meant, Hernandez’s reference to “problem cops” belonging to a “problem team” fits neatly with Perez’s claims about the allegedly out-of-control anti-gang CRASH unit he joined in 1995. Shafia was also assigned to Rampart CRASH.

On Tuesday, city leaders and others active in pursuing allegations of police misconduct bemoaned the lack of action. “It is a missed opportunity for everybody that was involved in that room,” said Mayor Richard Riordan. Although Riordan added that he was reluctant to use hindsight to criticize any individual for overlooking the warning aired by Hernandez in 1996, he added that it reflected a collective failure of the leaders who did not take action when they could have.

Lawyer Stephen Yagman, a frequent and vocal critic of Riordan, said he too believed that the city government had failed in this instance.

“This was completely irresponsible government,” said Yagman, who has argued in court that the City Council does not hold errant LAPD officers accountable for their misdeeds. The transcripts of the council sessions were contained in the court files of a federal lawsuit filed by Yagman against the LAPD and its controversial Special Investigations Section.

Yagman said the council members, Hahn and top LAPD officials “are completely irresponsible hypocrites. They didn’t do something when they had a chance. . . . They exposed the city to enormous subsequent liability.”

While the transcripts raise public policy questions, they also present immediate political challenges.

In the case of Hahn, who is in a close race for mayor, it is unclear whether the city attorney himself attended any of the closed-door meetings. Although the cover sheet to the transcripts lists him as being there, it appears that may be in error.

Hahn never is quoted in the transcripts, and a sign-up sheet for the session in which Hernandez raises the alarm about Rampart shows that two of Hahn’s top aides appeared on that day, not Hahn. Hahn’s calendar from those dates indicates that he had other appointments and was not scheduled to attend the closed-door council meetings, a top aide said.

“Whether I was there or not doesn’t change the fact that our office was there, and I certainly accept the responsibility for what our attorneys are saying in that regard,” Hahn said after a campaign appearance in the Crenshaw district on Tuesday.

Hahn said Hernandez’s comments in front of Chief Williams represented another missed opportunity by the LAPD to address the problems in Rampart early on.

“There have been many alarms over the years that the LAPD should have responded to in a more vigorous fashion,” Hahn said.

Hahn said it was not his responsibility as city attorney to investigate or discipline problem officers. He added that he pushed hard to negotiate the federal consent decree for the LAPD because he was aware of many instances over the years in which the department failed to properly deal with problem officers.

Wachs, who is running against Hahn and four other major candidates for mayor, did not return calls seeking comment.

In interviews this week, most of those present at the meetings in 1996 had little or no recollection of what was discussed.

Hernandez, who acknowledges that he was battling a drug and alcohol problem at the time, said he does not remember using the term “Rampart Reapers.” He said he does, however, recall hearing about a group of problem officers at Rampart before he took office in 1991.

“Rampart had a reputation I was picking up on the streets while running for office,” Hernandez said.

“After I took office,” he said, “I started asking questions.”

Although he said he pushed for answers, “It was tough getting information from the Police Department.”

Councilwoman Chick, who is a leading candidate for city controller, said she does not remember Hernandez’s reference to the “Rampart Reapers.”

“We have had so many closed-session items on lawsuits--in particular involving the LAPD--that I don’t remember the comment, the question or the response,” Chick said.

She added, “It has always been very difficult, as a council member, to get a grip on what’s going on in the LAPD.”

Councilwoman Rita Walters did not recall the meeting either, but upon reviewing portions of the transcript she said she believes that the council, at least in the past, was too willing to accept the department’s explanations.

“In some minds, I think the police are always assumed to be correct,” she said. “If any of us had those notions in the past, we have seen enough to disabuse us of those notions now.”

Councilman Feuer blamed then-Chief Williams for not being more forthcoming and the LAPD for not being more aggressive in rooting out its internal problems.

“The chief of police reported to the council that this officer was not connected to a group of problem officers,” Feuer said. “In a direct questioning, the chief did not advise the council that there was a group of problem officers. We now know that was a very incomplete and inadequate report.”

Discussion on Civil Damages

Although, in retrospect, the broader issue of Rampart corruption is the one with the most profound implications for the city leadership, the council that day actually was addressing a more specific matter--whether to pay the punitive damages in a civil judgment against Officer Shafia.

A civil jury had found him liable for injuring a motorist he pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. Shafia was accused of pulling the man out of the car, throwing him to the pavement and striking him with his baton. The man was not charged with any crime.

Shafia presented a difficult case for the council, in part because of his long disciplinary record. At the time, it included suspensions totaling more than 150 days, “which is very lengthy,” LAPD Cmdr. Watson explained, according to the transcripts.

In 1985, Shafia received a 90-day suspension for excessive force and failing to properly book narcotics evidence, Watson stated, according to the transcripts. In 1989, he was suspended for 22 days for unlawfully discharging a firearm and driving under the influence of alcohol. More problems followed, though he also had received commendations, including one for saving the life of a child drowning in a pool.

Despite Shafia’s record of misconduct, Williams said refusing to pay for an officer’s damages would be bad for morale.

“If the officers get a message that they may have to pay punitive damages, it will have a negative impact on how aggressive they are or how they do their job,” he said.

After long debate, the council ultimately agreed. Only Councilwoman Walters voted against paying the damages, urging her colleagues to cast “no” votes as well.

“I think officers like this are a drag on the force, they’re a drag on the city, and it’s not in the best interest of the city to keep them on the force,” Walters said. “This is clearly a bad apple.”

In order for council members to approve having the government pay for punitive damages against a police officer, they must determine that the officer was acting within the course and scope of his or her duties, that it was done without malice, and that making the payment would be in the best interest of the city.

“Historically . . . it [has been] in the best interests of the city to let the other officers know that they will be supported and defended by us paying damages when everyone agreed that there was no excessive force and nothing out of [policy],” Wachs said during one of the 1996 meetings. “In this case, though, the argument may well be different, that it’s not in the best interest of the city, because our paying this kind of guy with this kind of record--it’s kind of like we are encouraging and continuing to encourage this kind of conduct.”

Still, Wachs joined with the council majority in agreeing to pay Shafia’s damages. For its part, the LAPD kept Shafia on the police force. Attempting to mollify council concerns, Watson said the department had taken steps to guard against problems with the officer.

“As a result of this complaint history in 1993, he was reassigned from patrol in Rampart and placed in detectives, where he’s been working ever since, the idea being that that puts him less in harm’s way,” Watson said.

Shafia continues to work in Rampart. After being read portions of the council debate about his case, he was annoyed.

“How dare they,” Shafia said, referring to some of the council members’ comments. “That sounds pretty slanderous to me. I haven’t been in much trouble at all.”