Key Period Begins in Reform of LAPD

The Los Angeles Police Department enters a critical stage Tuesday in its pursuit of reform after the Rampart corruption scandal, as it begins the two years in which it must show “substantial compliance” with scores of federally mandated changes.

Despite recent criticism by U.S. District Judge Garry A. Feess about a lack of progress, he is expected to look at the “totality of the circumstances” in deciding whether to end or extend the consent decree, said Michael Cherkasky, assigned by the judge to monitor LAPD progress.

“Substantial compliance is not a mathematical formula or a date certain, it’s about how long it takes for a complaint to be reviewed, what’s the attitude toward civilian complaints, how thoroughly are the use-of-force incidents being investigated,” Cherkasky said.

Even if there were some failures over the next two years, the LAPD could still meet the overall goal, he said, so long as the sum and substance of broad-based, meaningful reform were achieved.

“We want to get to a point where the principles and the spirit behind the consent decree doesn’t end when the monitor or the judge says it ends,” said LAPD Inspector General Andre Birotte. “We want to have it embedded in the fabric of the department.”

At a news conference today at the Museum of Tolerance, Mayor James K. Hahn and Police Chief William J. Bratton will discuss compliance issues and what they hope will be the final two years of federal oversight.

Federal officials forced the department to enter into the reforms after the U.S. Department of Justice found a pattern of violations of the civil rights of Los Angeles residents.

The court mandate followed the Rampart corruption scandal, in which former officer Rafael Perez told authorities that he and other officers had routinely falsified evidence, framed suspects and covered up unjustifiable shootings.

Under the terms of the decree, imposed in 2001, the LAPD has until June 15, 2006, to have shown two years of substantial compliance with the reforms concerning response to civilian complaints, collection of data, investigation into use-of-force incidents involving officers and supervision of undercover officers.

Progress toward compliance, or lack of it, has been at the heart of local policing, and of local politics.

Before he was chosen chief by Hahn in October 2002, Bratton helped monitor the LAPD’s compliance for the federal government. He replaced former chief and now City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who was criticized as being slow to embrace the reforms.

Parks, who was chief when the consent decree was imposed, expressed doubts that those responsible for oversight of the department would suddenly judge it on long-term issues rather than its ability to comply with the nearly 200 provisions required in the decree. In signing the consent decree, the city allowed the department to be subjected to an open-ended and possibly unending process, Parks said.

Bratton tapped Gerald Chaleff, a well-known attorney who helped negotiate the consent decree as president of the Police Commission, to report directly to him on compliance.

Over 20 months, Bratton has changed the way officer-involved shootings are investigated, increased the size of the audit division, created a special bureau to coordinate anti-gang strategies and instituted inspections to gather the most up-to-date information on consent decree compliance across the department -- all major changes in line with the court order.

Chaleff issued an upbeat assessment of the LAPD’s efforts to abide by the decree during his most recent quarterly report to the Police Commission, finding the LAPD in compliance with 118 of 152 provisions. Chaleff said the department had achieved a compliance rate of 80% or more on 16 other provisions.

Whether the magic level of “substantial compliance” is achieved will not be mechanistically determined, Chaleff said.

“We will be judged as to whether we have achieved substantial compliance with the material terms, objectives and intent of the consent decree,” he said.

“The intent of the consent decree is to bring about reforms at the LAPD that promote the best policing practices and ensure improved relationships with diverse communities of Los Angeles,” Chaleff said. “We are accomplishing that, and it’s not a mere mathematical formula.”

But how well the LAPD moves toward compliance remains a matter of details. In his latest quarterly report, Cherkasky in part faulted the department’s inability to implement a computerized risk-management system, a problem he said might require extension of the decree.

He also scolded the department’s Critical Incident Investigation Division, which looks into officer-involved shootings, for continued shortcomings in the handling of major use-of-force incidents.

Inspector General Birotte, whose office investigates incidents and concerns -- from officer-involved shootings and confidential informant files to gang-related statistics and arrest procedures -- said he lacked the staff to thoroughly monitor the LAPD and institute reforms dictated by the decree.

Judge Feess, in his first public comments on the decree since it was imposed three years ago, criticized the department May 19 as unable to implement the centralized computer system for tracking officer misconduct. He asked pointedly, “Why are we so far behind?”

Police union President Bob Baker complained that officers were being “nickeled and dimed” for minor oversights despite their best efforts to fight crime and fully comply with the decree.

“It’s like saying, ‘Everything has to be perfect,’ but nothing in the world is perfect,” said Baker, complaining that the LAPD was focusing on the numbers rather than broader reform issues.

Bratton said that he understood the frustration of the rank and file but that it was necessary to pay attention to “the little things to achieve the big things.”

“The fact that they are grousing means they are getting used to it,” he said. “It’s part of the growth process of this thing.”

But making the practices part of a police culture long resistant to change, those involved say, continues to be a challenge. Critics cite the department’s reactions to the 1992 Rodney King beating and Rampart corruption scandal, which broke open in 1998. They also allege that a “code of silence” leads officers to ostracize colleagues who report wrongdoing.

Future reports by the consent decree monitor are expected to focus on the broader problems that continue to trouble the LAPD as outlined by Feess, Cherkasky said. They include force issues, the response to complaints, racial profiling and civilian oversight of the department through the Police Commission and inspector general’s office.

Commission President David Cunningham III said the department needed to get to the point where it was practicing unbiased policing and making sure the public was satisfied with how citizen complaints were recorded and resolved.

“We have to promote constitutionally sound policing while we are promoting police integrity,” he said.

Birotte said the biggest challenge was getting the message to front-line supervisors and officers that the principles of the consent decree were in fact the best way to police.

“Though there is a clear commitment to reform, Bratton and his command staff alone can’t change a 9,000-member department,” Birotte said. “The changes they are implementing must ultimately trickle down to the sergeants and the patrol force, who are dealing directly with the public. They have to buy it and own as if it’s theirs.”

Bratton is convinced that will happen.

“There’s been general acceptance” of the consent decree, he said. “It’s here and it’s not going away. We are continually moving forward, and as we move forward on this stuff it’s going to become second nature.”