The investigators then took Perez’s account, or some conflation of the three different accounts, and coupled them with a speculative and glaringly erroneous interpretation of police radio traffic at the time of the incident. They also speculated (wrongly) on discrepancies between the written logs completed by two police sergeants who were present. Worse still, they chose to rely on all this speculation rather than interview the very officers who might have clarified matters.
On this slender reed the investigators hung their case, concluding they had sufficient probable cause to arrest three police officers and launch them into the legal drama that has now lasted more than twelve years. I’ve often made sport of decisions from the Ninth Circuit (such an easy target at times), but in this case I can only applaud. “[T]here was substantial evidence,” said the court, “from which the jury could conclude that the Officers were arrested without probable cause.”
It’s difficult to decide which player in this spectacle is most deserving of contempt. Rafael Perez dishonored his profession and his oath, but in the end he was merely a criminal behaving as criminals do: by lying and attempting to deflect culpability on others. As chief of the LAPD at the time, Bernard Parks had a responsibility, both legal and moral, to see the matter investigated thoroughly but fairly. Instead, for the sake of covering his own posterior, he allowed his investigators to run roughshod over the rights of three honest cops. For his part, former district attorney Gil Garcetti surrendered his independent judgment and allowed his office to prosecute the three officers without a shred of credible evidence against them. And the internal-affairs investigators themselves, who, if they had been the least bit familiar with how things really work on the streets, if they had recognized the discrepancies in the radio traffic and the sergeants’ logs for the innocuous and common occurrences they were, if they had been properly skeptical of Perez’s accusations — if they had simply done their duty — might have spared the accused officers the entire ordeal.
In 2000, Gil Garcetti was voted out as district attorney and Bernard Parks was ousted from his job as chief of the LAPD, both of which events were cheered by rank-and-file police officers. Parks went on to win a seat on the L.A. city council, where to this day he revels in putting his thumb in the eye of the man who replaced him, current Chief William Bratton. To my knowledge, the involved investigators suffered no consequences at all, except of course for the continuing scorn of their colleagues.
The three vindicated officers, Paul Harper, Brian Liddy, and Edward Ortiz, were each awarded $5 million by the federal-court jury in 2006, an award that has now been upheld by the Ninth Circuit. They deserve every penny of it, and shame on those who ran up the tab.
— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. “Jack Dunphy” is the author's nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.< Back 1 2 
