U.S. Oversight of LAPD May Be Extended

A federal judge has given the Los Angeles Police Department a May 1 deadline to show why a court consent decree mandating police reforms should not be extended for at least two years.

In an order received by attorneys Monday, U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess asked the city for evidence that it has resolved issues in nine key areas of concern, including discriminatory traffic stops, search and arrest procedures and development of a computerized system, called TEAMS II, to track problem officers.

In 2001, the city reluctantly entered into the decree in the wake of revelations of misconduct and civil rights abuses during the Rampart Division police scandal.

Although then-Mayor Richard Riordan initially had resisted the court-authorized settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, he eventually agreed to its terms and, since then, the LAPD has moved to implement its requirements in hopes of getting out from under it as soon as possible.

The decree is to expire on June 15, and an extension would represent a disappointing setback for the department.

Feess appeared to have dimmed the LAPD’s hopes for an imminent release from federal oversight: “It appears to the court that major tasks established by the consent decree remain uncompleted, most notably the implementation of the TEAMS II system,” Feess wrote in his order. “Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause why the consent decree should not be extended for a minimum of two additional years.”

Feess asked the city and other interested parties to submit written arguments by April 17 and to attend a May 1 hearing on the matter.

The city estimates that it spends from $30 million to $50 million annually to try to comply with the decree, which it entered into to avoid a Justice Department lawsuit. Investigators found a “pattern or practice” of civil rights abuses by the LAPD.

An extension would mean the continuation of a dark cloud over the department and its leadership, said Jaime Regalado, director of the Pat Brown Institute at Cal State L.A.

“It’s going to be more of a black eye” for Chief William J. Bratton “because he came in as a reformer,” Regalado said. “What it will seem like is reforms are half-done.”

The decree outlined 146 issues that the LAPD needed to address with reforms, including the development of the computer-tracking program to serve as an early warning system on problem officers.

LAPD officials, who have for months predicted that some parts of the consent decree would need to be extended, nonetheless said Monday that they viewed the judge’s remarks positively.

“The majority of items in the consent decree are not covered in these nine issues,” said Capt. Sandy Jo MacArthur, who is involved in the department’s compliance efforts. “This narrows it substantially.”

She added that the LAPD has complied with about 70% of the reform requests in the decree.

In addition to the tracking system, Feess said other issues that the department should address include its performance evaluation system for officers, its handling of use-of-force incidents, its search and arrest procedures, how it receives citizen complaints and how it disciplines officers.

He also wants the LAPD to address questions about discrimination in traffic stops, how the inspector general reviews department operations and whether the inspector general and Police Commission are fulfilling their civilian oversight roles.

Stephen Yagman, a private attorney for police-abuse victims and an intervenor in the case, said the judge’s order is an indication that key issues remain unresolved.

MacArthur said work on the TEAMS II system, though not completed, is well along.

She said she viewed the judge’s order as providing “a good opportunity to show what we have done.”

The judge also said that if the city and the Justice Department can reach an agreement on issues to be included in an extended decree, he would give that consideration.