‘97 Memo Cited ‘Problems’ With Perez

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.”

*

Times staff Matt Lait contributed to this story.