Officer Punished for His Alleged Miscues in Sting : Law enforcement: Sergeant is reassigned and may be fired as police investigate the handling of evidence in undercover fencing operation.

By MARK PLATTE

May 31, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

The San Diego police sergeant in charge of the department’s special investigations unit has been reassigned and may be fired for his alleged mishandling of a six-month sting in which some of the criminal cases that resulted may have been jeopardized.

Sgt. Thomas DeChandt, 43, who has been with the department 17 years, was in charge of a police fencing operation that began late last year to purchase stolen construction equipment.

Prosecution of dozens of cases resulting from the operation has been delayed until the department completes its investigation of DeChandt and other officers for a series of alleged problems related to the handling of the evidence.

“We are recommending discipline against a key supervisor in the unit,” Deputy Chief Cal Krosch said. “The bottom-line allegation is mismanagement, failing to follow well-defined procedures for handling property and (failing to follow) the proper evidentiary trail.”

Krosch said no criminal charges are to be filed against anyone connected with the operation and there was “never a hint that anything was done for personal gain.”

The deputy chief would not say who exactly is under investigation, but sources close to the case say that DeChandt was supervising the operation. Krosch said other officers were involved in the problems to a far less degree, and administrators had not yet determined whether any should be disciplined.

Like many fencing operations that the department conducts, police set up shop and made it known that they were willing to buy stolen construction equipment--from dump trucks to screwdrivers--and that no questions would be asked.

Police photographed suspects on videotape, which will be used in prosecuting the cases. Krosch said a sergeant and eight officers were involved in the investigation, which cost the department more than $300,000 in resources.

“We devoted a lot of time and manpower to an operation that we thought was good and sound,” he said. “We feel it is has been mismanaged and severely jeopardized, making some of it worthless.”

Although the department believes it has “30 good cases” to turn over to the district attorney’s office, other cases have “prosecution difficulties,” Krosch said, although he could not say how many.

Steve Casey, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said police have not yet forwarded to prosecutors any evidence in the case, and his office does not plan to pursue criminal charges against anyone in the department.

DeChandt has been reassigned from his position in the elite special investigations unit to the canine unit pending an appeal of his discipline. Administrators have recommended that he be fired, a punishment that still must be reviewed by a deputy chief before it is upheld.

Krosch said an internal affairs investigation has been completed, and he has assigned a commander to review the storefront operation and come up with ways “to keep this type of thing from happening again.”

Although he would not be specific about the allegations, Krosch said they had to do with handling the evidence, making sure it was impounded in the police property room, documenting exactly who handled the evidence and at what point it can be returned to its owner.

The charges also include violations of “internal policies and procedures and being dishonest with a supervisor, which is one of the most critical issues,” Krosch said.

An attorney who represents the Police Officers Assn. and is familiar with the allegations against DeChandt said the charges are overblown and will not be held up at the Civil Service Commission, if an appeal to a deputy chief is upheld.

“They had (DeChandt) doing 40 things at once, and, when he could only do 10 things, they accuse him of incompetence,” said attorney Everett Bobbitt. “Their own investigation is marked by incompetence.”

For example, Bobbitt said, DeChant is accused of not properly logging evidence into the police property room, even though there were no special procedures for doing so in a sting.

“I can tell you unequivocally that none of the cases were ever compromised,” he said. “I wouldn’t characterize any of this as mismanagement. Mistakes were made by all parties involved, including people up the chain of command.”

The attempt to discipline DeChandt is one of many cases, Bobbitt said, in which the department is imposing strict punishment for relatively minor violations of department policy.

Police union president Harry O. Eastus said the cases are being brought against police officers because top administrators fear the media will accuse them of being too lenient in discipline cases.

Times staff writer H.G. Reza contributed to this story.