Protect Officers from Retaliation

Consider the following hypothetical: LAPD Detective X anxiously contacts the Police Commission’s office of the inspector general. He nervously states that a superior, a deputy chief, committed misconduct several months earlier. Detective X feared the misconduct would be buried and he would be subject to retaliation if he reported it up the chain of command. Detective X authorizes the inspector general to tell the Police Commission of this accusation.

During a closed session of the Police Commission, the chief of police is questioned about Detective X’s allegations. The chief replies that Detective X is a problem officer with a grudge against the department. The following day, Detective X is abruptly transferred. His supervising captain demands to know what Detective X told the inspector general. Detective X is then charged by the department’s discipline system with “failing to report misconduct in a timely manner.”

According to department policy, if Detective X believed that a deputy chief committed misconduct, he was required to immediately report the misconduct through his own chain of command. Going to the inspector general did not relieve Detective X of his departmental responsibility to report misconduct immediately.

After being charged, Detective X claims that he is being punished for confiding in the inspector general. Detective X cites the Police Commission’s 1997 anti-retaliation policy, and claims that he should be shielded from being questioned, transferred or disciplined as a result of his inspector general visit. He angrily complains to the inspector general, “Look at this mess! A real I.G. would have protected me!”

Detective X’s complaint has merit. The Police Commission’s well-intentioned anti-retaliation policy conflicts with City Charter Section 202, which gives the chief of police absolute and total control of the LAPD disciplinary system. In the above scenario, the chief can rightly claim, “We’re not disciplining Detective X for going to the inspector general. We would never do that. Detective X’s talents are needed in another unit. We are disciplining Detective X for not immediately reporting misconduct through his chain of command.”

The Los Angeles City Council will shortly consider various proposals to strengthen the independence of the inspector general. Protecting police officers from internal retaliation for providing information to the inspector general is one issue on the table. Some council members have suggested that the Police Commission direct the chief of police to tell his employees that they may contact the inspector general at any time without worrying about department retaliation. The city attorney has been asked to draft a new ordinance that would ostensibly protect department employees from retaliation.

Such solutions will never work. Under City Charter Section 202, the chief of police owns the disciplinary system and he alone can decide how and when to discipline his employees. If the chief chooses to discipline an officer for not reporting misconduct through his chain of command, the Police Commission, City Council or a new ordinance cannot stop him. Without amending Section 202, however, there are measures that the Police Commission should take to inhibit retaliation.

The Police Commission, which by City Charter establishes LAPD policy, should direct that no department employee may be questioned in any manner regarding contacts with their inspector general. The Police Commission can recommend to the chief of police that violations of the commission’s policy should be cause for discipline. In the above scenario, Detective X’s captain would be disciplined for questioning Detective X about his visit to the inspector general. The Police Commission can consider whether the police chief carried out this policy during its annual evaluation of the chief’s performance.

While the chief of police cannot be stopped from disciplining Detective X for failing to report misconduct in a timely manner, the Police Commission can mandate that at the option of the accused officer, misconduct charges initiated shortly after contact with the inspector general will be reviewed by the Police Commission. Police Commission scrutiny of these occurrences would discourage potential retaliation.

An inspector general who cannot protect complainants from retaliation is ineffective. Public discussion of retaliation issues cannot be divorced from discussion of the police chief’s absolute right to discipline. Reconciliation of these competing interests must be resolved before police officers may safely confide in the inspector general.