Sheriff’s Dept. Placed Under Court Injunction : Law enforcement: Judge tells agency to obey rules on use of force and demands reports on new complaints.

Responding to allegations of civil rights abuses by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies, a federal judge issued an unusual order Monday requiring the Sheriff’s Department to adhere to its rules governing use of force and to begin sending him every brutality complaint lodged against the department.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. issued the preliminary injunction in a civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of more 70 Lynwood residents who alleged that deputies engaged in “systematic acts of shooting, killing, brutality, terrorism, house-trashing and other acts of lawlessness and wanton abuse of power,” especially against minorities.

Hatter directed the Sheriff’s Department’s 8,000 officers and 4,000 other employees to abide by department regulations, especially those that tell employees when to use force and how to conduct searches.

The judge also told county officials to begin providing him with monthly reports listing excessive-force allegations against deputies.

The judge did not say what action he would take if his order is disobeyed, but county officials could be held in contempt.

To assure that alleged abuses will cease, the plaintiffs have asked the judge to appoint a special master to oversee operations at the Lynwood sheriff’s station.

The judge delayed implementation of his court order until 5 p.m. today to allow county lawyers an opportunity to seek an emergency stay from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which county attorneys indicated that they would do.

“It’s an extraordinary order,” said Kevin S. Reed, western regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, attorneys for some of the plaintiffs. “The entire Sheriff’s Department could be under a court order by 5 o’clock tomorrow.”

Defense attorneys--representing the county, the city of Lynwood, top sheriff’s officials and about 20 individual deputies--have vehemently denied the lawsuit’s allegations and warned that a preliminary injunction could disrupt local law enforcement.

But Hatter, saying he was “balancing hardships,” sided with the plaintiffs in ruling that “all personnel--sworn and civilian” would be covered by his ruling.

“I don’t relish getting involved in a situation where the court is asked to supervise ongoing law enforcement activity,” said the judge.

However, Hatter said: “We’re at a point where I can’t ignore the declarations (of excessive force) . . . these are significant issues.”

The suit, filed last year, accused deputies of targeting minorities for abuse and subjecting them to racial insults. It is the largest brutality lawsuit to be filed against the Sheriff’s Department, which has been mired in a major money-skimming scandal for two years and recently became embroiled in controversy over four fatal shootings by deputies.

No oral testimony has been given in the lawsuit, but the plaintiffs have filed written declarations from citizens alleging that they have been rousted and beaten during raids, falsely arrested and subjected to racial slurs. It was on the basis of these declarations that Hatter made his ruling and took steps to monitor the department.

A copy of the court order was not available late Monday. Neither the judge nor his clerk could be reached for comment.

According to Reed, Hatter’s order “enjoins all employees of the Sheriff’s Department whether sworn or civilian to do the following pending the final determination of this (Lynwood) case . . . to follow the department’s own stated policies and guidelines regarding the use of force and procedures for conducting searches.”

The order also directs county officials to submit to the court “copies of reports alleging the use of excessive force that are in the possession of the department on the first of every month.”

Hatter did not specify what he would do with the reports, which would be sealed.

Sheriff Sherman Block said his office had not had a chance to review Hatter’s decision. “We will, however, have something to say once we have had an opportunity to study it,” Block said.

County attorneys said they will ask the appellate court for an emergency stay. “There are other rounds to be played, and we intend to play them,” said Patrick T. Meyers, principal deputy county counsel.

If an appeal fails, Meyers said the county is prepared to follow the judge’s orders. “He’s essentially asking us to do what we maintain that we (already) do, which is follow policies and procedures (of the Sheriff’s Department),” Meyers said.

The county attorney said he was unsure whether the judge’s order will affect only plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, and other lawyers said they do not know whether the order will apply to the entire Sheriff’s Department.

Defense attorneys, however, expressed concern that the judge’s order could cause deputies to hesitate unnecessarily before using force and endanger themselves during raids or arrests.

At one point, Steven Manning, an attorney representing the 20 deputies named as defendants in the Lynwood case, told Hatter the court order could hamper law enforcement by giving criminals the opportunity to make false allegations against deputies.

Later, Manning said the order could have a “chilling effect” on deputies that would make them overly cautious.

But an exchange between Manning and Hatter underscored the judge’s resolve to put constraints on the department. The attorney told Hatter that some may see the judge’s order to comply with existing department policies as “harmless.”

“It wasn’t meant to be harmless,” Hatter replied.

Attorneys for the Lynwood plaintiffs praised Hatter’s action and called it highly unusual.

“I think this is charting new ground,” said George V. Denny III, a lawyer with Police Watch, formerly the Police Misconduct Lawyers Referral Service, and one of the lead attorneys in the case.

“Our hope is that (this order) will change the behavior of deputies substantially,” said Reed of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “The deputies will know now that . . . a federal judge is watching them.”

In interviews with law enforcement officials and constitutional experts, Hatter’s order was seen as a rare move.

“In the law enforcement area, it’s highly unusual,” said Hubert Williams, former Newark, N.J., police chief and now president of the Washington-based Police Foundation. “This particular case goes further than any of the cases I am familiar with.”

Jonathan D. Varat, a constitutional law expert at UCLA, said it was unusual for a judge to monitor police conduct by requesting excessive-force reports.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor who teaches constitutional law at USC, said Hatter was clever in telling the department to comply with its own guidelines and creating an enforcement mechanism through his contempt power.

“I think it’s a brilliant way to try to control constitutional violations in a way that’s consistent with the court precedents,” he said.

Chemerinsky cited one Florida case in which a federal district court imposed guidelines for the use of a K-9 unit that had allegedly abused its power. The court issued an injunction and a federal appeals court upheld the injunction, he said.

“The message is that federal courts can enjoin police misconduct but have to do it in such a way as not to be overly intrusive,” said Chemerinsky.

Times staff writer Ted Rohrlich contributed to this story.

BACKGROUND

More than 70 black and Latino residents of Lynwood filed a civil rights lawsuit last September in federal court alleging that Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies had engaged in brutality and other misconduct. They claim Lynwood deputies have terrorized residents during searches and arrests and engaged in unwarranted shootings, beatings and destruction of property. Defense attorneys for the county and individual deputies have denied the charges.