2 Rampart Officers Face Accusations

Prosecutors and police have accused two prominent figures from the LAPD Rampart corruption scandal of wrongdoing in separate incidents, officials said Tuesday.

Former Officer Michael Buchanan is expected to surrender today on felony charges of perjury and creating a fake police identification card so that he could become a security guard.

Meanwhile, a Los Angeles Police Department panel has recommended that Police Chief William J. Bratton fire Sgt. Brian Liddy for alleged misconduct in relation to a narcotics arrest.

Buchanan and Liddy were among a group of officers in the Rampart Division accused in the late 1990s of various crimes, including framing suspects and filing false police reports.

The three were convicted in 2000 of conspiracy for falsely claiming that they were hit by a truck driven by gang members in a Los Feliz alley. The judge, however, overturned the verdict after learning that jurors misunderstood a police report. Last year, the district attorney opted not to retry the case.

Buchanan was fired in May 2004, according to the LAPD. He was charged Thursday with the two felony counts and a misdemeanor charge of falsifying a security guard application, a district attorney’s spokeswoman said.

Buchanan is accused of perjury for allegedly stating that he was an active-duty police officer on the license application and submitting what prosecutors said was a false police identification with a fake city seal.

Harland Braun, Buchanan’s criminal attorney, said his client would surrender today. But he contends that the case is an effort to retaliate against Buchanan, who has joined other Rampart officers suing the city for alleged mistreatment.

“They are trying to dirty up Mr. Buchanan in front of that trial,” Braun said. “It is worse than a family feud when the department comes after one of its own.”

Braun denied that his client forged documents. Rather, he said, the identification Buchanan submitted to the state was a replacement issued to him after he lost the original.

Braun said Buchanan was never interviewed during the crime investigation. “They called up right before Christmas and said there is a warrant out for his arrest,” he said. “It made for a nice Christmas for him,” he added sarcastically.

The district attorney’s office insisted that the charges against Buchanan have no connection to his suit against the city.

LAPD officials point out that Buchanan’s badge, gun and police identification were confiscated in 1999 -- three years before he submitted an identification for the security license.

Liddy is also suing the department for the way he says it mistreated him during the Rampart scandal.

Liddy remains on the force but has been on unpaid suspension for about five years, his attorney said.

Now the LAPD is moving to fire him based on a June 1999 arrest he made. LAPD officials would not say why a Board of Rights has recommended the firing. Deputy Chief Michael Berkow said a written statement of the board’s view would not be available until Bratton makes a decision

Liddy’s attorney said the case involves questions about whether a suspect his client arrested on suspicion of having narcotics in his jacket actually admitted that the jacket was his.

Paul DePasquale, Liddy’s attorney during the Board of Rights hearing, said the panel seemed predisposed against his client. He described Liddy as one of the “best and smartest policeman around.”

Joseph Y. Avrahamy, Liddy’s attorney in the civil suit, said it is “too coincidental” that the Board of Rights made its decision just before Liddy’s case against the LAPD comes to trial.

“They are retaliating against [Liddy] to prejudice him in the civil trial,” Avrahamy said.

The actions against Buchanan and Liddy come seven years after then-Officer Rafael Perez told investigators that corruption and brutality had become common in the Rampart Division.

Perez told investigators that the officers made up the 1996 story about being hit by the truck after he was caught stealing cocaine from an evidence room.

The subsequent investigations led to federal monitoring of the LAPD. The department hoped to comply with a federal judge’s order and have the monitoring lifted in 2006. But department officials said recently that they expect the monitoring to continue because the LAPD won’t fully be in compliance with the consent decree.