Secrecy Offered to Informers in Rampart Probe

In an effort to coax forward additional informants in the ongoing LAPD corruption probe, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Tuesday that he will offer confidentiality to police officers who witnessed their colleagues’ crimes or misconduct but failed to report the activity to their superiors.

The offer is aimed at officers who know of corrupt acts but who are reluctant to cooperate with police investigators for fear of losing their jobs because the LAPD can fire those who fail to report misconduct in a timely manner.

Garcetti said the promise of confidentiality will not be extended to officers who participated in crimes.

He said the offer was necessary to combat the LAPD’s prevalent “code of silence” and to move forward with the corruption case, which has been fueled largely by the admissions and allegations of former Officer Rafael Perez, an admitted drug thief and perjurer.

“We’re trying to get the word out,” Garcetti said. “We’ll talk to you and protect your confidentiality.”

The district attorney’s overture would allow officers who may be troubled about crimes or misconduct they have witnessed to clear their consciences without fear of certain reprisal by the department.

Garcetti’s move is sure to anger LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks, who has rejected any amnesty--however limited--for officers who failed to immediately report misconduct. Some sources interpreted the district attorney’s action as a confrontational gesture toward the chief, which the prosecutor probably would not have made if not for the deteriorating relations between their two agencies.

Garcetti said such a move was necessary, “given our quest for the truth and the extraordinary case we are faced with.”

LAPD Cmdr. David J. Kalish, the chief’s spokesman, said that he hadn’t heard about the plan but that the department does not support it.

“We would find it highly troubling if the D.A. was to withhold critical information, including the identity of officers, from the department concerning corruption or other wrongdoing,” Kalish said. “Not providing this information to the department could stymie our investigative efforts.”

Parks has told the Police Commission that he does not support making any allowances for officers who hesitate to report crimes or misconduct for whatever reason.

In a statement posted last month on the LAPD’s Web site, Parks called the idea of a one-time amnesty for violating failure-to-report regulations, as proposed in a Times editorial, ludicrous and preposterous.

“Failing to report wrongdoing can never be condoned,” the chief wrote. “Police officers take an oath that obligates them to tell the truth. . . . Temporarily loosening the rules not only sends the wrong message, but supports the code of silence and is not necessary for this investigation to uncover the truth.”

Nonetheless, the chief’s civilian bosses on the Police Commission, as part of their own probe of the Rampart scandal, said they are considering the amnesty issue as a possible way around the code of silence.

Garcetti said officers who took him up on his offer of confidentiality would be treated more like confidential informants used by the police, as opposed to witnesses who are expected to testify in court.

One LAPD officer interviewed by The Times in January confirmed many of Perez’s allegations, but has refused to provide information to authorities because he is afraid of being fired.

Detectives on the LAPD’s Rampart task force, eager to secure the officer’s cooperation, have attempted to learn his identity for weeks but without success.

At least two other officers are cooperating with investigators to varying degrees, but sources said some key witnesses in the probe have maintained their silence out of fear of the department’s disciplinary retribution.

Garcetti said another reason for the confidentiality offer is to protect the identity of officers who have cooperated with the LAPD but have complaints that their information is not being seriously pursued by investigators.

One prosecutor said that although Garcetti’s idea has merit, it also poses potentially serious problems. The lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that if prosecutors learn that a particular officer witnessed a crime or misconduct and then failed to act, the prosecutors may be required to disclose that information to attorneys defending officers involved in the alleged crime.

Peter Arenella, a law professor at UCLA, said an officer’s failure to disclose crimes and misconduct would not necessarily taint him in unrelated cases. Moreover, Arenella questioned whether Garcetti’s plan was a true departure from procedures frequently used in police misconduct investigations.

“There has always been a problem for prosecutors trying to crack the code of silence,” he said. “Promises of confidentiality and secrecy have been used in the past to elicit cooperation.”

LAPD officers who witnessed or are aware of crimes or misconduct could be invaluable to prosecutors attempting to corroborate Perez’s allegations. Even if the officers don’t serve as witnesses and testify in court, they can be useful guides to investigators attempting to sort through allegations.

The officer who spoke to The Times, for example, described a New Year’s Eve 1995 shooting in which Rampart anti-gang officers wounded two suspects who had been firing celebratory shots into the air before they allegedly opened fire on the officers without warning.

The officer interviewed by The Times said the officers involved in the shooting were “hunting” that night, and probably had not been provoked. At the time of the interview, that officer did not know that Perez was secretly telling LAPD investigators that he was at the scene of the shooting and that it was indeed unjustified and covered up. Police are now actively investigating the incident.

Since the scandal broke in September, authorities have acknowledged that building a case against allegedly rogue cops would be extremely difficult, especially without officers to corroborate Perez’s testimony.

Perez, a former anti-gang CRASH officer in the Rampart Division, is cooperating with authorities in exchange for a five-year prison sentence for stealing eight pounds of cocaine from department evidence facilities. He has alleged that LAPD officers, among other things, were involved in unjustified shootings, beatings, framing of innocent people and perjury.

To date, more than two dozen LAPD officers, including at least three sergeants, have been relieved of duty, suspended without pay, fired or have quit in connection with the scandal. More than 40 court cases have been overturned amid allegations of police misconduct.