Fired Vice Officer Ordered Reinstated

Calling it a case in which the penalty did not fit the offense, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge Tuesday ordered the Police Department to reinstate a vice lieutenant who was fired for not being candid during an internal affairs probe of alleged sexual misconduct.

Lt. Ronald Williams, a 20-year department veteran, was accused last summer by the Police Department’s Board of Rights of lying to investigators and the board about allegations that he had shown sexually explicit videos to two teen-age girls in 1983.

The 45-year-old officer could not be disciplined on more serious misconduct charges because the girls apparently came forward after the one-year statute of limitations had expired.

“The penalty is simply too severe,” Judge Miriam Vogel told attorneys. “By (the department’s) imposing the ultimate penalty, it takes all meaning from the statute of limitations.”

Difference of Opinion

Although Williams’ attorney had earlier claimed that the firing of his client, who is black, was prompted by racism, Vogel said she was “really appalled” by his characterization and said it simply “added fuel to the fire.”

In ruling against the department, she explained that she did so only because the law prevented her from considering the more serious misconduct charges. Had the law allowed otherwise, Vogel said, “It wouldn’t take me 10 seconds to uphold” the firing.

But in relying on current law, the judge said she was limited to considering “only whether he made a full and accurate statement at the time of the investigation.” On the basis of that charge alone, the police board erred in firing him, she said.

From 1982 to 1986, the department dismissed no one for lying, Vogel said. The average penalty was 24 days of suspension.

“I agree . . . he wasn’t as candid as he should have been,” the judge told attorneys. “He should be disciplined for that.” In announcing her ruling, Vogel invited Deputy City Atty. David Hotchkiss, who is representing the Police Department, to file an appeal.

“If I assume the worst set of facts . . . then it breaks my heart to reach the legal decision I must,” Vogel said. “This issue is in desperate need of appellate review.”

After the hearing, Williams, flanked by his mother and other family members, said, “I feel good.”

Despite Vogel’s criticism of his rhetoric, Williams’ attorney reiterated his claim that the department’s action stemmed from racism.

“The motivation of the Police Department was to cause harm to Lt. Williams . . . because he was a black police officer,” attorney Laurence B. Labovitz said. “The judge attributes a more positive motivation to them. . . . I don’t think they’re deserving of respect.

“Why did other officers get only 24 days and they dismissed Lt. Williams?”

Labovitz said his client would be ready to return to work this morning.

Police spokesman Cmdr. William Booth indicated that Williams would not return to work pending the appeal.

“We believe that the preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that not only did he do that, but he lied about it,” Booth said. “The case will be appealed and we will wait for the appeal to see what action needs to be taken.”

Booth called it “astonishing for an attorney to suggest (that the charge of) subjecting teen-aged children to viewing hard-core pornography had anything to do with racism.”

The allegations against Williams first came to light last year when one of the girls, now 16, accused the veteran officer of fondling her several times in 1983. Police investigators looked into that allegation and the accusation concerning the pornographic films but no charges were filed both because of a lack of evidence and the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Last summer, Police Chief Daryl F. Gates fired the officer for lying and a police review panel upheld the punishment. Williams’ lawyer appealed the dismissal and earlier this year Vogel sent the matter back to the review board.