Block Issues a Favorable Appraisal of Sheriff’s Dept. : Law enforcement: Report finds fewer problems than within the LAPD. Critics question timing and substance.

In an unprecedented assessment of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Sherman Block has released an in-house report that agrees with many proposals of the Christopher Commission and acknowledges far fewer problems than those found within the Los Angeles Police Department.

But that favorable picture was challenged Wednesday by critics who claimed that the timing and substance of Block’s report was intended to head off an independent investigation of his department.

One attorney said the department’s report fails to address what he contends is the department’s misuse of dogs in apprehending suspects. A lawyer representing a fired gay deputy disputes the report’s conclusion that the department does not discriminate against gays.

The Times found indications that, like LAPD officers, some sheriff’s deputies have made racist and sexist remarks in computer messages.

The department in its report said there have been only “some minor problems” with computerized messages. But a Times review of 4,500 random computerized sheriff’s messages found examples of deputies calling someone “buckwheat,” mimicking the speech of racial minorities and joking about the use of force.

The report, prepared by Block’s staff and unveiled Tuesday, said the agency agreed with most of the 100 recommendations of the Christopher Commission--a panel formed to review the LAPD and its policies following the police beating of motorist Rodney G. King.

The 70-page document admitted that some sheriff’s “policies, procedures or performance standards are deficient and can be enhanced.” But for the most part, the report concluded that the department already has implemented changes to deal with major problems, including excessive force, or is moving to strengthen its policies against deputy misconduct.

“I believe that we have done and are doing a good job. It is obvious from the tone of the report that we could do a better job,” Block said in an interview Wednesday, one day after he announced formation of a 21-member citizens advisory panel to implement Christopher Commission-like reforms.

“I think the fact that the report was done says volumes about the department and that is that we are always striving to improve our operation,” the sheriff added.

But Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, said that Block is “trying to avert a top to bottom investigation” of his department. “I really don’t believe the Sheriff’s Department can evaluate itself,” she said.

Ripston said she has not read the full report but added: “The Sheriff’s Department saying ‘We’re doing just as the Christopher Commission says,’ looks good on paper, but the real question is what is happening out on the street. And too often there is a very big gap between what the rule is and what is happening.”

Other critics testified at a hearing Tuesday before the County Board of Supervisors that citizens are seeing out-of-control deputies who are responsible for a wave of beatings and shooting deaths and whose actions underscore the need for an independent investigation of the 8,000-member department.

In its report, however, the Sheriff’s Department said it has improved its monitoring of use of force by deputies. The department said it is developing a computer system to track disciplinary investigations and has proposed a policy requiring deputies “observing the use of force” to report it.

Another policy calls for an immediate Internal Affairs investigation whenever someone arrested by deputies is hospitalized.

In addition, the report said the department has an “established and formalized bite investigation process for every K-9 bite incident”--and every incident is thoroughly investigated.

But attorney Barry Litt, whose clients include people allegedly bitten by sheriff’s dogs, disputed the caliber of the investigations and said the Sheriff’s Department’s use of dogs was worse than the LAPD.

“Their response does not address the fundamental issue, which is their policy to have dogs attack in situations where there is no justification for the use of force,” he said.

John Duran, an attorney who has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department on behalf of a gay former deputy, Bruce Boland, disputed the report’s claims that sexual orientation is not a factor in employment in the department.

Duran said, “If that’s true, if it (sexual orientation) is not a factor (as sheriff’s officials claim), why is there no evidence of any gays or lesbians on the force . . .?”

The department said there was no evidence that sheriff’s deputies had used their patrol car computers to send racist or sexually offensive messages similar to the LAPD messages disclosed by the Christopher Commission.

In their findings, the Christopher panel members published more than 700 such computer messages sent by LAPD officers that were felt to be denigrating to minorities, women and others.

In a random review of some 30,000 daily messages sent by deputies on computers, the Sheriff’s Department said: “To date, while there have been some minor problems involving inappropriate language and unprofessional comments, there have been no evidence of messages of the nature which attracted the attention of the Christopher Commission.”

The Times’ review of 4,500 messages by patrol deputies found use of gang-style lingo, sexually suggestive remarks and imitations of the speech style of some minorities.

“Hey buckwheat, you freezin up there?” one message asked.

Another message referred to the “The tribal nation of La Puente”--a community that is heavily Latino.

“Affirm homeboy,” said one deputy in a message. “Where is u?” asked one deputy. “Yo, it b me,” said one message. “Why dont chew try,” said still another.

Apparent references to force were also involved in messages including one deputy who asked: “Did you slam dunk the guy like a jelly donut?” Said another, “My finger is starting to itch.”

Asked about the messages, Block said he could not respond to the Times’ findings. “I’m not implying that there has never been a racist or sexist message, and in fact, people have been disciplined, everything from reprimand to discharge, for misuse of the system,” he said. “We’re talking of up to 30,000 transmissions daily. A single transmission that is wholly inappropriate . . . is a serious issue, but when we say minor we’re talking in contrast to volume.”

Sgt. David Mesa, who is charged with reviewing computerized messages, said he highlights any passages he deems inappropriate and those printouts are then forwarded to the offending deputy’s station commander, who will decide what discipline to mete out.

“Mostly, it’s anything that’s not work related,” Mesa said. “I have not been incensed or shocked by anything I read.”

Mesa’s supervisor, Lt. Nick Berkuta, said that compared to the LAPD’s messages, the deputies’ messages are “nowhere near that.”

Asked about some messages that seemed to mimic gang talk, Berkuta said that it was probably unprofessional, but certainly not uncommon for officers to pick up the vernacular of the streets.

“Law enforcement likes to think of themselves as a fraternal-type organization . . . like ‘homies,’ or partners,” he said. “I don’t think anybody would lose their job over (that kind of talk), but I think some might get a strong talking to.”

Deputy Bill Wehner, a department spokesman, said that two deputies have been fired for sending inappropriate messages, but he declined to identify them or the contents of the messages. He said he did not think the messages were considered particularly offensive. After being counseled, the deputies had continued inappropriate use of the computer message system, he said.

In addition to monitoring computerized messages, the department’s report also agreed that law enforcement agencies must work to restrict the use of the “prone out tactic” and said it is doing just that. The department added that it also is working to slow the use of “curbing”--which it described as a “less extreme but potentially degrading tactic” involving sitting a person on a curb during an investigation.

The department, however, disagreed with Christopher Commission recommendations that officers should be retested every three years to uncover psychological problems.

The report said that recommendation was “fraught with problems” because psychological evaluation is an “inexact predictor of behavior” and would not predict which individuals had a proclivity for aggression. A mandatory three-year program also would cost more than $450,000 a year, the report said.

Warren Christopher, who chaired the LAPD oversight commission, said he has not read the sheriff’s report and could not comment on any of the specific recommendations. But he said what the department has done is similar to other in-house reviews by law enforcement agencies around the country.

“We’re very pleased if our report has been useful to the sheriff’s office,” he added, “and we’re pleased that he has looked to see if our report is applicable.”

Meanwhile, members of Block’s newly named citizen’s advisory panel that will oversee the implementation of Christopher Commission reforms in the Sheriff’s Department say they don’t plan to limit their inquiry into recommendations contained in the report--despite critics who claim that the body is pro-sheriff.

“I don’t plan to be a rubber stamp,” said Leticia Quezada, a Los Angeles school board member. “I don’t think Sheriff Block wants that. . . . We’re going to be in the spotlight. People are going to be looking at us. My intention is to look out for the interests of the community, particularly the interests of the minority neighborhoods where these problems occur much too frequently.”

Another member, civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, said she made her intentions known to Block when he asked her to serve on the committee. “I said I didn’t feel that I should be limited to the recommendations that were made in this report. I see that as a starting point.”

No date has been set for the first meeting of the group, and it is unknown whether the meetings will be open to the public.

Computer Messages

A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department report this week said that there have been only “some minor problems” with computerized messages, but not the pattern of improper racial remarks attributed to Los Angeles police officers in the Christopher Commission report.

A Times review of nearly 4,500 Sheriff’s Department messages found examples of gang lingo and racial mimicry, as well as remarks about women, racial minorities and violence. The identity and race of those sending the messages was unknown.

Here are some examples, containing the spelling and grammar used in the messages: * “Where u b . . . and wat up.” * “Whats up bro.” * “Affirm homeboy.” * “Where is u.” * “Yo, it b me.” * “Why dont chew try.” * “Hey buckwheat, you freezin up there.” * “Me dont know nothing.” * “If u want, aint no thang.” * “U be welcome.” * “The tribal nation of La Puente.” * “My finger is starting to itch.” * “I’m gonna hunt for a bit . . . catch u ltr.” “Good hunting . . . and take’m with the first shot.” * “Did you slam dunk the guy like a jelly donut.” * “I know that ur ridealong wanted me . . . that wasnt nice to let her go without getting a number 4 me.” “He did get it . . . it is 976-LOVE.” * “That 15-year old ride a long really wanted you . . . but Mitch had her and she couldnt handle anymore.” * “Whats the prob today . . . post PMS.” * “My trainee keeps me warm.” * “Warm bam thank you mam . . . gotta go . . . ha ha ha.”