Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion Editorial

Newton: LAPD's impound dilemma

At first glance, a proposal by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck to clarify the way police handle cars they impound from unlicensed drivers doesn't sound controversial. But his proposal touches one of the city's hot-button issues — illegal immigration — and it reopens a larger, historical question: Who's in charge of the city's police?

Under Beck's plan, police officers would be given guidelines for when they should impound the cars of unlicensed drivers for 30 days — a penalty that can impede a driver's ability to work and cost him or her almost $1,400 — and when they should instead merely hold a car until a licensed driver can pick it up. Factors such as the driver's record and the seriousness of the violation would dictate which approach would be employed and presumably discourage arbitrary and unequal treatment. His approach would conform to state law and court decisions and, as he told me last week, ensure that LAPD practice reinforced its broader policies regarding the fair treatment of those it cites or arrests.

None of that has anything directly to do with illegal immigration; the rules would apply to anyone driving without a license for whatever reason. But because so many unlicensed drivers in Los Angeles are immigrants in the country illegally and therefore unable to secure a driver's license, this proposed change in policy would have special ramifications for the city's immigrant community. As a result, immigrant groups have cheered it, while law-and-order types have bitterly opposed it. At a recent San Fernando Valley meeting, hundreds of critics turned out to denounce the proposal.

Beck's approach strikes me as humane and sensible. What's problematic is whether this really is his call to make. After the videotaped beating of Rodney G. King incensed the public in 1991, city leaders recognized the importance of reasserting civilian control over the department. The mechanism, forged by the Christopher Commission and codified by voters, was to give greater power to the city's civilian Police Commission. Today, the chief has authority to run the department — he hires, fires, disciplines and deploys the force — while the commission sets broad policy, effectively acting as a board of trustees.

What Beck is proposing is a matter of intense public interest; it would significantly affect the actions of police officers; and debate over it has polarized the city partly along racial lines. It's hard to imagine a matter more squarely in the area of policy. Moreover, the LAPD already regards this area as a policy matter. Take this 2010 report by the commission's inspector general: "We noted some confusion among officers, supervisors and adjudicators regarding the current department policy on impounding vehicles of unlicensed drivers." Note the specific use of the word "policy."

Richard Drooyan is the president of the Police Commission and a veteran of the police reform debate in Los Angeles, having served as a lawyer to the Christopher Commission and been a leading advocate for the improvement of city and county policing. In this case, he says, the jurisdictional issue is a close call. "The argument for us to do something is that this is a matter of intense interest to the community and we're the eyes and ears of the community," he told me last week. And the argument against? "We don't want to micromanage the chief."

Drooyan is an exceptionally capable commission president. But the trouble with the balancing act he's attempting is that it invites critics to conclude that the commission is ducking the question. Jack Dunphy, the pseudonymous officer who often writes about the LAPD, complained that the commission is hoping to let Beck carry the load to shield itself, the mayor and the City Council from public outcry. "Clearly it was the hope of all involved that the change would shimmer into permanence while escaping public scrutiny," he wrote recently. I don't often agree with Dunphy, but this time he's got a point.

There's yet another subtle political calculation. If the commission enacts the change, the City Council could veto it (10 members of the council can take a matter away from a commission and reject it). If Beck makes the change, the council can't do anything.

It's easy to see why supporters of this change in policy would prefer for Beck to implement it himself. It's tempting but wrong. The authority of the commission was hard won over many years. It shouldn't be squandered now, even if the chief would handle that responsibility with care.

Jim Newton’s column appears Mondays. His latest book is "Eisenhower: The White House Years." Reach him at jim.newton@latimes.com or follow him on Twitter: @newton_jim.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Body cameras aren't going to fix policing

    Body cameras aren't going to fix policing

    Eric Garner, a 43-year-old unarmed black man, died in an altercation in July with police, in which Officer Daniel Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck in what appeared to be a chokehold as other officers pressed Garner's body to the ground. A bystander named Ramsey Orta recorded the incident...

  • Busting LAPD's 'ghost car' falsifications

    Busting LAPD's 'ghost car' falsifications

    An Inspector General's report released Friday confirmed what many Los Angeles Police Department insiders have been complaining about for months: Officers have routinely falsified records to make it appear that they were patrolling the streets, when in fact they were doing paperwork, working desk...

  • Drones and the LAPD

    Drones and the LAPD

    A narrow debate over the LAPD's proposed, limited use of a pair of unmanned aircraft — popularly known as drones — is prompting a broader community conversation about the tension between technology and privacy in a city where police have not always traversed that boundary well.

  • Clear, thoughtful rules are needed for recordings by LAPD

    Clear, thoughtful rules are needed for recordings by LAPD

    The Los Angeles police sergeant who caused a controversy when he detained “Django Unchained” actress Daniele Watts in response to a 911 call last month has now publicly defended his decision to turn over an audio recording he made of the incident to the celebrity news site TMZ, which then posted...

  • Why so many injury claims from L.A. public safety workers?

    Why so many injury claims from L.A. public safety workers?

    Los Angeles' police and firefighters take paid injury leave at significantly higher rates than public safety employees elsewhere in California. Why? Is it more strenuous or stressful to work in the city of Los Angeles, compared with L.A. County or Long Beach? Does the city have an older workforce...

  • Daniele Watts, in her own words

    Daniele Watts, in her own words

    Some experiences stay with us. When I was 16, my father was driving me home from a school play when we saw flashing lights. We hadn't been speeding. I remember my father asking the police officer what was wrong. The officer ignored his question and demanded identification.

  • Daniele Watts case: Did confrontation with LAPD have to happen?

    Daniele Watts case: Did confrontation with LAPD have to happen?

    Here’s the basic question about the case of Daniele Watts, the young black actress who was detained and handcuffed on a Studio City sidewalk Thursday after refusing to provide identification to police officers: Did the confrontation have to happen at all?   

  • James Hahn: An L.A. mayor to remember

    James Hahn: An L.A. mayor to remember

    In a city of big egos and bigger-than-life politicians, the accomplishments of a courageous and hardworking mayor who avoided the limelight tend to get lost. That makes it especially gratifying that the Los Angeles City Hall East building will soon be renamed in honor of former Mayor James K. Hahn.