Dalton Raid Prosecutor Hammers on Destruction : Police: Defendants wanted apartments left uninhabitable to teach gangs a lesson, lawyer says.

Fragments of dialogue, in which a Los Angeles Police Department captain allegedly instructed his troops to “level” and make “uninhabitable” four apartment units in South-Central Los Angeles, became a point of debate Wednesday as closing arguments began in the 39th and Dalton case.

“These aren’t slang words, or words with more than one meaning,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden told jurors, summing up six weeks of testimony by pointing to Capt. Thomas Elfmont’s roll-call meeting with officers just a few days before the raid. “ ‘Leveled’ never means, ‘Do a professional job.’ ”

Darden, who reeled off example after example of property destruction caused during the Aug. 1, 1988, raid by nearly 80 police officers, blamed Elfmont for orchestrating a conspiracy to destroy the four apartments at 39th Street and Dalton Avenue, a suspected gang drug-dealing center.

The raid touched off one of the most notorious officer misconduct cases in Police Department history, costing the city of Los Angeles $3.4 million in civil lawsuit settlements for damage ranging from smashed televisions to broken bedroom furniture and kitchen appliances.

Elfmont and two subordinates--Sgt. Charles (Ted) Spicer and Officer Todd B. Parrick--are being tried on misdemeanor charges of vandalism and conspiracy to commit vandalism for which each could serve up to a year in jail and pay a $1,000 fine.

“Capt. Elfmont sits here (in court) because this was his baby,” Darden said. “Capt. Elfmont wanted these locations leveled.”

Elfmont’s defense attorney, however, argued that the captain’s choice of words during the meeting with eight or nine officers was irrelevant, saying that no officers testified they were instructed to behave improperly. Several officers who took the stand recalled only snippets of Elfmont’s remarks during what attorneys characterized as a “pep talk” meeting that included typical police “tough talk.”

“Not one officer interpreted what was said (at the meeting) as an order to commit vandalism--not one,” attorney Barry Levin said, adding: “There is no case here. There never was.”

Defense attorneys have maintained that some of the damage may have been caused by officers who are not on trial, and that the three defendants were properly carrying out a legal search for narcotics. The defense is expected to continue its arguments today.

Darden, however, completed his closing statements in little more than an hour, attempting to persuade jurors that police--including the defendants--acted maliciously and unreasonably in carrying out the search, which ended with the seizure of less than an ounce of crack cocaine and less than six ounces of marijuana. Police Department Internal Affairs officers later catalogued 127 separate acts of vandalism.

“They didn’t just go there to search for narcotics--they went there to teach those people a lesson,” Darden said. “How can anyone cause . . . this kind of damage in serving a search warrant? Why destroy a toilet to rubble when there’s nobody home. . . ? Why bust out a television screen, which is a sealed compartment (where drugs could not be hidden)? Why throw a vacuum cleaner through a window?”

Darden charged that the excessive damage occurred because Elfmont and Spicer agreed the apartments should be rendered uninhabitable to gang members and instructed officers to carry out the task.

“Stereos were busted; nobody bothered to take a screwdriver and look inside,” Darden said. “That’s wrong. That’s a crime, folks. That’s proof of malice.”

Darden questioned why Parrick took an ax to a kitchen cabinet, as prosecutors allege, when the cabinet was unlocked and easily searched. “It’s not a search warrant for him,” Darden said. “It’s a destruction warrant.”