Trial Throws Spotlight Onto LAPD’s Defects : Lab overhaul and personnel policy reform demanded

The O. J. Simpson trial put the Los Angeles Police Department in a bad light. The glare illuminated the racist rantings and lies of now-retired Detective Mark Fuhrman, who was unfit to be a police officer, and the mishandling of blood and other key evidence by detectives and criminalists who should have known better. It’s the ultimate understatement to say that this was no textbook investigation. According to jurors who have spoken out, this was the fatal weakness of the prosecution’s case.

Now that the verdict is in, Police Chief Willie L. Williams must seek to rebuild public confidence in the department by improving procedures for the gathering and handling of evidence. To prevent a repeat of the embarrassing lack of professionalism highlighted in the trial, the LAPD’s crime labs will have to undertake a major overhaul, including obtaining the staff and equipment necessary to properly investigate the more than 1,000 homicides committed here each year. The LAPD brass also needs to upgrade training for lab personnel and hire experts, including specialists with doctorates in their fields.

NO CHEAP FIX: All these fixes will require money, but taxpayers should remember you get what you pay for. There can be no excuse for sloppiness in the handling of evidence. And, as The Times reports today, the Simpson investigation was not the first case marred by these serious problems.

City Council member Jackie Goldberg called Wednesday for a review of rules and regulations about evidence gathering. An LAPD Internal Affairs investigation prompted by the despicable Fuhrman tapes already is under way. The U.S. Department of Justice, at the direction of Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, has opened an inquiry into allegations of misconduct stemming from the tapes. The federal inquiry could lead to civil rights charges against the former detective.

In the future, the LAPD’s inspector general, a new position, is expected to handle cases against police officers with the help of a new computer tracking system that will catalogue all complaints. Quick access to that information should result in better disciplinary proceedings, plus wiser promotions.

FUHRMAN’S 1983 BOASTS: Why wasn’t Fuhrman kicked off the force in 1983 after he bragged about his violent acts and attitudes to the city Board of Pension Commissioners? His boasts of major misconduct have now been documented for a dozen years. Yet after he was denied a stress-related pension, he was given a desk job for several months and then sent back to the streets. Worse, he became a training officer and later was promoted to detective. Why was a cop who should have been punished promoted instead?

Although personnel records are confidential, the pension board forwards copies of pension applications and other information to the LAPD’s Medical Liaison Office. Controversial cases like Fuhrman’s should go right to the chief, who is in charge of disciplining officers. Although the volume of stress disability cases has dropped--in part because officers who are granted stress pensions can no longer legally carry concealed weapons and thus are locked out of many security and law enforcement jobs--the chief’s office should look at these cases for issues not addressed by a pension board. The chief should be on the lookout for “problem officers”--those who are the subject of numerous complaints of excessive use of force or abusive behavior or attitudes. Then after due process, appropriate action--be it discipline or termination--should be taken.

Fuhrman testified in the Simpson trial that he hadn’t used the N-word during the last 10 years. Tape-recorded sessions with an aspiring screenwriter proved he lied. How does Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti plan to deal with this deception under oath?

If the LAPD comes away from all this with lessons learned, the Simpson trial will prove to have lasting value for Los Angeles.