As the Los Angeles Police Department is embroiled in the worst scandal of its history, dozens of criminal cases have been overturned and it is likely that hundreds more will be affected before the issues are resolved. Confidence in the Department has been severely damaged, and there is a significant exodus of quality employees. There have even been suggestions that the entire City of Los Angeles may face bankruptcy in the onslaught of civil cases that are being filed against it.

The base causes of corruption are as varied as its consequences. It would be foolish to be so simplistic as to say that anyone action could have prevented the pervasive corruption now being dealt with by the LAPD, but it IS possible that effective property room policy could have prevented the incident that brought it to the headlines. As you read the following three articles, consider the impact that would have been made if the LAPD property room policy and procedures had been based on accountability rather than "convenience." Would your property room policy allow such opportunity?
 

Daily News, Los Angeles, CA, Feb. 27, 2000
Sloppy LAPD evidence rules led to coke theft
By Greg Gittrich and Beth Barrett, Staff Writers

Donning a 99-cent-store disguise, dirty cop Rafael Perez nonchalantly stole cocaine from an LAPD evidence room for several months without arousing suspicion, only to be caught because of his own carelessness and arrogance, the Daily News has learned.

Perez made one severe error in March 1998, following his largest narcotics heist-he failed to replace the dope he had taken with household flour as he had done in the past. According to confidential transcripts of Perez's testimony to investigators and several sources close to the corruption investigation, Perez had used the flour scam at least three times before, eventually stealing a total of about $1 million worth of cocaine from the Los Angeles Police Department.

Shortly after Perez's arrest in August 1998, the LAPD overhauled its policies governing access to evidence. Cops are no longer permitted to remove narcotics, guns or money from evidence lockers, said Lt. Sharyn Buck, department spokeswoman. "We now only let them take photographs of evidence."

Before the changes were made, LAPD officials-like those in many other police jurisdictions allowed all materials to be signed in and out through a flawed "honor system," according to sworn statements by Perez and investigators interviewed by the Daily News. "1 could have been anybody," Perez recalled in his first interview with investigators last September. "1 could have sent a civilian in there .... They don't check LD. Anybody can walk in there. 1 can get a halfway respectable-looking person, put a badge around his neck and tell him to go check it out. And they're gonna give it to him."

A high-ranking source close to the widening LAPD corruption probe said preliminary reviews of the department's former chain-of-custody procedures confirm Perez's bluster. "It was on the honor system," the source said. "It was for the convenience of the officers going to court."

Perez, who agreed to become an informant in exchange for a lighter sentence for stealing the cocaine, was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for the March 1998 heist, in which he scammed the department out of eight pounds of cocaine. After being credited with time in custody, he is likely to be released within 10 to 16 months.

The disguise

Perez has told investigators he began stealing dope from the Rampart Division evidence room in December 1997. At the time, a "courier system" allowed cops to sign out drugs and other cataloged evidence for use in court cases. Following the proceedings, the officer returned the materials to the evidence room and received a receipt.

For the most part, the narcotics-which had been tested when initially booked as evidence were not retested after officers came back from court, sources said. Perez tended to request cocaine that was scheduled to be destroyed in the near future because department policy only required random samplings of drugs prior to their destruction, said an investigator who asked not to be named.

In addition, Perez reduced the likelihood that anyone would pick up on his thefts by writing other cops' names on the evidence room sign-out sheet and wearing a low-budget disguise, official documents reveal. He told investigators his typical getup featured "Coke bottle glasses," a "really big jacket" and a baseball cap pulled tightly over his head. During the March 2, 1998, theft, Perez even left his badge at home, using only the badge holder to gain entrance into the evidence room, confidential transcripts obtained by the Daily News show.

After getting dressed up, Perez said, he would sign out the drugs, stash the dope at a remote location, and then stuff the evidence containers with flour and return them to be destroyed. The clerks in charge of the evidence room never checked to see whether the drugs were needed in court. Shortly after Perez's scam was discovered in mid-March 1998, bags of flour were found in the evidence room, sources said.

Upon hearing the details of Perez's scheme, Deputy District Attorney Richard Rosenthal made an unusual observation during an interview session with the ex-cop last December. "I don't necessarily want to say brilliant," Rosenthal said, "but (this) was an excellent idea, if you're going to do something like that."

'Righteous dope'

Perez, however, was not by any measure a master thief. During his first few thefts, Perez said he meticulously weighed the flour and cocaine to avoid detection, then grew impatient and "sort of just guess-timated." Perez also refused to settle for just any cocaine and sought out the best dope being held in the evidence room. "It was dope that I was either familiar with or had some involvement with," he told investigators. "And I knew that it was going to be righteous dope."

Believing he would never get caught, Perez said, he failed to switch the drugs with flour twice. "I said there's no way they would ever find out," he testified. "I mean, if you really think about it ... who would have ever known?" On one occasion, Perez admitted, he got a bit spooked, and burned the container he stole from the evidence room, making it impossible to replace the cocaine with flour. No one noticed.

The second slip-up involved his March 1998 theft, which was a much bigger operation. Perez told investigators he spent so much energy trying to figure out how to sign out the eight pounds of cocaine that he didn't think about how he would get the flour back into the evidence room. "That was absolutely an impulsive thing," he said. "It was just something that like, wow, I can do this. I didn't think about returning it."

The bogus name Perez used that day also led directly back to him. He used the badge number for another Officer Perez, sources close to the 1998 investigation said. When that officer was cleared, a full investigation was launched that led back to Perez. He was arrested in August 1998 and investigators eventually learned that he had given the missing dope to the mother of one of his unauthorized informants, who also happened to be one of his girlfriends. The mother was tired of using her family members as suppliers; she felt she wasn't making enough money, Perez said.

Not unusual

Policies like the LAPD's new, stricter guidelines governing access to evidence are increasingly common, said Dave Sylstra, a senior consultant to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Law enforcement departments across the state have abandoned the practice of letting officers sign out narcotics evidence from property rooms for use during courtroom testimony. "Money, dope and guns are the three things that typically get people in trouble," Sylstra added.

Still, the LAPD's former practice of trusting officers with evidence is not unusual statewide, with some prosecutors and judges requiring that the actual evidence be presented in court. "There is a presumption that if you book it and take custody of it, you will maintain the chain of custody and properly handle it," Sylstra said. Each law enforcement agency in the state is responsible for setting its own standards to ensure the chain of custody is maintained.

The fallout

Since Perez began talking to investigators last September, he has alleged that he and other cops shot and brutally assaulted gang members, framed innocent people, and lied in court to win convictions. The LAPD has had no greater corruption scandal in its history. The FBI officially entered the police corruption investigation last week at the request of LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks.

Investigators initially thought the corruption involved misconduct only within Perez's former anti-gang unit in the Rampart Division, but recently have widened the scope of the probe to include other divisions. To date, the investigation has resulted in the suspension or dismissal of 20 cops and the reversal of 40 criminal convictions. At least 15 civil lawsuits have been filed against the city, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and an increasingly public rift has developed between Parks and District Attorney Gil Garcetti, with the chief and Mayor Richard Riordan pushing prosecutors to file charges against dirty cops.

While Perez failed a polygraph test, Parks has said 50 detectives working across the country have substantiated enough of his story to request that the convictions of 99 defendants be overturned. Thousands of other cases are being reviewed. A special LAPD Board of Inquiry, set up by Parks, is expected to release next week the findings of its investigation into the management and policy failures that allowed the rampant corruption to occur and go unnoticed for at least three years. The board's report is expected to call for sweeping changes in the Department.

Daily News, Los Angeles, CA, Feb. 27, 2000
LAPD's corruption woes may affect juries for years
By Beth Barrett & Greg Gittrich, Staff Writers

The ease with which dirty cop Rafael Perez mishandled evidence in the LAPD' s chain of custody is likely to taint the opinions of potential jurors for years to come, several legal experts said. Raising the stakes even more, defense attorneys are expected to seize on the Los Angeles Police Department's lax oversight of evidence before new policies were implemented in 1998, and file a deluge of motions challenging the validity of materials entered into evidence.

"I think that the practical effect of this being known by future jurors is to make more credible defense arguments challenging the chain of custody of evidence," said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who agreed last week to conduct an independent review of the LAPD corruption scandal at the request of the police union. "Now that everyone knows how easy it was for an officer to tamper with or steal evidence, it will resonate with some jurors. They are going to remember what they heard." Chemerinsky predicted that Perez's admitted crimes will prompt jurors to give greater credence to evidence-tampering theories, as well as to arguments that suspects were framed by cops.

Laurie Levenson, dean of Loyola Law School, agreed, adding it also "opens up the possibility that defense attorneys will exploit" the jurors' impressions. "Customarily, defense attorneys don't even go into that area. It is normally very difficult to challenge the chain of custody of evidence." Still, Levenson said, she's not convinced the argument will get defense attorneys very far with judges. "This opens everything up for some attacks about the chain of custody. Whether they're fruitful or not we will have to wait and see."

When Perez stole cocaine from the LAPD evidence room between December 1997 and March 1998, department policies permitted cops to sign out narcotics for use during court testimony. The LAPD adopted more stringent rules in late 1998, four months after Perez was arrested. The new regulations require officers to use only color photographs of narcotics, rather than removing the drugs from evidence rooms.

Explaining the new policy in a Dec. 23, 1998, order, LAPD officials contended the department made the changes because narcotics are a "hazardous material" that should not be allowed in court. A source close to the widening LAPD corruption investigation brushed off that rationale, saying: "It was done because of Perez."

The Herald-Sun (Durham, N.C), Feb. 24, 2000
FBI agents enter Los Angeles police corruption probe

The FBI entered the city's ongoing police corruption investigation Wednesday at the request of Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. Twenty police officers have been suspended and 40 criminal convictions have been reversed since a former anti-gang officer accused of stealing cocaine from an evidence locker began telling prosecutors about fellow officers framing innocent people, lying in court and attacking suspects. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office is looking into as many as 3,000 criminal convictions that may have been tainted by police misconduct. Six FBI agents will work with police and the district attorney to investigate the allegations and decide whether to seek state or federal prosecutions.