Political Activist Zinzun Awarded $512,500 to Settle Suit With City : Police: Former Pasadena City Council candidate claimed he was defamed by LAPD official who released information about him.

Activist Michael Zinzun won $512,500 Wednesday from the city of Los Angeles to settle his claim that he was defamed and lost a bid for the Pasadena City Council when a top Los Angeles Police Department official improperly released information about him.

The payment ends a 5-year-old case in which Zinzun said he was defamed by former Assistant Police Chief Robert Vernon, who used an LAPD computer to obtain information about him.

Zinzun, chairman of a group called the Coalition Against Police Abuse, had contended that the release of the information was particularly damaging because it was described in news accounts as having come from the department’s Anti-Terrorist Division.

The award, unanimously approved by the City Council, is the third major legal victory for Zinzun.

In 1983, the LAPD disbanded its Public Disorder Intelligence Division after a suit by Zinzun and others. That case also resulted in a $1.8-million payment in which Zinzun said he shared. He later won a $1.2-million settlement from Pasadena over a 1986 encounter with police that left him blind in one eye.

Zinzun noted that those cases were pending while he made other unsuccessful attempts at elected office. “If I need any more money, I will just run for office again,” he joked.

He said he hopes the approval of the latest cash award will encourage the Police Department to keep its hands out of political activities.

“I hope this will be a strong message that if police continue to maintain an us-against-them attitude, then the city will continue to pay the bill,” Zinzun said.

Vernon had maintained at the trial that he only used the department’s computer to obtain the newspaper articles and then gave them to his neighbor, former Pasadena Mayor John Crowley.

Zinzun said the damage had been done when The Times and other publications reported that the information was from the Police Department’s Anti-Terrorist Division. “It made people say, ‘We are not going to vote for a terrorist.’ It created suspicion.”

Later reports in The Times corrected the initial account and reported that Vernon had only retrieved newspaper clippings from a department computer.

Zinzun, a onetime Black Panther, said the payment from the city “doesn’t make up for the fact that they chose to violate my civil rights in the middle of my campaign.”

He said he does not know how much of his award will go to his attorneys, but he will use the remainder to help support his family and bolster causes in which he believes.

Zinzun has been an activist on several issues including police use of force and the creation of truces between rival gangs. He has not run for office since his 1989 loss to Chris Holden in the Pasadena race.

The Zinzun lawsuit took a tortuous route to its final resolution.

A settlement had been reached before trial that would have paid him $450,000, but that was rejected by the City Council.

A jury in 1991 awarded a $3.8-million verdict against the city and added $10,000 in punitive damages against Vernon. Some jurors said they were distrustful of Vernon, then the department’s No. 2 man, and of former Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, who also testified in the trial.

The judge overturned that decision, saying it lacked merit. But settlement negotiations were reopened when Zinzun appealed.

The agreement reached Wednesday clears Vernon of liability. He could not be reached for comment.

Deputy City Atty. Mary Thornton House said the city agreed to the payment to avoid the possibility of an even larger loss if Zinzun’s appeal succeeded.

“There are no guarantees as to the outcome of a second trial if the plaintiff prevailed on appeal, especially with knowledge that one jury already went for a multimillion verdict,” House said.

But Anne Richardson, one of Zinzun’s attorneys, criticized the City Council for rejecting the smaller settlement at the start of the case.

“They could have saved all the money they spent in trying the case if they had settled back then,” Richardson said. “They clearly have a very difficult time in seeing what’s best for all concerned and fail to accept responsibility.”