Key Officials Seek New Police Policy

The president of the Los Angeles Police Commission and Police Chief William J. Bratton each called Tuesday for overhauls of the LAPD disciplinary system.

Police Commission President Rick Caruso said his desire to change the discipline system was prompted by a recent case in which an officer was exonerated in the fatal shooting of a homeless woman armed with a screwdriver despite an earlier finding by the department’s civilian leaders that he should be punished.

The decision by a police disciplinary board to overrule the commission in the 1999 shooting of Margaret Mitchell undermined civilian oversight of the LAPD and illustrated deep problems with the department’s handling of officer discipline, Caruso said.

“The system is not the right system in my opinion,” Caruso said. “I don’t know why it was put in place.” He did not specify how he would change the system.

Bratton, attending a police conference in Washington, said he supported Caruso’s proposal to look for alternatives to the system.

Under the current system, officers accused of serious wrongdoing are sent to disciplinary panels, known as boards of rights, which consist of two high-ranking police officers and a civilian. The board determines whether the officer is guilty of the offense, then sets a punishment. The police chief may reduce the board’s punishment but may not increase it.

“I feel the same frustration as Mr. Caruso that the decisions should be in the hands of the police chief and the Police Commission instead of resting in the hands of two captains who are four levels down in the police hierarchy,” Bratton said. “I’m very supportive of looking for new alternatives to the existing system. I’m not happy with it at all.”

Caruso’s remarks were sparked by an article in Tuesday’s editions of The Times revealing that a board of rights ruled last month that Officer Edward Larrigan was justified in shooting Mitchell, a mentally ill woman.

Police commissioners, who are the civilian officials responsible for setting policy for the LAPD, had already reviewed that case and concluded that the shooting violated LAPD rules and directed the Police Department to discipline him. The board ruling last month now makes that impossible.

Speaking to reporters after Tuesday’s commission meeting at City Hall, Caruso said he saw the disciplinary panels as “a layer of bureaucracy ... that undercuts the core premise that civilians run this department.”

Caruso said he has requested a study to examine disciplinary systems in place at other large law enforcement agencies across the country, with the idea that the LAPD may be able to learn from them.

The LAPD has been using boards of rights for decades, and the boards have been the subject of criticism and tinkering for years. The 1991 Christopher Commission debated doing away with the boards in favor of outside civilian review panels but decided to keep the boards in place, although it recommended adding the civilian member to what were then panels made up solely of police officers.

Before the board’s decision regarding Larrigan was made public this week, Bratton said he had ordered a “top-to-bottom” review of the department’s discipline system. Changing the system, he said, would require a change to the City Charter. That would need City Council approval, as well as a vote of the public.

The chief said he has become “extraordinarily frustrated” with board members’ imposition of punishment. In recent weeks, the chief said, board members have suspended two officers that, given the opportunity, he would have fired.

“I have less power than most police chiefs in America to set the tone of the department,” he said.

Mitzi Grasso, vice president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents the majority of the LAPD’s rank-and-file, said union officials will be happy to discuss changing the disciplinary system as long as any new one “provides a fair, impartial process for our officers.”

She said that any change to the system will require not only a change in the City Charter but extensive negotiations with the union.

“We are very open to change, and we are looking forward to meeting with the department,” Grasso said. “This is not something they can just scrap.”

Meanwhile on Tuesday, Councilman Jack Weiss introduced a motion calling on police officials to produce a report on the decisions of boards of rights regarding officer-involved shootings that have been found “out of policy” by the civilian Police Commission. He was prompted to do so, he said, by the Mitchell case.

“What I want to do is find out whether this is the exception or the rule,” said Weiss, a former federal prosecutor and member of the council’s Public Safety Committee, which oversees the LAPD. Weiss’ motion, which was seconded by Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, asked police officials to report to the committee with their findings within 30 days.

Mitchell was shot May 21, 1999, near the intersection of 4th Street and La Brea Avenue shortly after Larrigan and his partner, Kathy Clark, both bike patrol officers, stopped her to determine whether her shopping cart was stolen. After a confrontation with the officers, Mitchell allegedly lunged at Larrigan, who shot her once, killing her.

After a lengthy investigation, then-Chief Bernard C. Parks found that although Larrigan made tactical mistakes in the moments before the shooting, he was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger and the shooting was therefore “in policy.”

The Police Commission, then under the leadership of attorney Gerald L. Chaleff, disagreed, voting 3 to 2 that the shooting violated departmental rules.

As a result of the commission’s decision in 2000, Larrigan was directed to a board of rights, where he faced possible punishment ranging from a reprimand to termination.

Last month, after a string of delays, the board found that Larrigan was justified in shooting Mitchell. The decision meant that Larrigan would not be punished.