Sunday
May142006
LAPD Faces 3 More Years of Scrutiny: Judge Rejects City's Request says Police Must be Supervised
Sunday, May 14, 2006 at 11:55PM
From the Los Angeles Times [HERE]
By Patrick McGreevyTimes Staff Writer
A federal judge rebuked Los Angeles Police Department officials Monday by extending for three years a consent decree that orders reforms meant to counter a decade of corruption and brutality complaints.
In a decision that caught leaders by surprise, U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess flatly rejected the city's plea that the five-year agreement — set to expire June 15 — be extended for just two years and narrowed in scope to the 30% of reforms not yet enacted.
The agreement was largely born from the Rampart Division scandal in 1999 but included elements that police critics have been calling for since the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King.
By extending all the terms of the decree, Feess effectively signaled that he did not trust the LAPD to complete the reforms without supervision by the federal court and its appointed monitor. Indeed, Feess went further than the monitor asked and openly questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department was sufficiently committed to finishing the work it began when it negotiated the original agreement after threatening to file a civil rights suit against the police.
City officials asked the judge to give them credit for achieving 70% of the 191 reforms and suggested that any renewed agreement focus only on elements still incomplete. The city noted that the administrative cost of monitoring all aspects exceeded $10 million a year and occupied 110 employees, some of whom would otherwise be deployed to more directly fight crime.
While acknowledging that the LAPD had made progress, Feess nevertheless had sharp words for the city and Justice Department officials who jointly asked for a shorter extension.
"The parties have conceded that there are material provisions with which they are not in substantial compliance," Feess said. "We are not going to achieve [full compliance] by starting to carve pieces out."
Feess was particularly upset that a key part of the reform package — a computer system known as TEAMS II and intended to track several forms of officer conduct — may not be operational until September at the earliest.
"As I think you know, TEAMS II is not just a material part of this consent decree," the judge said, "it's an essential part of this consent decree."
He said the decree requires that all of the reforms, including TEAMS II, be in place for two years before the agreement can be ended.
"I do not see any point extending it two years when we know they cannot be in substantial compliance with some terms," the judge said.
When Assistant City Atty. Carlos De La Guerra tried to argue that the scope of the decree should be limited, Feess complained that it would "take away the jurisdiction of the court."
"It seems to me that's ill-advised," the judge said.
At one point, Feess accused the city and federal prosecutors of trying to "eviscerate" a key provision of the consent decree in asking that some of the reforms be excluded from an extended decree.
"I am not going to allow that to happen," the judge said.
He also wondered why Justice Department attorneys were supporting the city's request to reduce the scope of the decree.
"I have a real question why the [Justice] Department, in my view, wants to walk away from parts of this decree," the judge said.
Patricia L. O'Beirne, a Justice Department attorney, took exception to the judge's comments.
"We take our responsibility for enforcing this decree very seriously," she told the judge. "We believe now it's most important to focus on those areas where there hasn't been compliance."
The courtroom was packed for Monday's hearing, but conspicuously absent was Police Chief William J. Bratton, who was vacationing in Europe, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was in Sacramento lobbying for the city with state legislators.
"While I am disappointed the court did not grant our request for a limited two-year extension of the consent decree, I am heartened by the court's recognition of our progress over the last five years," Villaraigosa said in a statement issued after the hearing. "Irrespective of the outcome of today's hearing, it is important to remember Los Angeles' pursuit of police reform will continue, and we will continue to work diligently to achieve full compliance during the term of the extension."
Police Commission President John Mack said the judge's decision was disappointing, especially to rank-and-file LAPD officers who worked so hard to change the department after the Rampart corruption scandal, which involved anti-gang officers who improperly beat and shot suspects and planted evidence to frame innocent people.
"While we were not thrilled with the fact that the judge did not allow us to be relieved of some elements of the consent decree, we respect the ruling of the court and we are going to fight very hard to make sure [the reforms] get done," Mack said.
Police union President Bob Baker called the three-year extension unfair and expensive, noting that the city has been paying more than $2 million annually to Kroll Inc., the firm of federal monitor Michael Cherkasky.
"There is no reason for the monitor to continue to be paid to oversee reforms that have already taken place," Baker said.
Officials said the Police Commission plans to hold a special meeting with the City Council's Public Safety Committee in the next week or so to discuss how to comply with the judge's new order.
Councilman Jack Weiss, the committee's chairman, said he would ask the council today to restore funding in the next budget to comply with provisions of the consent decree, including the installation of video cameras in police cars and the addition of staffing for the Police Commission's inspector general.
The judge's order exceeded the requests of Cherkasky and a coalition of civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, all of whom had asked for a two-year extension.
"I'm so delighted that the judge extended the consent decree for three years," said Catherine Lhamon, an ACLU attorney who testified in court Monday as an intervenor in the case. "It's so meaningful for the people who live and work and travel in Los Angeles."
Feess agreed with the ACLU in rejecting a city request that responsibility for monitoring the decree be turned over to the Police Commission's inspector general after one year.
"We have no evidence to date that the inspector general is ready to take over that function," Lhamon told the judge.
The judge said he and the federal monitor need to keep jurisdiction to make sure all the reforms are not only implemented but maintained.
"I do not believe in my working life there will be any other case as important as this case in the department or our city," Feess said. "If we can achieve the objectives of this consent decree, we will have a better Police Department and a better city in which to live."
His ruling marks the latest criticism of city officials in a generations-long struggle to impose reforms on the often-reluctant LAPD. After the Watts riots in 1965, the McCone Commission suggested a sweeping set of societal initiatives to combat poverty and address strained relations between the police and minority communities. Its recommendations were largely disregarded.
Then, in 1991, after the King beating, the Christopher Commission proposed another set of recommendations, intended to reinforce civilian control over the LAPD and to respond to the department's reputation for brutality and racism.
Some of its recommendations, such as creating a term of office for the chief, were adopted by voters in the wake of the 1992 riots. But others, including the adoption of a computerized officer tracking system, remain unfulfilled even today, and that failure is part of what led to Monday's ruling.
By Patrick McGreevyTimes Staff Writer
A federal judge rebuked Los Angeles Police Department officials Monday by extending for three years a consent decree that orders reforms meant to counter a decade of corruption and brutality complaints.
In a decision that caught leaders by surprise, U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess flatly rejected the city's plea that the five-year agreement — set to expire June 15 — be extended for just two years and narrowed in scope to the 30% of reforms not yet enacted.
The agreement was largely born from the Rampart Division scandal in 1999 but included elements that police critics have been calling for since the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King.
By extending all the terms of the decree, Feess effectively signaled that he did not trust the LAPD to complete the reforms without supervision by the federal court and its appointed monitor. Indeed, Feess went further than the monitor asked and openly questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department was sufficiently committed to finishing the work it began when it negotiated the original agreement after threatening to file a civil rights suit against the police.
City officials asked the judge to give them credit for achieving 70% of the 191 reforms and suggested that any renewed agreement focus only on elements still incomplete. The city noted that the administrative cost of monitoring all aspects exceeded $10 million a year and occupied 110 employees, some of whom would otherwise be deployed to more directly fight crime.
While acknowledging that the LAPD had made progress, Feess nevertheless had sharp words for the city and Justice Department officials who jointly asked for a shorter extension.
"The parties have conceded that there are material provisions with which they are not in substantial compliance," Feess said. "We are not going to achieve [full compliance] by starting to carve pieces out."
Feess was particularly upset that a key part of the reform package — a computer system known as TEAMS II and intended to track several forms of officer conduct — may not be operational until September at the earliest.
"As I think you know, TEAMS II is not just a material part of this consent decree," the judge said, "it's an essential part of this consent decree."
He said the decree requires that all of the reforms, including TEAMS II, be in place for two years before the agreement can be ended.
"I do not see any point extending it two years when we know they cannot be in substantial compliance with some terms," the judge said.
When Assistant City Atty. Carlos De La Guerra tried to argue that the scope of the decree should be limited, Feess complained that it would "take away the jurisdiction of the court."
"It seems to me that's ill-advised," the judge said.
At one point, Feess accused the city and federal prosecutors of trying to "eviscerate" a key provision of the consent decree in asking that some of the reforms be excluded from an extended decree.
"I am not going to allow that to happen," the judge said.
He also wondered why Justice Department attorneys were supporting the city's request to reduce the scope of the decree.
"I have a real question why the [Justice] Department, in my view, wants to walk away from parts of this decree," the judge said.
Patricia L. O'Beirne, a Justice Department attorney, took exception to the judge's comments.
"We take our responsibility for enforcing this decree very seriously," she told the judge. "We believe now it's most important to focus on those areas where there hasn't been compliance."
The courtroom was packed for Monday's hearing, but conspicuously absent was Police Chief William J. Bratton, who was vacationing in Europe, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was in Sacramento lobbying for the city with state legislators.
"While I am disappointed the court did not grant our request for a limited two-year extension of the consent decree, I am heartened by the court's recognition of our progress over the last five years," Villaraigosa said in a statement issued after the hearing. "Irrespective of the outcome of today's hearing, it is important to remember Los Angeles' pursuit of police reform will continue, and we will continue to work diligently to achieve full compliance during the term of the extension."
Police Commission President John Mack said the judge's decision was disappointing, especially to rank-and-file LAPD officers who worked so hard to change the department after the Rampart corruption scandal, which involved anti-gang officers who improperly beat and shot suspects and planted evidence to frame innocent people.
"While we were not thrilled with the fact that the judge did not allow us to be relieved of some elements of the consent decree, we respect the ruling of the court and we are going to fight very hard to make sure [the reforms] get done," Mack said.
Police union President Bob Baker called the three-year extension unfair and expensive, noting that the city has been paying more than $2 million annually to Kroll Inc., the firm of federal monitor Michael Cherkasky.
"There is no reason for the monitor to continue to be paid to oversee reforms that have already taken place," Baker said.
Officials said the Police Commission plans to hold a special meeting with the City Council's Public Safety Committee in the next week or so to discuss how to comply with the judge's new order.
Councilman Jack Weiss, the committee's chairman, said he would ask the council today to restore funding in the next budget to comply with provisions of the consent decree, including the installation of video cameras in police cars and the addition of staffing for the Police Commission's inspector general.
The judge's order exceeded the requests of Cherkasky and a coalition of civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, all of whom had asked for a two-year extension.
"I'm so delighted that the judge extended the consent decree for three years," said Catherine Lhamon, an ACLU attorney who testified in court Monday as an intervenor in the case. "It's so meaningful for the people who live and work and travel in Los Angeles."
Feess agreed with the ACLU in rejecting a city request that responsibility for monitoring the decree be turned over to the Police Commission's inspector general after one year.
"We have no evidence to date that the inspector general is ready to take over that function," Lhamon told the judge.
The judge said he and the federal monitor need to keep jurisdiction to make sure all the reforms are not only implemented but maintained.
"I do not believe in my working life there will be any other case as important as this case in the department or our city," Feess said. "If we can achieve the objectives of this consent decree, we will have a better Police Department and a better city in which to live."
His ruling marks the latest criticism of city officials in a generations-long struggle to impose reforms on the often-reluctant LAPD. After the Watts riots in 1965, the McCone Commission suggested a sweeping set of societal initiatives to combat poverty and address strained relations between the police and minority communities. Its recommendations were largely disregarded.
Then, in 1991, after the King beating, the Christopher Commission proposed another set of recommendations, intended to reinforce civilian control over the LAPD and to respond to the department's reputation for brutality and racism.
Some of its recommendations, such as creating a term of office for the chief, were adopted by voters in the wake of the 1992 riots. But others, including the adoption of a computerized officer tracking system, remain unfulfilled even today, and that failure is part of what led to Monday's ruling.
Reader Comments