 |
LAPD's
Discipline System
Does the system need to change?
We've begun to hear renewed complaints about the LAPD's Discipline
System, especially in the wake of recent decisions by a police review
board overturning the opinions expressed previously by the Board
of Police Commissioners, the civilian group mandated with oversight
of the Department.
The papers, media and Commission have all weighed in, as have current
and former government officials, the ACLU and the Chief of Police,
William Bratton.
So has the community, and we've not heard the last of it ... not
by a long shot.
The principle case in question is that of an officer who fatally
shot a homeless woman, Margaret Mitchell, in 1999. The Police Commission
had decided that the action was "out of policy" and said
that the officer should be punished.
The case has always been controversial, since Mitchell was a spry
homeless woman who stood just over 5 feet tall and weighed barely
100 pounds. She was stopped by a pair of bike officers who explained
later that they'd wanted to find out if the shopping cart in her
possession had been stolen. She was killed after retrieving a screw
driver from her belongings inside the cart.
Many in the community found the incident troubling. The press ate
it up.
After a lengthy investigation, Chief Parks concluded that despite
making tactical mistakes the officer who'd fired at Mitchell had
feared for his life and thus was "in policy" ... but Jeffrey
Eglash, the Inspector General at the time, disagreed.
The Police Commission, which is charged by City Charter with making
the final policy decision, but lacks the authority to discipline
officers itself, had considerable closed session debates about the
incident. In the end it decided 3 to 2 that the officer had violated
policy.
It's reported that a civil lawsuit filed by Mitchell's family against
the city was eventually settled for $975,000.
But now, four years later, a Board of Rights, made up of two LAPD
commanding officers and one civilian, has re-reviewed the case and
decided just the opposite -- that the officer should not
be punished. In fact, he's still on the job and has been all along.
Any officer has the opportunity to have a Board of Rights review
only after the Police Commission's made its policy decision,
and it's the first time an officer and his attorney can mount a
defense.
These boards can reverse a Commission decision, but the Chief may
not impose a punishment harsher than that of a Board of Rights.
Police Commission President Rick Caruso was quoted as saying, "The
system makes no sense ... I think it should be disbanded and a new
one put in place."
Deputy Chief Michael Berkow, recently brought in to head LAPD's
Professional Standards Bureau (formerly known as Internal Affairs),
noted that discipline at LAPD is not in the hands of the Chief of
Police. According to Berkow, many other departments give their police
chief significantly more authority.
Chief of Police William Bratton agrees, and expressed his frustration
in a Letter to the Editor which appeared in the LA Times:
Power
to Discipline LAPD Officers Is Out of the Chief's Hands
Bratton
says he needs more authority, for sake of the city and the department.
by William J. Bratton
William J. Bratton is chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.
July 1, 2003
The controversial decision exonerating Los Angeles Police Department
Officer Edward Larrigan of misconduct in the fatal shooting
of Margaret Mitchell was greeted with loud cries of outrage
and a demand for accountability. My department and I were taken
to task for the decision of the three-member board of rights
panel, which decided that Larrigan had not violated departmental
policy when he shot the woman, who was mentally ill and brandishing
a screwdriver. The Los Angeles Times, among others, attacked
the decision and opined that I ought to "send the right message
to [my] officers."
The truth is I send strong messages to the men and women of
the LAPD every single day. I consistently remind them of their
sworn responsibility to serve the citizens of Los Angeles, to
enforce the law without breaking the law and of their critical
role in strengthening the quality of life in our great city.
I exhort them at every opportunity to focus on our three top
priorities: to reduce crime, fear and disorder; to implement
the consent decree properly; and to make our community safe
from terrorism.
I fully and completely accept my role as chief of police to
lead and direct the men and women under my command, even when
the decisions are unpopular or difficult. But it's important
to remember one thing: The chief of the Los Angeles Police Department
does not control discipline in the LAPD. This is a fact and
it has been this way since the 1930s.
The board of rights process, designed by then Lt. William H.
Parker, was intended to keep control over employees out of the
hands of the chief of police, who was, at that point in history
a corrupt individual.
In those days, Chief James E. Davis was beholden to then Mayor
Frank Shaw, who presided over a corrupt city, aided by his brother,
who controlled the vice squad and the sale of police promotion
exams. The disciplinary process was simply one more tool used
to maintain control over the Police Department specifically
and the city generally. Parker, who later became police chief,
campaigned successfully for passage of the charter amendment
in 1935. Ultimately, Davis was forced to resign and Shaw became
the first big-city mayor in the nation to be recalled by the
voters.
Let's be very clear: If I want to terminate or severely discipline
an employee today, the most influence I can have is to direct
that employee to a board of rights hearing. This rotating board
- made up of two command officers and a civilian - is chaired
by people I do not select, hears testimony and renders a finding
of guilty or not guilty. If a finding of guilty results, the
board imposes a penalty. The members do not consult with me,
nor am I allowed to advise them of my desires. I can only accept
the penalty or reduce it.
The board of rights process may have been created for good reasons,
but the reality today is that here I have less control over
the discipline system than I had in the other police departments
I led, and, I am told, less than any other chief in California.
As designed by Parker, the process was intended to be kept out
of the chief's control in every respect. The rules expressly
state that "no sworn member of a board of rights shall be subject
to any benefit, retaliation or adverse personnel action based
upon their findings or recommendations."
The frustration that I feel is not new. Chief Willie L. Williams
and Chief Bernard C. Parks before me suffered the same frustrations;
both met with some individual board members to "discuss" specific
board results that they did not agree with. Subsequently, some
of the command officers who had been called in complained about
intimidation.
There are clear problems with the system. But until the City
Charter is changed, it is the law of the city of Los Angeles
and the method I must follow. True reform of the disciplinary
process would require a rewrite of the board of rights system
and a citywide vote to change the charter. That is a debate
I would be pleased to be part of in my shared mission with the
Police Commission to make the LAPD the finest and most responsive
police department in the nation.
No chief executive of any governmental organization or private
company can truly control and lead his or her organization without
control over the disciplinary process.
The cold, hard reality of Los Angeles is that as chief of police,
I lack the necessary ability to control and impose discipline
on my staff. Giving the chief - a chief who is directly accountable
to civilian management - that power would help ensure the proper
delivery of the appropriate message. |
While it remains to be seen how the process of imposing discipline
might be changed there's no escaping the fact that everyone's
got an opinion, as well they should, because there's no more serious
discipline situation to consider that that which involves a fatality
after an officer involved shooting.
But the decisions officers make out in the field involving use of
deadly force are often thrust upon them without warning. No matter
how well they're trained, officers in a highly volatile situation
ultimately have little time to review a policy ... they're forced
into making life and death decisions in seconds.
And there's no question they need to be held accountable. They understand
and accept this, too, just as long as the process is fair.
Sorting out a new disciple system for LAPD may take a long term,
because all parties will want to participate. And it may well involve
a change in the City Charter.
The frustrations from every quarter are palpable, and they're not
going away.
We'll be hearing more about this, a lot more, as Los Angeles tries
to sort it all out.
|
|
