Rumors circulated that he had stolen a massive amount of overtime money by falsely claiming to be a witness in hundreds of cases. (Officers who write their names on the back of arrest forms are automatically subpoenaed to court as witnesses and paid overtime.)

Reaction to rumors Perez-Borroto said he was stunned by the rumors. He said he had not collected a massive amount of overtime. But he said overtime abuse was rampant in the department. Veterans, he said, schooled rookies to list fellow officers and even supervisors as witnesses so they could all go to court and earn overtime. They joked about it, he said, bragging about buying expensive cars with the extra money. "How can you nail me for something that you know has gone on here for years?" he said he thought at the time. In January 1994, he was allowed to return to work on limited duty as the investigation continued. He remained the goat. He answered phones at the front desk in plain clothes. His tires were slashed in the parking lot. He was transferred repeatedly. "His car was vandalized on several occasions, " said former Miami Police Sgt. Pete Miranda, who retired this year. "I firmly believe he was the victim of a hangman mentality. I think they threw him to the wolves, and everybody got a piece of him. And it was a great injustice because Willie was a good street policeman." Perez-Borroto eventually learned that Sgt. John Campbell had started the investigation against him. Campbell later said that a midnight shift officer complained that Perez-Borroto was listing himself as a witness in cases he had nothing to do with. Campbell spent a day checking out the tip and then referred a complaint to Internal Affairs. Eight days later, Perez-Borroto was suspended. "It is evident, even in this initial investigation, that there is serious potential wrongdoing, " Campbell wrote in a letter to Internal Affairs. Case for suspension Campbell mentioned theft and misconduct. In his letter, he cited three of Perez-Borroto's cases. Campbell stated that Perez-Borroto "collected overtime, at least twice and perhaps three times for one case that he had no participation in." That turned out to be incorrect. In a 22-month investigation, Internal Affairs Detective Jesse Kelly looked at 121 more of Perez-Borroto's cases. He presented six to prosecutors as evidence. But none of them showed that Perez-Borroto stole money. "I became aware very quickly that even if there was a theft involved, it wasn't going to be a great deal of money, " Kelly said. "Whether he made any money on these cases or not, the intent was there. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind as an investigator." But prosecutors closed the case without charges. "It would be unreasonable to expect a jury to convict Perez-Borroto of attempting to steal overtime compensation when he clearly had numerous opportunities to do so but either did not appear in court or did not put in for any overtime pay, " prosecutor Juan Antonio Gonzalez concluded. With no stolen money in evidence, the case turned into a misconduct allegation before the city's Civil Service Board. The issue: Did Perez-Borroto lie by listing himself as a witness in the arrest reports for the six cases? Chief Warshaw said Perez-Borroto lied because he was far from the crime scenes and couldn't have witnessed anything. Warshaw said this is what makes Perez-Borroto's case more serious than piggybacking, which the chief describes as more officers than necessary showing up at a scene in order to make court overtime money. Officer's side of story Perez-Borroto said he listed himself as a witness in the six cases only after defendants made statements to him while he transported them from the scene or took them into custody in the station. But Perez-Borroto admits he made a mistake: He did not write what the defendants said to him in the arrest reports, and he failed to inform the other officers in the case. Prosecutor Gonzalez said he found it "incredible" that Perez-Borroto didn't write down what he heard. But Gonzalez also said that the fact Perez-Borroto did not make money raised questions about the case against him. "Which leads you to the conclusion: One, it really wasn't a scheme and what he said was true but just incredible, " Gonzalez said. "Or two: He had just started doing it." To counter Perez-Borroto's defense, the city called in officers who said they did not know why Perez-Borroto was listed as a witness in their cases.