ACLU Seeks Role in Enforcing Police Reform Pact

An ACLU-led coalition filed a motion in U.S. District Court on Monday seeking a role in monitoring and enforcing the federal consent decree that is aimed at reforming the Los Angeles Police Department.

In their request to intervene, the 17 plaintiffs expressed doubts about whether President-elect George W. Bush’s administration intends to rigorously enforce the decree signed last month by the city and the U.S. Justice Department.

The motion cited a campaign statement in which Bush told the nation’s largest police union, “I do not believe the Justice Department should routinely conduct oversight investigations, issue reports or undertake other activity that is designed to function as a review of police operations in states, cities and towns.”

Bush went on to assure the National Fraternal Order of Police that as president he would work to support local police agencies “rather than constantly second-guessing” them.

“Second-guessing,” the ACLU motion said, “is, of course, precisely what the U.S. Department of

Justice would be required to do if it were to monitor effectively implementation of the consent decree in this case.”

City Atty. James Hahn said his office will oppose the ACLU’s attempt to intervene. He said he expects the Justice Department to join him.

“We don’t want to get distracted by a whole bunch of people who now want to get involved,” Hahn said. “We don’t believe it’s necessary. And we don’t think the federal statute permits it.”

As for Bush’s campaign statement, Hahn said, “I’m not concerned by that.” He said the cityhas received no indications from Justice Department lawyers of any impending policy shift.

In Washington, Justice Department spokeswoman Kara Peterman said, “We’re reviewing their filing and have no further comment.”

The consent decree, negotiated to head off a threatened lawsuit by Bill Lann Lee, chief civil rights lawyer in the Clinton Justice Department, mandates changes in LAPD operations.

The reforms include implementing a computerized “early warning” system to root out problem cops; creating a new LAPD unit to investigate officer-involved shootings, and giving more powers to the civilian Police Commission and its inspector general.

U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess will be responsible for overseeing the decree, which he still must approve. An independent monitor, to be selected by March 1, will report to Feess quarterly on the LAPD’s compliance.

But according to Mark Rosenbaum, the ACLU’s legal director, the independent monitor will have no authority to file suit if he finds the LAPD is violating the decree.

Now, only the Justice Department or the city can do so under terms of the agreement, Rosenbaum said. The judge, however, could order the department to comply.

“Without any right for citizens to enforce its terms, the consent decree is dead on arrival, lacking credibility by excluding the very public which has been victimized by its own police,” Rosenbaum said.

Although not addressed in their court papers, Rosenbaum said the 17 plaintiffs will propose setting up an outreach mechanism under the guidance of USC Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky to hear citizen complaints related to the decree. Chemerinsky is co-counsel in the case.

Joining the ACLU in the motion were the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Los Angeles, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Father Gregory Boyle’s Homeboy Industries, which works with current and former youth gang members, Radio Sin Fronteras and 12 individuals who signed declarations saying they were victims or witnesses to civil rights abuses by LAPD officers.

Several plaintiffs have lawsuits pending against the department. Those suits are in the process of being settled, but the settlements are contingent in part on LAPD’s compliance with the federal consent decree.

The ACLU emphasized that those seeking intervention have no interest in changing any conditions spelled out in the 144-page consent decree.

The decree is being challenged in federal court on another front. The Police Protective League, which represents most LAPD officers, filed a motion last month seeking to overturn some parts of the agreement.

The league says they violate the police union’s collective bargaining contract with the city. A hearing is set for today before Judge Feess.