L.A. POLICE MISCONDUCT LIKENED TO RACKETEERING

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 30 - Of all the ugly names the police department here has
been called since it became mired in a massive corruption scandal last
year, none may be worse than the one a federal judge invoked this week.

In a ruling that startled city officials, U.S. District Judge William J.
Rea said that the pattern of extreme misconduct shown by the LAPD suggests
that it could be considered a "criminal enterprise," subject to lawsuits
under federal anti-racketeering laws that could inflict a staggering
financial toll on Los Angeles.

The judge's decision is unprecedented, legal analysts say. After all, the
laws were enacted nearly 30 years ago to give law enforcement officials
more power to crack down on organized crime gangs involved in extortion,
bribery or obstruction of justice – not a police force.

But this force is facing extraordinary charges. In a scandal still
unfolding, officers are being investigated for allegedly orchestrating a
widespread, violent conspiracy: shooting unarmed suspects, framing others
by planting weapons or drugs on them, falsifying police reports and lying
under oath in court.

Since the scandal erupted, five officers have been charged with felonies.
About 70 more are under investigation. Nearly 100 criminal cases linked to
their actions have been thrown out, and a few people who were wrongly
convicted have been released from prison.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern
California, said the potential implications of the federal judge's decision
are enormous. In essence, he said, the LAPD could be brought to trial "for
acting like an illegal mob."

"It's a novel theory, and it could tremendously expand the scope of
liability the city could be facing," Chemerinsky said. "The racketeering
statute is one of the most powerful tools a plaintiff has because it is so
broad."

Most important, the federal law provides a 10-year statute of limitations
on racketeering crimes, which could leave the LAPD vulnerable to more
lawsuits concerning alleged misdeeds by officers and give attorneys of
alleged victims more time to prepare cases. California law provides just a
one-year statute of limitations.

The federal law also allows juries to triple damage awards to any plaintiff
they decide has been wronged.

Until now, city officials have been bracing to pay between $100 million and
$200 million to settle lawsuits stemming from the scandal. The financial
stakes suddenly could be much higher.

Today, city attorneys announced they were preparing an appeal of the
judge's ruling. "We believe this order is wrong on the law," said Mike
Qualls, a spokesman for city attorney James K. Hahn.

The corruption scandal is rooted in the police department's Rampart
Division, which covers a blighted immigrant neighborhood near downtown.
Most of the officers being investigated have been part of elite squads that
the department created to fight street gangs.

The controversy began when a former Rampart officer, Rafael Perez, began
telling investigators about police misconduct in exchange for leniency on
charges he faced for stealing cocaine from a police evidence locker. Perez
is now in prison.

The federal judge issued his ruling in a lawsuit filed against the city by
Louie Guerrero, an alleged victim of police abuse. Guerrero contends that
as he walked along a street in the Rampart neighborhood in November 1997,
officers choked, kicked and punched him, then arrested him on phony
charges. Guerrero's suit includes other plaintiffs who allege the LAPD
violated their civil rights in similar ways.

City attorneys had sought dismissal of the suit in part because the
one-year statute of limitations for suing under state law had passed. But
the judge rejected the city's motion.

Stephen Yagman, a lawyer representing Guerrero and other plaintiffs,
praised the move. He said it could be just the weapon that victims of
police abuse have long needed to force reform upon the LAPD, whose image
has been tarnished by the infamous Rodney G. King beating of 1991 and
conduct by some officers that became known during O.J. Simpson's 1994 trial.

"Now we will be able to expose up to 10 years of misconduct," Yagman said,
"and to finally clean up a rotten department that the city just won't clean
up on its own."