Probe Finds Pattern of Excess Force, Brutality by Deputies : Sheriff’s Dept.: The report commissioned by county supervisors calls for wide reforms, including participation by civilians. Discipline, oversight said to have broken down.

An official probe of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has found a “deeply disturbing” pattern of excessive force and brutality by deputies, leading the investigators Monday to recommend widespread reforms in the nation’s third-largest urban police force.

The 359-page report issued by Special Counsel James G. Kolts, a retired Superior Court judge, describes a department where discipline and oversight have broken down, with supervisors routinely tolerating abuse against residents, particularly minorities.

“This report is a somber and sobering one in terms of the large number of brutal incidents that have been and still are occurring,” Kolts and his staff wrote. “Within the LASD there is deeply disturbing evidence of excessive force and lax discipline.”

The Board of Supervisors appointed Kolts in December to investigate the 8,000-member Sheriff’s Department after a spate of controversial shootings by deputies sparked outrage in minority communities.

In their report, Kolts and his staff urged unprecedented civilian participation in some key department functions and recommended that Sheriff Sherman Block initiate an overhaul of the civilian complaint system. Other proposed reforms include the launching of community-based policing programs at each sheriff’s station.

However, implementation of the proposed reforms is likely to rest heavily on Block, an elected official who operates largely independent of oversight. Block, who was in Sacramento and could not be reached for comment Monday, has said that he would not implement reforms with which he disagreed.

Although the Board of Supervisors controls the sheriff’s budget, it is unclear what the panel could do to launch the report’s recommendations over Block’s objections.

Modeling their efforts on the Christopher Commission probe of the Los Angeles Police Department after the Rodney G. King beating, Kolts and a team of 30 attorneys and other volunteers examined files in 124 civil lawsuits and 800 internal department investigations. They also reviewed training and disciplinary procedures.

The report offers a portrait of a department where some deputies shoot or beat innocent bystanders with predictable frequency, allowing routine traffic stops and domestic disputes to escalate into violent confrontations where the use of force becomes inevitable.

Predictably, reaction to the report was mixed. Many sheriff’s deputies were angered by the report’s allegations and said the investigation was unfair, while some members of the Board of Supervisors praised the Kolts effort.

Representatives of civil rights, gay and minority groups hailed many of the investigation’s findings but said the proposed reforms are too weak. They also criticized Kolts for not holding Block personally responsible for deputies’ misconduct.

Among the report’s key findings and recommendations:

* Echoing the Christopher Commission, Kolts’ staff identified 62 “problem officers” who have generated multiple use-of-force complaints. “Despite a history of questionable conduct, nearly all of the officers continue to patrol the streets,” the report said. “Worse, many act as field training officers, imparting their ‘street wisdom’ to patrol deputies.”

One deputy has at least 27 excessive-force and harassment complaints lodged against him. Another deputy, the subject of seven internal investigations, was involved in the 1990 beating and fatal shooting of a robbery suspect. The coroner’s report of the incident found that the suspect’s skull had been smashed after he had sustained the fatal gunshot wound.

* In lawsuits where the county was forced to pay large court settlements, investigators found patterns in the incidents. Many cases involved people mistakenly identified as suspects, or took place at parties where deputies were called to reports of loud music.

Among the injured plaintiffs winning large court awards were a 13-year-old girl floored by a “roundhouse” punch and a 73-year-old woman dying of brain cancer. In some instances, deputies received commendations for actions that cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in court settlements.

The Lynwood, Norwalk, Industry, Firestone and East Los Angeles stations accounted for most of the incidents. Latinos and blacks were the most common victims of alleged abuse.

* Sheriff’s procedures make it difficult to file a complaint against a deputy; those who do file complaints are often intimidated and harassed by sheriff’s officials. In several instances, people attempting to file complaints at sheriff’s stations were placed under arrest on fabricated charges.

Overall, the department denied 94% of the allegations of excessive force in civilian complaints.

In general, discipline in the department is lax and ineffective, the report said. Deputies are usually punished more severely for traffic violations than they are for brutality cases that have cost the county millions of dollars in settlements.

* The district attorney’s office was sharply criticized for its apparent unwillingness to prosecute deputies despite overwhelming evidence of excessive force and abuse. Over the last decade, sheriff’s investigators have referred 382 cases of “questionable” shootings to the district attorney--and only one case was prosecuted.

Kolts and his staff found “incomprehensible” a decision by prosecutors not to seek charges against a deputy involved in one recent shooting despite “ample documented evidence that the deputy was combing the streets outside his patrol area . . . looking for a fight one New Year’s Eve.”

Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner refused to comment.

* Investigators were critical of a department policy requiring rookie deputies to serve up to two years as guards in the County Jail and other custody facilities. “That the jails can become breeding grounds for violence by deputies cannot seriously be disputed,” the report said.

The report cited a litany of misconduct by deputies assigned to the jails, including cross-burnings and severe beatings of inmates. Investigators found evidence of a “code of silence” in which young deputies are pressured not to report misconduct by their peers.

Deputies who report misconduct are sometimes handcuffed, doused with water and placed in isolation cells for several hours at a time, a practice known as being “hard-celled,” the report said.

* The department has no clear policy on deputies’ use of “head strikes” with flashlights and batons. Investigators found a large number of cases in which officers struck suspects or inmates on the head, often inflicting near-fatal injuries. In virtually all cases, the suspects posed no immediate danger to the deputy’s life.

* Investigators found evidence that racially intolerant attitudes and conduct are common among deputies. The report cited several instances of “inconsiderate, rude and racially biased treatment” of blacks, Latinos and Asians.

“We were deeply disappointed to find that management far too frequently lets such matters go unconfronted,” it said. “While some managers take swift and decisive action . . . a far greater number appear to do nothing.”

* Discrimination against gays and lesbians in the department is widespread. Despite recent efforts to improve its relationship with homosexuals, the department “is a very difficult environment for gays and lesbians to work in or find employment.”

There are only two openly gay deputies on the force. Investigators said they were “struck by the general fear of reprisal” on the part of closeted gay and lesbian deputies.

* The report called for greater public accountability. Although the sheriff is an elected official, the report said that in practice Block and the department operate outside public scrutiny.

“The sheriff has no real boss,” the report said. “He is not appointed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and he is not supervised by them. . . . Indeed, we know of no major metropolitan police department in the United States which is not subject to some civilian oversight--except the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.”

Kolts and his staff called for civilian participation in the review of complaints against deputies and in “general monitoring and auditing” of the department.

The Kolts report does not provide the first revelations of excessive force in the department. The Times in 1990 reported that the number of brutality lawsuits filed against the department had nearly doubled in the previous five years.

In a story cited by Kolts, The Times also reported that some deputies were named repeatedly in lawsuits, that excessive-force cases had strained the department’s relationship with minority communities, and that the department had done little to identify abusive deputies and take them off the streets.

As word of the most recent report filtered to sheriff’s stations, deputies were angered but not surprised.

“Right now, it’s real popular to be real critical of police,” said Sgt. Thomas T. Campbell of the Norwalk station.

At the Lakewood sheriff’s station, Deputy James Copplin said a handful of problem deputies had unfairly stigmatized the entire department. “I personally believe a few bad people have ruined things for everybody,” he said.

Representatives of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs said they were “deeply disappointed” with the text and tone of the report. “We regret that these criticisms were levied against our membership at the expense of a more unbiased analysis,” the association said in a written statement.

The Sheriff’s Information Bureau’s only comment Monday was a brief statement: “This report took over six months to prepare. It is 360 pages long and deserves serious and thorough review. When that review is completed, the Sheriff’s Department will comment.”

Community and civil rights leaders who have been critical of the Sheriff’s Department called on county supervisors to hold public hearings on the report. Although many praised the report’s hard-hitting tone, some also criticized Kolts for going too easy on the department.

Members of the Coalition for Sheriff’s Accountability complained that the report did not hold Block accountable for deputy misconduct.

“(We have) a number of serious reservations that the Kolts report does not go far enough,” said Gloria Romero, co-chairwoman of the coalition.

Although Kolts and his staff did not directly attack Block, they offered a stinging critique of the overall management of the department.

“The LASD has too many officers who have resorted to excessive force,” Kolts said. “The department has not done an adequate job disciplining them. It has not dealt adequately with those who supervise them.”

Still, in a Monday news conference, Kolts and general counsel Merrick J. Bobb took pains to praise Block for having made significant progress in reforming the department.

Kolts said Block acknowledges problems in the department and has shown “and openness to change and flexibility.” Kolts added that Block’s “temperament and style have encouraged self-examination.”

In private, members of Kolts’ staff said they were attempting to avoid a confrontation with Block. State law grants the sheriff broad authority over the department and he could easily stymie any attempt at reform.

Concerns about a possible showdown were echoed by Supervisor Ed Edelman, who picked Kolts to head the investigation.

“We need the cooperation of the sheriff,” Edelman said. “I am not predicting that the Board of Supervisors and the sheriff will get into a squabble. I hope we don’t. . . . Let’s give the sheriff a chance and see what his response is.”

Gay community leaders praised the report for its insights into homophobia in the department. “There is no doubt in my mind, looking at the department as a whole, that the Sheriff’s Department is more homophobic than the LAPD,” said Roger Coggan, director of legal services for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center.

Reaction among members of the Board of Supervisors, who may play a key role in implementing the report’s recommendations, was mixed.

“I’m impressed,” Supervisor Gloria Molina said. “It’s well done. I was impressed at how they went about this report.

While acknowledging that “we have no legal authority” to force the sheriff to adopt any changes, Molina said, “we certainly have a duty and a responsibility to follow through on these recommendations. . . . I am hopeful that the sheriff will not look at this (report) as the enemy.”

But Supervisor Mike Antonovich called the report “a back-door attempt by liberals to undermine law enforcement.” Antonovich said “liberals for years have been attempting to handcuff law enforcement, expanding the rights of criminals to the detriment of victims.”

Supervisor Kenneth Hahn would not comment Monday, while Supervisor Deane Dana issued a prepared statement.

“I was very pleased to see the high degree of cooperation that existed between the sheriff and the judge,” Dana said. “I look forward to hearing the sheriff’s responses to Judge Kolts’ report.”

Kolts, a retired Superior Court judge and former prosecutor, ran his investigation in a low-key fashion, setting up his offices in the downtown Hall of Administration and spending about $400,000 in public funds. Much of his staff consisted of volunteer attorneys whose services were donated by prestigious law firms.

Staff members also held three public hearings and established a satellite office next to the Sheriff’s Internal Affairs Bureau in the Hall of Justice, the downtown Sheriff’s Department headquarters.

Kolts said Monday that his six-month investigation has changed his perception of law enforcement. Now, he said, he would be more likely to question a police officer’s account of a controversial incident.

The former prosecutor said: “I have to say that perhaps I’m a little less accepting of some of the things I’ve seen in police reports.”

Times staff writers Bettina Boxall and Leslie Berger contributed to this story.

Highlights of The Kolts Report

These are among the highlights of the “somber and sobering” report on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department issued Monday by Special Counsel James G. Kolts: FINDINGS

Force: “Deeply disturbing evidence of excessive force and lax discipline. The (Sheriff’s Department) has not been able to solve its problems of excessive force. . . . and has not reformed itself with adequate thoroughness and speed.”

Complaint process: “Has not dealt adequately with citizen complaints of excessive force.”

Problem officers: Identifies 62 deputies responsible for nearly 500 separate use-of-force and harassment incidents.

Top leadership: Credits Sheriff Sherman Block, “whose temperament and style have encouraged self-examination” in the department, but says the department urgently needs civilian oversight.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Oversight: Calls for citizen participation in adjudicating citizen complaints of brutality and harassment.

Warning system: Urges implementation of early warning system to monitor which deputies use unnecessary force.

Complaints by the Numbers

An investigation by Special Counsel James G. Kolts found that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has not dealt adequately with citizen complaints of excessive force.

The vast majority of complaints come from the public, only a small percentage are deemed “founded,” meaning the allegations are true and the involved deputy subject to discipline. When the complaint comes from within the department, however, it is far likelier to be founded.

Other possible outcomes are “unfounded”--meaning the allegations are untrue--and “unsubstantiated,” which means there is insufficient evidence to determine the truth.

Here is a look at 670 allegations of use of force filed between 1990 and April 9, 1992. Who Filed the Complaints: Citizen--514: 77% Internal--155: 23% Outside Agency--1: 0%

The Outcome Citizen Complaints*+ Founded--27: 6% Unfounded--203: 46% Unsubstantiated--154: 35% Closed--61: 14%

Internal Complaints+ Founded--22: 27% Unfounded--21: 26% Unsubstantiated--37: 45% Closed--2: 2%

* May not add to 100% because of rounding.

+ Excluding pending cases.

SOURCE: Sheriff’s Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau Database

EXCERPTS: A18

RELATED STORIES: A19, A20