Facts, Figures and Reactions : Problem Officers

In its report, the Christopher Commission found “a significant number of officers who repetitively misuse force and persistently ignore” the LAPD’s policies on the use of force and “receive inadequate supervisory and management attention.”

The commission identified 44 potential “problem officers” who received six or more allegations of excessive force or improper tactics from 1986 through 1990--a rate that was more than six times the LAPD average. Yet, many of those 44 officers received glowing evaluations or were promoted, the panel said.

Among the examples cited:

* OFFICER A had six complaints of excessive force or improper tactics filed against him in late 1986 and 1987. Two of those charges were sustained, including an allegation that the officer dragged a handcuffed arrestee by his feet down the hallway of a police station. In 1988, the officer was recommended as a training officer.

* OFFICER B struck a handcuffed arrestee in the back of the neck with the butt of a shotgun, leading to a sustained charge of using improper tactics. Still, the officer won high praise from his supervisors although he also was the recipient of “a string of sustained complaints for excessive force.”

* OFFICER C was suspended for 10 days after he struck two suspects several times on the back and head in 1987 as they knelt with their hands behind their heads. The officer also had a separate sustained complaint for kicking an arrestee. After still another kicking incident, Officer C’s commanding officer recommended that the officer be fired. Instead, he received a 10-day suspension.

* OFFICER D had at least nine sustained complaints and eight unsustained complaints for excessive force or improper tactics during a 10-month period. Despite that record, he remained a training officer before he was removed from the force in 1988 for taking a prisoner from a holding tank, moving him to a secluded location and beating him.

* OFFICER E had a “propensity for attracting personnel complaints” and had not yet “learned the techniques of appeasing the public,” according to an evaluation of his probationary period. He also was criticized for “a tendency to be rude to victims” and for exhibiting anger during counseling sessions. But the commission said Officer E’s “positive” performance evaluations never reflected those concerns.