The Case for Strong, Independent Police Oversight

My husband and I have lived and practiced law in the San Fernando Valley for nearly 20 years. During the last five years, we have volunteered hundreds of hours, mostly to no avail, attempting to communicate to the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners serious grievances of everyday, mostly minority mom-and-pop business owners repeatedly and wrongfully accused and unduly harassed by Los Angeles Police Department officers.

Several of those who have complained were subsequently threatened, arrested or found themselves experiencing far more problems with police than previously. Written complaints we conveyed to the commission on behalf of these business owners were allegedly turned over to Internal Affairs more than 18 months ago. Yet in almost all cases, no communications were made to the complaining parties and no information can be obtained as to the status of the investigations.

The commissioners, chief of police and those in charge of investigating the complaints submitted by my office always act as if they really care. Often they acknowledge that our complaints have merit and provide false assurances that changes have been made or that a “special order” dictating change is imminent. But these individuals seem to be all talk with no action, and after several years of hearing the same thing, it begins to sound like a broken record.

I was privileged to receive a letter inviting me to participate tomorrow at a City Council Public Safety Committee meeting, chaired by Councilwoman Laura Chick. The topic will be the role of the LAPD inspector general, a position created in 1995 to “oversee the investigation of all discrimination and harassment complaints in the LAPD and to annually audit the department’s disciplinary functions.”

The Los Angeles Times and other news publications have devoted much attention to the recent resignation, under fire, of Inspector General Katherine Mader (effective January 1999). Mader, the first appointee to this important position, recently shared her frustrations, saying the Police Commission has undermined her position and that the public has been defrauded into thinking it is truly independent. In a Janury 1997 report, Mader suggested that complaints against high-ranking officers have not been properly investigated. Another common complaint shared by many has been that the department often transfers officers accused of misconduct and even promotes them to higher rank.

My first LAPD administrative and court complaint involved a Van Nuys captain. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement favorable to my clients. Without my clients or myself ever having been contacted, the Police Commission and Internal Affairs found no evidence of misconduct, and the captain was transferred and promoted to commanding officer. He is now in charge of Internal Affairs.

In general, the people who have been assigned to investigate complaints submitted by my office almost always appear to be officers who have worked closely with (and are friends or colleagues of) the officer accused of misconduct. They obviously cannot be impartial.

In addition, drafts of investigation reports or special orders are reviewed by the investigator’s supervisor, the city attorney, police chief or other officers or city officials who have an interest in the outcome. These individuals are asked for feedback that may result in modification or deletion of important aspects of the report. Obviously, the city attorney has a conflict of interest when a report that concedes misconduct on the part of an officer can subject the city to liability and damages.

It seems that unless the media or a lawsuit brings these problems to the public’s attention, it takes far too many years and a whole lot of effort before our city officials will even concede that there may be a problem, let alone implement solutions or issue directives to correct it.

Who would be more qualified to render an opinion on this subject than the former Police Commission president, Rabbi Gary Greenebaum? On May 6, The Times published Greenebaum’s commentary expressing his concerns and affirming that Mader has provided “exactly the kind of investigation and oversight that the Christopher Commission envisioned.” Unfortunately, it seems that since LAPD Chief Bernard Parks and Police Commission Executive Director Joe Gunn have come on board, Mader has been prevented from performing her job with the same tenacity and determination she previously demonstrated.

The inspector general and her dedicated staff must be permitted to properly do their work, independent of the city attorney, police chief, police commissioners or other city officials or politicians pressuring them, looking over their shoulders or telling them what they can and cannot do.

Many individuals, including victims of police misconduct as well as LAPD officers and staff, are aware of serious problems but are reluctant to come forward for fear of retaliation or reprisal. I commend Katherine Mader for having the courage and integrity to publicly reveal and denounce practices that should not be condoned.

Tomorrow, I will welcome the opportunity to again share my experiences, frustrations, opinions and complaints concerning the manner with which allegations of police misconduct are investigated.

I am also grateful to Laura Chick for providing a public forum in which all of us who have found complaining to the commission to be an exercise in futility can air our grievances and, one hopes, see positive changes that benefit the Valley and all of Los Angeles.