Scrutiny Renewed of Security at LAX

The recent failure to arrest a gun-toting traveler at Los Angeles International Airport has generated calls for improved security laws and refocused attention on a proposal to consolidate airport security forces under the command of the Los Angeles Police Department--an idea long resisted by the Airport Police Bureau but that proponents say would enhance safety at one of the nation’s busiest airports.

The Sept. 2 incident, in which a Minnesota man wanted on an out-of-state felony charge was forced to surrender a cache of weapons to airport police, but was then allowed to leave without being arrested, has galvanized law enforcement leaders and elected officials to determine whether LAX is safe enough.

Councilwoman Ruth Galanter has convened hearings for tomorrow to discuss security at LAX and to propose installing metal detectors or other devices at the airport entrances, which might enhance safety but also raises the specter of long lines on airport sidewalks. Mayor Richard Riordan is weighing his own approach on the issue, considering, among other ideas, the possible appointment of a special airport security task force.

“The bottom line is that this issue that came up a couple weeks ago raised a red flag,” said Noelia Rodriguez, the mayor’s press secretary. “He [Riordan] needs an increased level of confidence that LAX is as safe as possible.”

For the LAPD, the latest grumblings offer an opportunity to promote its philosophy of “one city, one police department.” That notion proposes unifying the city’s law enforcement agencies under a single command and allows the LAPD a chance to do some empire-building at the same time. For years, the LAPD has been looking to absorb other local police agencies, starting with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority officers and moving to the airport and other organizations.

“In my judgment, it is in the best interest of the city to have one Police Department that is responsible for all policing in the city of Los Angeles,” said LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks. “Ultimately, we believe that LAX should be included in that goal.”

At present, a bevy of law enforcement agencies and others combine to provide security at LAX. Federal agencies such as the FBI, Customs, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms all have responsibilities, as does the LAPD, which has a small outpost at the airport. The airlines pay for staff at the metal detector and X-ray machine checkpoints, where their private security forces call upon airport police in the event of trouble. The Federal Aviation Administration sets security guidelines for the airport.

Each of those agencies has its own duties. The DEA has primary responsibility for drug interdiction, while the FBI and LAPD would be expected to play the lead roles in the event of a terrorist attack.

But no single organization has overall authority to ensure that LAX is safe.

*

The consequences of that structure usually have little effect on the public, but sometimes can raise deeper fears about the safety at the airport.

On the less troubling end of the spectrum, some officials complain that airport police are slow to inform them when they get word of altercations on planes--generally violations of federal law that require the FBI or another federal agency to respond. That can inconvenience agents and others, but it does little if anything to endanger passengers.

Of greater concern are the training and supervision of the city’s 232-officer airport police force, the lack of a centralized crisis authority and the artless wording of state laws that limit police as they try to keep guns off airplanes.

On Sept. 2, airport police halted Mark Lawrence Kulp at a security checkpoint after finding a shotgun, an assault pistol, more than 100 rounds of ammunition, knives, a fake sheriff’s badge, handcuffs and a ski mask inside two bags belonging to him. Officers seized the weapons but failed to recognize the pistol as an illegal assault weapon. They let Kulp continue without the weapons to Minnesota, where he was arrested a week later on an unrelated warrant charging him with threatening police officers there.

Airport officials now concede that it was a mistake not to realize that one of Kulp’s guns--a Mac 11 assault pistol--was illegal and to fail to arrest him for carrying it.

Gilbert Sandoval, chief of the airport police, stressed that the guns were taken from Kulp and therefore no passengers on his plane were in danger. But others, including Galanter, have questioned the actions of the officers and the adequacy of safety systems that may have kept the guns off an airplane but nevertheless allowed Kulp to wander through a busy airport terminal with enough weapons and ammunition to raise havoc.

Galanter is demanding answers from city lawyers and airport officials and has set a deadline for Tuesday, when her council committee plans to hold a special hearing on the topic.

John J. Driscoll, the airport manager, acknowledged that the Kulp incident revealed some areas of concern regarding the airport security system, but not flaws that compromised the safety of passengers. He also expressed skepticism about merging the airport police into the LAPD, though he said that idea is worth studying.

According to Driscoll, the special requirements of policing the airport make merging its officers into the LAPD more complicated than, say, the long-discussed merger with Metropolitan Transportation Authority police. Airport police are required to conduct extensive security operations, checking airport fences, watching for suspicious baggage and monitoring bustling terminals.

Their responsibilities require them to be the front line at what may be the city’s most tempting terrorist target. Because of that, their officers are required to receive special FAA certification.

As a result, Driscoll said it is important that airport police be kept in place for long stints. If the LAPD were brought in to take over LAX operations, Driscoll worries that the department’s traditional turnover would hamper airport policing by creating a constant stream of officers who required certification and by diluting the special cadre of police trained in airport security nuances.

Sandoval agreed, adding: “The crime picture here at LAX . . . is vastly different from the crime picture in the rest of the city,” so officers who work the airport develop special skills that would not necessarily help them if they were absorbed into the LAPD.

Galanter, whose council district includes the airport and whose committee oversees it, has suggested installing screening devices such as X-ray machines or metal detectors at entrances to the airport rather than at the end of hallways leading to the airport gates.

But Galanter’s proposal raises a host of practical questions.

Should people running into an airport terminal to pick up a ticket or a piece of luggage be required to empty their pockets and pass through a metal detector? Would such a system, a far more restrictive one than exists at other major airports, make passengers safer or merely push the possible danger zone from the inside of the airport to the sidewalk outside? And are travelers prepared to put up with long waits outside the airport as thousands of people are funneled through screening devices at the airport entrances, where they and their bags would be subject to searches?

Driscoll and Sandoval questioned the practicality of the councilwoman’s approach. Still, they do support at least one idea for reform: updating the laws that dictate who can be arrested at the airport for weapons offenses.

There, however, Galanter and her council colleagues who raise concerns about airport security could find themselves in an embarrassing position.

In 1994, airport officials asked the City Council to help them get a state law changed to make it easier to seize unloaded guns from people at the airport. The council turned them down.

*

Explaining their position at the time, officials said that “when a person is found to be carrying an unloaded concealed weapon at a security screening station, the only way to place the suspect into custody is for the screener to make a citizen’s arrest.” The problem with that approach is that to make a citizen’s arrest, the arresting person has to witness all aspects of the crime. According to Sandoval, if the officer, as in the Kulp case, does not personally see a suspect place a bag on the X-ray machine, then no arrest can be made.

Critics counter that airport police could in fact have arrested Kulp, relying either on videotapes showing him with the bags or on his signed receipt for the weapons.

Although the City Council rejected the recommendation for an amended law in 1994, Driscoll said this time he hopes that the attention given to the Kulp case may cause the council to see the problem differently.

“Not to be able to make an arrest under those circumstances is absolutely ludicrous,” Driscoll said. “It’s tying the hands of the airport.”