'97 MEMO CITED 'PROBLEMS' WITH PEREZ

Rampart: Deputy D.A.'s warning about scandal's central figure contradicts
chief's claims that prosecutors did not tell police about concerns.

A supervisor in the Los Angeles Police Department's scandal-plagued Rampart
Division was aware of "problems" with then-Officer Rafael Perez as early as
June 1997, more than a year before Perez was arrested for stealing six
pounds of cocaine from LAPD evidence facilities, according to a document
obtained by The Times.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Kraut, who successfully sought to have a drug
case he was prosecuting dropped because he thought Perez was lying, informed
a supervising detective at the Rampart station about his decision, according
to a copy of the document, commonly referred to as the "Kraut memo."

"[Det.] Wessel from Rampart CRASH tells me [it is] fine to dismiss due [to]
officer credibility and also informs me that he knows of problems with
Perez," according to a handwritten note accompanying the June 19, 1997,
report.

The specific contents of Kraut's report, made public for the first time,
contradict allegations by LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks that prosecutors
failed to advise police of early warning signs that Perez was a problem
officer. Indeed, Parks and other police officials have seized on recent news
reports about the existence of the memo, saying that if the LAPD had been
alerted in 1997, Perez's admitted crimes and misconduct might have been
detected much sooner. "Clearly, had we known that these issues were of
concern to the D.A. . . . we certainly would have been able to remove
[Perez] from the field and investigate it thoroughly and come to a
conclusion," the chief told reporters Tuesday.

"It's my belief that anything that happened after June '97, we would have
had a much better opportunity to address it," Parks said. "Much of the
cocaine theft occurred in '98 until August, when we arrested him." Had the
department known, he said, "we think we would not be confronting this."

After his trial ended in a hung jury, Perez agreed to a plea bargain giving
him a five-year sentence on the drug theft charges in exchange for his help
exposing corruption in the LAPD. Since he started talking in September, his
revelations have triggered the worst police corruption scandal in city
history.

The existence of the Kraut memo and its potential ramifications have been
reported in print and television media since the scandal broke, including a
lengthy article in the Daily Journal legal newspaper. Recently, it has
surfaced as a campaign issue in the race for district attorney.

But sources in the district attorney's office and even in the LAPD have
conceded privately for months that the memo was more a red herring than a
smoking gun.

The memo is not entirely conclusive. At issue was who Perez was partnered
with on the day he arrested Ubaldo Gutierrez, a Temple Street gang member.
Kraut felt that LAPD logs contradicted Perez's testimony about who his
partner was on that day, sources said. The prosecutor concluded that Perez
was lying and asked that the case be dismissed. The judge granted the
request.

According to sources, Kraut provided his supervisor with a copy of the memo,
but that supervisor failed to officially inform the LAPD, largely because
Kraut already had informed a police supervisor in the Rampart Division.

According to sources, regardless of the manner in which Kraut's concerns
were relayed to the department, there was insufficient evidence to show that
Perez had lied in the case.

In fact, when the LAPD was told once again of Kraut's concerns shortly after
Perez was arrested in August 1998, a joint investigation by the Police
Department and the district attorney's office found that there was not
enough evidence that Perez had committed perjury in the Gutierrez case to
use it against him in court.

Moreover, in his report, Kraut criticized Perez, but wrote that he had
worked with Perez's partner, Nino Durden, in the past and found him
"exceptionally credible."

Perez has since implicated Durden in a wide array of crimes and misconduct,
and insists it was Durden who first suggested the two police partners become
partners in crime.

Perez, after entering into a plea bargain this fall, admitted he had framed
Gutierrez.

"Before that," one source said, "there was nothing proving he had done
anything wrong."