Playing Favorites

Sgt. Will Manion and officer Patrick D'Arrigo are veteran but very different San Jose cops: Manion, a former homicide investigator, was once a rising star, an easy shot to be captain. D'Arrigo is a cop's cop, content to stay an officer but no one's fool.

Today they're joined in an unusual purgatory: They're both on administrative leave as District Attorney Dolores Carr reviews whether they should be charged with trying to cover up the drunken driving of an ex-cop last March.

You can understand why the DA might want to look at the case: The errant former cop, Sandra Woodall, had crashed into two cars. She had sworn at officers. And a paramedic and an EMT said she reeked of alcohol. Despite all that, she was not asked to take a Breathalyzer or blood test. She wasn't asked whether she had been drinking.

Manion and D'Arrigo, who were among four officers at the scene, did not handle the affair well. They should face an administrative penalty, probably a suspension, if for no other reason than the episode has brought shame on the department. But they're guilty of no crime. This should be easy for the DA: Let the criminal case drop and turn the matter back to Police Chief Rob Davis.

I say that for two reasons. The first is practical. The DA has no chance of getting a conviction on this case. The second reason is one of equity. A criminal charge would simply be overkill in the Department of Second Guessing.

Since this story broke, I've made fun of the "egg roll'' theory of the accident, a police version that suggested that the crash was caused because Woodall was distracted by dipping her Jack-in-the-Box egg rolls into ranch dressing as she barreled along in her Cadillac Escalade.

It's one thing, however, to question how the cops handled an accident that involved one of their own. It's another entirely to say they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of obstructing justice.

"With lavish doses of hindsight, would everyone have covered themselves better if they had said, 'We better get a tech out here and put a needle in her arm when the opportunity allows?'"‰'' asked Craig Brown, the two cops' attorney. "Yes, sure. But evil and sinister motives? Trying to obstruct justice? I don't think so.''

During the past three years, I've covered two big cases in which cops were accused of misconduct. One involved two Palo Alto cops charged with roughing up a black man; the second involved a state drug officer who fatally shot a fleeing man in the back. The first ended with an infraction, the second with an acquittal.

It's no accident that both those cases were defended by Brown, who knows his turf well. Juries find it hard to convict cops, even when the evidence is against them.

In this case, the evidence is mixed. Brown says the other officers at the scene have told investigators that they saw no evidence of alcohol. The paramedic and EMT disagree. Now you can conclude that this is simply a case of officers closing ranks for one another. But there's another reason why this shouldn't be criminal. It's too unfair a penalty.

Every cop makes dozens of decisions during the day — to arrest this person, to let another go. The prospect of rewarding bad judgment with a jail term would make the job almost impossible.

Yes, Manion and D'Arrigo made mistakes at the scene. And maybe they gave subtle preference to one of their own (Woodall is now an investigator with the DA's office).

But the two cops, and particularly Manion, have paid a price for those mistakes in their careers. The path to captain looks pretty distant now.

Both still have much to offer the city. Call off the dogs, give them a suspension, and get them back to work