The Los Angeles Police Department is updating the information on officer-involved shootings and officer discipline posted on its website in response to a report by the inspector general for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
The report by Inspector General Max Huntsman focused on transparency issues with the sheriff's department, analyzing other agencies' practices for comparison. Huntsman noted that the LAPD posts annual use of force reports and quarterly discipline reports on its website, whereas the sheriff's department does not.
But the LAPD's information was not current, Huntsman wrote. Only the 2009 and 2010 Annual Use of Force Reports were posted, and the quarterly discipline reports stopped in 2012.
Cmdr. Andrew Smith, an LAPD spokesman, said the lapses were not intentional, and the department would be posting the latest reports.
As of midday Thursday, the quarterly discipline reports, which include the number of complaints against officers, the types of allegations and the penalties imposed, had been updated through 2013.
But no new Annual Use of Force Reports had been added. The reports list the number of officer-involved shootings, broken down by whether anyone was hit, whether the target was an animal or human and whether the discharge of the officer's weapon was intentional. They include the time each shooting took place and the area where it occurred, as well as the officer's rank and years with the department.
The LAPD website also contains the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners' use of force findings for incidents through 2013. The reports provide detailed narratives of shootings and other major force incidents.
In press releases, the LAPD routinely names officers who have shot civilians, whereas the sheriff's department does so only in response to public records requests.
Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who took office in December and was formerly a high-ranking LAPD official, said he intends to post information about deputy-involved shootings, complaints from the public and internal disciplinary action against officers on the lasd.org website. It will take some time to organize the information and figure out what details can be posted without disclosing personnel information protected by state law, he said.