On Tuesday, the LA District Attorney’s office charged three LAPD officers with perjury and conspiracy for allegedly lying under oath in a drug-possession case from about a year ago.
Testilying they used to call it in the bad old days of the Rampart scandal.
The LA Times and KPCC’s Frank Stoltze both have reported on the story.
Here are some clips from the LA Times article.
Prosecutors allege in court documents that two officers falsely testified during the trial that they saw a suspect throw an object that split open to reveal crack and powder cocaine. They said they immediately recovered the drugs. A third officer is accused of falsely claiming in an earlier court hearing that he did not help his two colleagues search for the drugs.
The drug trial ended dramatically when a defense attorney produced grainy surveillance video of the area shortly after the arrest took place. The quality of the tape, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, is poor but shows a group of officers searching for more than 20 minutes before one announces that drugs have been found.
It is difficult to hear what is being said, but at one point an officer seems to make a reference to the arrest report that needed to be filled out.
“Be creative in your writing,” the officer appears to tell another after the drugs are found.
“Oh yeah, don’t worry, sin duda [no doubt],” is the reply.
After viewing the video, a judge took the unusual step of declaring the defendant to be “factually innocent.”
“This is very, very disturbing,” said John Mack, president of the L.A. Police Commission, the civilian panel that oversees the department. “We expect LAPD officers to possess the highest integrity and certainly we expect them to be truthful. This is frankly a black mark.”
(This ABC broadcast from July of 2008 shows part of the surveillance tape.)
A civil suit filed by Alarcon against the three officers is also wending its way through the legal process and internal affairs has an ongoing investigation. (AP)
As LA Police union president, Paul Weber, pointed out in a statement released shortly after the charges were announced, that the officers have been convicted of nothing at this time:
While we take these charges very seriously, it’s important for the public to remember that the officers are innocent until proven guilty and the facts of this case must be heard before rushing to judgment.
Los Angeles police officers perform a tough and dangerous job every day and oftentimes need to make split-second, life-or-death decisions. They deserve the benefit of the doubt and no one should jump to conclusions before all of the evidence is heard.
Yes, of course.
But if the officers are shown to be guilty, are we to believe that the incident is a one time affair? Would LAPD three officers all decide to spontaneously risk their careers and possible jail sentences by lying about a low-level drug possession bust? Or is some kind of habitual pattern at work here?
And if the officers turn out to be guilty, will we again grab for the “a few bad apples” theory, or will we wonder if this kind of behavior is still more prevalent among some officers in certain corners of the department than we would like to think?
POST SCRIPT:
Last summer I interviewed the head of the LAPD Detectives, Deputy Chief Charlie Beck, about this story when it was first being reported. You’ll find the relevant clips after the jump.
Be sure to read it—or reread it. Among other things, Chief Beck talks about the time when he was a young undercover officer and another cop planted evidence on him.
Witness LA: This is, of course, another one of those instances that plays into the fears that low income communities already have about law enforcement. During the era of the Rampart scandal I ran across a number of incidents where people accused officers of shaving the dice in just this kind of way, and the accusations were pretty credible—BUT impossible to prove. The difference in the Hollywood instance is that there’s a video. But I suspect that there were a lot of folks in East and South LA who read that story and said, “Hey, welcome to my neighborhood…”
Charlie Beck: Yeah, well….the reality is that these things are as old as policing. It is the slippery slope. Every profession has its slippery slope. Every one of them does. This is ours. And it is a constant battle to stay off of it. But I can tell you this: that type of behavior—while not rare enough—is much rarer than it was in my time on the street.
And I really believe that we’re going to make an such example of these folks—and every time this comes up we’re going to make an example—so pretty soon the slope starts to go away. I think we’re close to that, I really do.
I know a lot of people have a lot of stories about a lot of history. Some of it is urban legend, a lot of it based on factual things.
But I look at these young police officers…. My daughter’s a police officer and she doesn’t know what I’m talking about when I bring up this stuff. I truly believe that. If I felt I was going to introduce my daughter into the same environment I came into…..I wouldn’t want her to be a police officer. But I know she’s not coming into that same environment.
It isn’t that police officers were evil. It’s just the environment that I came into. I don’t want to say that this was the standard…
WBA: …But it used to go on…
CB: Yeah. And when you get right down to it, it’s lazy police work. If this occurred as portrayed—and I don’t know that it occurred….but if it did, there were certainly other ways to make an arrest. And I just want to make clear, we are discussing these cases in the hypothetical and there may certainly be things that come out in the investigation that changes the way we are looking at them
WLA: I understand that none of us knows yet knows exactly what occurred. But we can all admit it doesn’t look good at the moment…
CB: In my experience, in cases I’ve been involved with personally—and I haven’t been involved with this one—-the police officers have been arrested and fired.
And, Celeste, if you want to know the truth, when I worked undercover I had evidence planted on me… And I arrested and fired the police officers. But—it was lazy police work.
WLA: What?! Okay, that’s a great story.
CB: I actually have a tape too—where [his former partner] and I were working undercover in narcotics and we got evidence planted on us. That was a long time ago. But there’s a message here. It does happen occasionally. But when it happens, we take it very seriously. People lose their jobs and they get prosecuted. And we make an example of them.
WLA: Which is important. Although I know the union is not all that happy when you make an example out of misbehaving officers….
CB: Hey, I’m not thrilled about either. I don’t condone it but I have empathy. I understand how some people get to that point. But you know what? You can’t do it. If somebody’s dirty, there’s always another day. You have to do a better job. You have to do it right.
and they wonder why the community doesn’t rust them, hmmmm…
Cops like these is why we put bars on our windows in East L.A.
This story is rather interesting. . . why not do a similar story on Dr. Craig Beyler, the defense “expert” in the Willingham execution case in Texas touted on this site? Is Dr. Beyler a credible witness given his testimony in the McFrugal’s Warehouse litigation? Excerpts from Dr. Beyler’s testimony in the McFrugal’s Warehouse litigation are (or were) posted on this site. There is no doubt that Dr. Beyler lied in his sworn testimony in the McFrugal’s case. Yet this site seems to believe that Dr. Beyler is a credible witness in the Willingham case. Hmmm. . .
Richard Schulte
Schulte & Associates
Chicago/New Orleans
fpeschulte@aol.com
Uh – that discussion – along with more pasted-up transcripts than anyone who wasn’t obsessive would care to read in blog comments took up the better part of the relevant thread. “There is no doubt that Dr. Beyler lied…” would imply a perjury conviction. Maybe that’s happened. Or not. Hmmm. In any event, I’d suggest that responses to Mr. Schulte – who is apparentlyu invested in defending the execution of Willingham as Texas justice for whatever reason – be directed here:
http://witnessla.com/gangs/2009/admin/the-willingham-fire-did-texas-execute-an-innocent-man/
The bottom line is that people in every profession lie but when it’s officers in a case where a person could lose their freedom it needs to be handled in a manner where there’s no doubt left that a message is sent these types of actions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When they happen, which is a hell of a lot less than people believe not more but cop haters and defense attorneys will claim other wise.
What about the actions of others though? What type of punishement do you put on Mumia’s defense team who claimed that they interviewed a woman who claimed her boyfiend killed Ofcr. Daniel Faulkner almost 28 years ago, when the woman had been dead two years? You want justice served in all cases, but having witnessed up close the unethical actions of defense attorneys in their mission to not provide the best defense possible, but obstruct justice more than once, it would at least be nice to see this site address those concerns that happen as well as the actions of bad cops.
Good comment Surefire. Although we did recently have a discussion where most of the comments were critical of a bullshit defense. And its my understanding that while both prosecutors and defense attorneys bend what “normal” people would consider to be ethical behavior (i.e. wantonly and routinely trying to damage the reputation of witnesses or using technicalities to improve their chances of either prosecution or acquittal) they are subject to prosecution like anyone else if they deliberately fabricate evidence.
I don’t know a damned thing about the details of the Mumia case because it’s not on my radar at all. So far as I can tell, people who aren’t personally vested in the case who obsess on it are left-right mirrors of wing-nut politics. The lefties involved are totally irrelevant maoists and other cranks who don’t matter one whit in the scale of mainstream political debate. Their critics seem convinced that they have influence beyond their tired echo chambers. I happen to not know a single person who pays attention to this stuff.
That said, everybody – particularly the condemned – deserves their shot at the appeal process. I’ll trust the courts to take care of it with at least reasonable competence when all is said and done. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than any alternatives I’ve seen. But if the defense lawyers brought evidence they’d fabricated into court with clear intent, it must be actiionable.)
Uh – looks like reg is upset that the new “star” witness (Dr. Craig Beyler) in the Willingham execution was so easily discredited. The fire in the Willingham case occurred in 1991. The execution occurred a few years ago. Obviously, anyone who is still concerned about the Willingham case must be “obsessive” to use reg’s words.
Dr. Beyler’s false statements in his testimony as an expert witness in the McFrugal’s case cost Charlie Martin (the designer of the sprinkler system installed in the building) his health and cost the defendant, Grinnell Fire Protection Company, millions of dollars in a settlement. What price does reg put on a falsely accused man’s health? (In effect, Beyler accused Martin of improperly designing the sprinkler system for the building.) How many years of life did Beyler’s false testimony take from Charlie Martin? Should Dr. Craig Beyler be punished for taking years of life away from Charlie Martin because of his false testimony.
Unfortunately, all too often courts in the United States do not appear to be interested in getting to the truth. Certainly this website does not appear to be interested in the truth. This opinion is based upon the fact that there appears to be little interest on this website in whether Dr. Craig Beyler is a credible witness in the Willingham case.
Reg also appears to think that anyone who lies doesn’t really lie unless he is convicted of perjury. I assume that old reg doesn’t believe that President Clinton had “sex with that woman” because President Clinton was never convicted of having sex with Monica.
Perhaps it’s time for you to open up your mind reg. The truth is far more important than this website’s “vendetta” against the State of Texas and the death penalty (and Dr. Beyler’s “vendetta’ against the truth).
Willingham had his day in court and the State of Texas took many years before executing Willingham. Willingham was not convicted of murdering his children and then lynched the next day. Willingham’s actions at his execution were not the actions of an innocent man. An innocent man would have accepted his fate calmly if he was innocent. An innocent man has a clear conscience. Certainly, Willingham didn’t have a clear conscience (or he was mentally ill).
Richard Schulte
Schulte & Associates
Chicago/New Orleans
fpeschulte@aol.com
I suppose Gerald Hurst was lying, too?
An innocent man would have accepted his fate calmly if he was innocent. An innocent man has a clear conscience. Certainly, Willingham didn’t have a clear conscience (or he was mentally ill).
This is why I can’t take you seriously. Apparently you believe you’re a psychologist, too.
I’m not upset about anything other than your hijacking this discussion thread with some off-topic shit. Not reading past your first line because I made a simple point about the appropriateness of your obsessive behavior that you are too fucking stupid or rude to take at face value.
Oh God, Randy. Don’t tell me that’s a quote from this guy’s comment. I’m not competent to judge Willingham’s case, beyond what I read in that New Yorker article, but I do recognize total assholery when I see it. Schulte has some problems. Could he be mentally ill ?
I know a vendetta when I see one and I believe that Mr. Schulte has some sort of animus against Beyler.
Yes, I guess you’re right, I have a “vendetta” against Dr. Craig Beyler, and I guess, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had a “vendetta” against President Richard Nixon. And Kenneth Starr had a “vendetta” against President Clinton. And the LA prosecutor had a “vendetta” against O. J. Simpson. So many vendettas, so little time to investigate them all.
Dr. Beyler thought that he could get away with lying while under oath in the McFrugal’s litigation, but he got nailed. If I was wrong about Dr. Beyler, Dr. Beyler would have filed a libel suit against me a long time ago. You can’t file a libel suit against someone who has his facts straight.
You people posting on this site are simply amazing. Rather than argue facts, you resort to name calling and profanity and then hide behind screen names. Actually, I know more than a little about mental illness (my son has a mental illness), but the one thing I don’t do is go around making fun of people by calling them mentally ill. Mental illness is just that, an illness. People who makes fun of those who are mentally ill should be a shamed of themselves, especially when it’s done on a website such as this.
If it were not for the LAPD, Los Angeles would be in anarchy-I mean worse than it already is. Being a police officer is probably the toughest job that I can think of, except perhaps being an infantryman in the US Army or the Marines. Rather than continuously attacking the police and the criminal justice system (and this great country), you ought to thanking the police for doing such a good job keeping the citizen of Los Angeles safe. It’s easy to take “cheap shots” at the police and based upon the bias of this website, it would probably be a good bet that this is just another “cheap shot”.
Is there a website where I can contribute to the defense fund for the police officers you accused of lying? After reading the postings on this website, I feel like donating.
And not a word of profanity or abusive language in this post. If you want, you can apologize to the National Association for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) for your remarks about mental illness. You should get to know someone with a mental illness. They are actually human beings too.
Even though my son has a mental illness, I’m proud of him. It’s been almost a year since he was hospitalized and he’s doing good. It was a rough 12 months before we found out what was wrong with him and were able to get him the treatment that he needed. God doesn’t make junk.
Oh, just one last thing. Simply because the arson investigation in the Willingham case was flawed doesn’t mean that Willingham was innocent, unless the only evidence against Willingham was the arson investigation. That certainly wasn’t the case. It just means that the arson investigation was flawed. That should be obvious.
Richard Schulte
Schulte & Associates
Chicago/New Orleans
fpeschulte@aol.com
Wow, this is just weird. And, after his ridiculous insults and apparently suggesting the strange “diagnosis” of Willingham, what makes Schulte think I was joking about his unbalanced, increasingly bizarre behavior?
Also, Schulte is the one “attacking this great country” by suggesting that “all too often courts in the United States do not appear to be interested in getting to the truth.” You can’t have it every which way, asshole, just to suit your whims. That’s childish shit.
Excellent – Richard Schulte
I too have a vendetta – My vendetta is against Reg’s mom for having him and bringing the evolution of the human species to an all time low.
Mr. Schulte, I’m glad your son is getting the right help and that you’ve been able to see to it, and that he’s doing well. I understand that this is not an easy road.
Yet the generalities and judgment you dislike tossed your direction, you seem to have no trouble lobbing with abandon toward others, whether or not you, in fact, know what you’re talking about.
For instance, about the implied anti-police bias of this site—here are a couple of facts (as opposed to unsupported suppositions that happen to suit your own bias): At an event I attended this morning I had a very lively and very warm conversation with LA’s outgoing Chief of Police, Bill Bratton, during which he told me very kindly, very specifically—and, due to the nature of the event, very publicly— how much he appreciated the quality of my reporting on police matters, all through his tenure.
Then this evening, I had the happy privilege of guest lecturing for three hours—along with LA Times crime reporter, Andrew Blankstein— at the UCLA public policy class taught by LAPD First Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell, a man I hold in high regard.
So, yeah, we’re just real anti-police around here.
Who rally cares about a few lying LAPD officers?
When is Celeste going to enlighten us with her exceptional nuanced style of reporting to expose the truth on the most important current issue today?
Even Nancy Grace has made this important new story her priority, which Celeste has yet to mention. Maybe Woody can chime in with has opinion which Reg will vehemently disagree with.
Celeste we need to know WTF is up with John and Kate plus eight?
Now this is excellent reporting by the LA Times!….
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-neighborhood-treasurers8-2009oct08,0,7223018.story
“Los Angeles neighborhood councils’ cash tempts some”
poplockorone – when I start bringing up people’s mothers or making serial comments about child molestation, playground crap about who is “gay” or suggestions that one or another commenter is on crack – or better yet, refer to police and prison guards gang raping one of the other commenters – you are free to spew that dimwit characterization. Until then, shut your idiot mouth.
Schulte is demonstrating his capacity to be a jackass, from his very first comment attempting to hijack this thread for his pet peeve. Then he started denigrating me in response to a simple suggestion that we keep long tendentious dissertations on a particular aspect of the Willinghan case confined to that thread. Oh, and that maybe he was expressing his opinion as an undeniable fact. The problem you guys have, poplockorone, is that you think it’s fine to fling charges and talk trash about “liberals”, etc., but you’re too childish to handle it when you get called out on your own bullshit. Which you are a serial purveyor of.
What the hell this clown Schulte has contributed to the discussion in this thread is a mystery to me, other than showboating his own vitriol and prejudices – and an obssessive vendetta against Beyler, no matter what the posted topic at hand. If there was anything in his comments unwittingly appropriate, once he launched his screed it was appropriate that he brought up Kenneth Starr. Apparently he’s too much of a rank inhabitant of the right-wing echo chamber to catch the irony. My suggestion to Mr. Schulte, on the issue of mental illness, is that if he wants the suggestion of mental illness confined to serious discussion and the very mention causes him pain, he shouldn’t start casually flinging that charge around. Especially not when it’s linked to his nonsensical assumptions about proper behavior when someone, guilty or innocent of a crime, is facing death and what behavior he deems inappropriate in that rather dire context might suggest about…mental illness. That’s almost unutterably stupid. And yes, there are lots of stupid people wandering the planet who can’t help it – some of us may have stupid people in our families and I feel bad for most of them who are doing their best to get by. But I have nothing but contempt toward Schulte and his stupid screeds – the very same contempt he amped up in his second remarkably clueless and bitter comment. You are both welcome to go to hell.
Incidentally, since I just read Schulte’s complete second comment for the first time, since he’s intent on making a pest of himself in these comments regarding a seperate topic that was discussed rather thouroughly – including extraordinarily long paste-ups supporting his POV – I would like to point out one example of his flaming stupidity:
“Reg also appears to think that anyone who lies doesn’t really lie unless he is convicted of perjury.”
Schulte charged that “there is no doubt” that someone committed perjury. My suggestion was that if there was, in fact, “no doubt” that person would likely be convicted of perjury. Or perhaps at least charged. Certainly one might wonder why this hasn’t transpired if there is, in fact, “no doubt” as Schulte claims. Otherwise my assumption is that the charge that someone lied is an opinion. Maybe it’s an opinion backed by a lot of evidence and it might even turn out to be true, but it’s obviously an opinion beyond any doubt. Schulte, of course – while himself apparently supporting police conduct that has actually led to indictments and while suggesting that anyone who doesn’t share his blanket defense of these police, even when a prosecution is under way, is somehow tearing down the country – makes vague charges about the U.S. judicial system not even wanting to find the truth. Which apparently is a righteous, patriotic generalization, while discussion of specific prosecutions of police officers is somehow anti-American. Total lunacy. Not clinical – just creepy, shoddy, arrogant and rather flagrantly offensive.
“it’s obviously an opinon beyond any doubt” should read, of course, “it’s obviously NOT an opinion that is beyond any doubt.
Whatever Schulte wrote did nothing to impeach Gerald Hurst’s findings.
And to think that this thread started out with me trying to be civil – complimentary even – to no less than Surefire !!!
I personally took note of your turnabout civility, reg. It looked good on you. Aunt Florence used to say: “Sometimes you can get more done with honey than vinegar”. Combining them provides a cheap buzz too.
Celeste, heard the snippet of interview w/ Chf Bratton on KPCC from yesterday – since you’re credited with the photo it’s clearly the event you’re referring to. Intriguing bit of candor there: any more you want to share with us?
“Combining them provides a cheap buzz too”
And that’s why we’re here, right ?
This is you talking – asshole.
reg Says:
September 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Poppy. You’re a sick little shit. It’s even written in your “stats.†And everyone knows that prison guards are totally involved in the corruption and dysfunctionality of the prison system. Go fuck yourself.
I’m convinced that your really Idaho’s ex-Senator Larry Craig having a good time on a liberal blog. You come across like an old disgruntled perverted child molester jerk off. Basically- I hate you and I hope you die.
See Reg, if you’re going to play tough you can’t gripe when others do. Any smack talk I’ve done has come on the heels of remarks by others, the weakness demonstrated by you by throwing out what’s been said to you is juvenile. Your comments are ok and just talk and ours is supposed to be taken as something different? We can all be assholes, I can go from nice guy to asshole in a blink, you’re not immune to it either.
That being said, I have a message for Celeste. As someone who fought administration, though being staff, more times than I can remember you need to understand that getting compliments from Bratton, or any chief or any high staff member is way different than taking the side of officers at the street level from the atart of an incident instead of chiming in later about it. High staff members are basically politicians and many are no different than council persons in my book, each with their own little corner of their department.
I have a hard time with your obvious afection for gang members. Now I haven’t been here all that long but certainly haven’t seen you come down to hard on those accused of crimes.
How many street level cops whose names have been floated here, or in fact any others, have you shown “high regard” for compared to known thugs under investigation? Take the 3 cops being charged now and look at what’s been written compared to your friend the feds are investigating for much more serious crimes.
I don’t know that you’re blatantly anti-cop, but you seem to believe certain gangsters off the bat as compared to officers given that same benefit from you from the get go.
Truth be told the way you’ve written this is total b.s., unless you can show me how you’ve treated any of your gangster pals in the same way when a story broke on one of them.
Go ahead and point me in that direction, haven’t been here long and haven’t seen it yet.
poplocklorone – thanks for clearing up any confusion about your sick little soul.
Surefire – I question shit about you that’s actually in question, like whether or not you’re a bitter asshole with a nasty chip on his shoulder acquired from various occupational hazards. Maybe you are, maybe I’m being harsh. You turn to total fucking garbage in response because you don’t handle anyone pushing back on your bullshit well. You come off like a dirtbag. Although your earlier comments here showed some signs of decency and I said so.
Neither one of you are impressive as representives of the “law enforcement community.” Mostly the stereotypical shit that comes off almost like bad parody. The predictable leap into “gay” territory or crap like gang-rape is just a little too close to the surface not to warrant admittedly cheap psychologizing. If I were you guys, I’d pull my pants back up over my ass.
“everyone knows that prison guards are totally involved in the corruption and dysfunctionality of the prison system”
Absolutely true. Truer words I’ve never spoken.
Deal with it.
Incidentally, PopLocked, the line you quoted was in response to your perverse crowing about how you deserved “the best health insurance” (paid for by the public) while, in your words, “the majority of people dont.”
Get fucked with that crap.
Your type of response is exactly my point.
You have a tendency of postings reponses to people’s opinions with a bunch of disrespectful “fucks” – “fuck you” and “asshole”.
No one wants to hear your crap anymore…go find a nice place to bury hole, jump in and die.
What points Reg out as a fraud is not only his responses that are mostly laced in filth, even for just disagreeing with some ridiculous point he’s made, but his absurd take on what’s proper for a cop to say or not say.
He hasn’t got a clue to the work someone like I or pops has “put in” and to say “Neither one of you are impressive as representives of the “law enforcement community†without knowing what we’ve done in that setting shows how simple minded he truly is.
This is a message board old man, this isn’t the streets and your opinion is that of a deranged filthy fool whose all about acting out like a child and blowing others words out of proportion cause you can’t defend your own. I’ve actually never heard a bigger baby bitching about what others say with the volumes of filth you’ve put up here.
Talk about a bitter old man with a chip on his shoulder and that’s our poster boy Snitch Reg.
I represent me here Reggie, not law enforcement but what I say to you is how alot of cops feel, think Bratton or Baca wouldn’t tell you to fuck off in the same setting? Bank on that and you’ve got no standing on a thing I write till you put out what you’ve done and what group your constant filthy rants represent.
You’re a pathetic and sad old man that represents the worst in people, no surprise there, that’s how most snitches are.
Same old shit.
Incidentally Surefire – it’s not really about what’s “proper” for a cop to say. I could care less that you’ve got foul shit on your breath. It’s that your comments themselves consistently reveal a dimwit who fits every rancid stereotype. You’re weak.
As usual Snitch Reg can’t argue one point, just regurgitate filth like any other lwo life. Typical snitch, a self hater living in the cesspool of his own misdeeds. What a joke. Being a dimwit would be more than a few leaps up the ladder for your pathetic lame ass.
Nothing but an internet pussy.