Judge Questions LAPD’s Failure to Enact Reforms

A federal judge expressed deep concern Wednesday over a lack of progress by the Los Angeles Police Department in enacting key reforms in the aftermath of the Rampart corruption scandal.

U.S. District Judge Garry Feess sharply questioned representatives for the department and the city less than a month before a key June deadline for compliance with the reforms, which were agreed upon after federal officials alleged a pattern of civil rights violations by the department.

Feess said he was particularly concerned with how the LAPD processes citizen complaints and with delays in creating a centralized database for tracking officer misconduct and incidents in which force is used.

The jurist, who has handled more than 200 Rampart-related cases, said he has seen “egregious examples of people claiming misconduct” by officers. He said many of the complaints had been mishandled by the LAPD.

Feess also expressed frustration with how the LAPD still does not have a centralized system for tracking officer misconduct -- a cornerstone of the consent decree -- even though the department has had three years to develop such a system.

LAPD Deputy Chief Dave Doan told the judge that a system is currently being developed. A “complaint-management system” should be in place by March, and a “risk-management information system” should be ready by July 2005, he said.

The judge called Wednesday’s hearing after reviewing the latest quarterly report by a monitor suggesting that the LAPD is so far behind with implementing some key reforms that the department may require a costly extension of the settlement. By some estimates, complying with the decree has cost the city $50 million annually.

“I’m going to consider what options I have” if there is continued lack of compliance, Feess said, without specifying what those measures might be.

Charles Jakosa, a lawyer for the Justice Department, said he believed that the city and LAPD leaders were committed to the program. “Implementation remains to be seen,” Jakosa said.

The city entered into the consent decree three years ago with the Justice Department in the wake of the Rampart corruption scandal, when former Officer Rafael Perez told authorities that he and other officers had routinely falsified evidence, framed suspects and covered up unjustifiable shootings.

Under the settlement, the LAPD has five years to achieve compliance in key areas ranging from how citizen complaints are tracked to the use of informants to investigations of officer-involved shootings and other use-of-force incidents. Unless the LAPD is in “substantial compliance” with the order by June 15, the decree -- and federal authority over the department -- will be extended beyond the June 2006 deadline.

Wednesday’s hearing was the first time in three years that Feess had summoned lawyers and called on them to review progress on the promises made by the LAPD to the U.S. Justice Department.

“When I see such problems going on when they know people are looking, I wonder what could possibly go on when no one is looking,” said Feess. “Why are we so far behind?”

“What can be done?” the jurist demanded bluntly. “What’s happening?”

Representatives of the city and the LAPD acknowledged there have been problems, but said progress is being made.

“The department has been [improving] and will continue to improve in the areas of concern expressed by the judge,” said Gerald Chaleff, the LAPD civilian official in charge of implementing consent decree reforms, after the hearing. “The chief of police has expressed his commitment that this department will accept and investigate complaints of any misconduct that any citizen wishes to make.”

R. Paul Katrinak, a private lawyer representing the city, said the LAPD’s employees are now better trained than before in the handling of citizen complaints.

“We’ve increased training and oversight of personnel ... to make sure these complaints are handled properly,” Katrinak said. The city has audited the department to make sure that employees are in compliance. Officers who mishandle a citizen complaint could be disciplined for misconduct by the LAPD’s Professional Standards Bureau, he said.

After the hearing, federal monitor Michael Cherkasky would not comment on the specifics of the judge’s concerns but said they clearly reflect the critical issues the LAPD faces if it is to reach the substantial compliance called for by the consent decree.