Los Angeles Police Department Detective Ronald E. Hodges testified under oath that Deputy District Attorneys from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office instructed officers that if there was another way to explain the arrest of a suspect whose call was intercepted, there would "independent probable cause" and "the wiretap would not need to be disclosed." (R.T. 12-12-97, p. 18:5-25; 31:11-20.)
Los Angeles Police Officers testified that protocol for the hand-off procedure was as follows:
As a wiretap was established and placed in operation, a supervising officer would instruct the officers in the "wire room" who were intercepting communications to advise him of any meet locations or other specific information mentioned in the conversations intercepted which could be used to locate suspects. (R.T. 1-23-98, p. 11:12-15.)
As incriminating information regarding an offense was intercepted through the wiretap, the information was disclosed by officers in the "wire room" to the supervising officer who was in constant contact with the "wire room" throughout each day of electronic surveillance. (R.T. 12-15-97, p. 3:10-25; R.T. 12-16-97, p.17:24-27; 25:14-17; R.T. 12-12-97, p. 17:4-19.)
The supervising officer would thereafter disclose that information to another officer under his command, without expressly telling the recipient officer that the information was obtained from a wiretap. (R.T. 12-12-97, p. 17:4-19; R.T. 12-15-97, p. 3:10-25; R.T. 12-16-97, p.17:24-27; 25:14-17.)
Detailed information obtained from the wiretap, such as a specific address, location, person, vehicle, and/or chain of events, was disclosed by the supervising officer to the recipient officer, who would not have otherwise known of any criminal activity or had reason to suspect such persons were engaged in criminal activity, and who was then ordered to "conduct a surveillance" at such location or on such suspect. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 31:21-25; R.T. 12-16-97, p.29:20-24; 45:1-4.)
When informed they were "getting a hand-off," or simply given the information and told to conduct a surveillance, officers understood the term or procedure to mean that information was obtained from a wiretap and they were expected to conduct the investigation without mentioning that fact. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 23:13-16; 24:9-10; 25:1-12; 30:11-22.)
Recipient officers knew from training by the District Attorney's Office that their job was take the information and watch what they were told to watch to see if they could come up with probable cause to make an arrest without having to mention the existence of a wiretap. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. p.20:10-21; 31:11:20.)
In fact, at different times the officers would switch roles, the recipient officer knowingly obtaining wiretap information and "handing-off" the information without revealing its source to the same officer. (R.T. 12-12-97.)
When an officer was later advised or became aware that information was obtained from a wiretap, that fact would not be included in police reports. (R.T. 12-12-97, p. 6:10-28; 7:4-22; 11:20-12:3.).) This practice had led to a general understanding by police officers that they were not to divulge to defendants the existence of a wiretap. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 22:15-19; 23:3-6.) Never advised otherwise, officers would neither include such fact in a report if known nor write a supplemental or amended report after discovering that the initial information upon which the surveillance was obtained from a wiretap. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 9:19-26; 32:28-33:20.)
"Hand-offs" are not considered by the Los Angeles Police Department as anything "unusual," but simply a "type and style" of "normal" investigations for the Los Angeles Police Department. (R.T. p. 12-12-97, p. 6:10-28; 31:11-16.) In fact, a single Los Angeles Police Department officer admitted that he alone was involved in literally "hundreds" of hand-off cases. (R.T. 1-23-98, p. 42:7-11.)
The information regarding "hand-off" cases are sometimes contained in the Sergeants' Daily Reports, logs, "Trend Reports," activity reports, or 72 hour reports, and at times reflect that a particular "call led to the arrest of" certain individuals with case numbers included. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 93:3-95:26; p.97:5-10; p.98:21-100:16; R.T. 12-15-97, p. 3:10-25; R.T. 12-16-97, p.3:9-15.) These reports go to commanding officers and the District Attorney's Office for safe-keeping or are submitted to the court. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 93:3-95:26; p.97:5-10; p.98:21-100:16; R.T. 12-15-97, p. 3:10-25; R.T. 12-16-97, p.3:9-15.) Despite the fact that the District Attorney's Office is aware of the use of evidence derived from a wiretap, defendants are not given notice that evidence introduced against them was derived from communications intercepted by the use of a wiretap. (R. T. 7-11-97, p. 5:7-11; 8:25-9:5.) This is so despite the fact both L.A.P.D. Officers and Deputy District Attorneys admit that the information obtained from these intercepted calls lead directly to arrests and seizures which "wouldn't have happened without" the wiretap information. (R. T. 12-12-97, p. 98:4-10; p.98:21-100:16 100:1-28; 102:24-103:7.)