Bend a Rule to Get Results

Obtaining as much information as possible, as quickly as possible, and from as many sources as possible should be a chief goal in the LAPD Rampart Division scandal. If that means bending some very rigid rules in order to help police officers come forward to report misconduct and crimes by fellow officers, so be it.

The LAPD hierarchy has long said it could not ease the rule requiring officers to immediately report crimes or face severe penalties, including termination. In an interview Wednesday, the LAPD spokesman, Cmdr. David Kalish, said that “if they come forward now, we will mitigate the penalty. Clearly we will take their coming forward now into consideration.” Though officers who had witnessed wrongdoing but failed to come forward immediately would still be held “accountable,” Kalish said there would be “no automatic firing.” LAPD policy never required automatic firing for failure to report, so the flexibility that could be inferred from Kalish’s statement does not necessarily signal real change in the LAPD position. Certainly Police Chief Bernard C. Parks seemed immovable Wednesday on any possibility of even limited amnesty for officers who may have witnessed wrongdoing.

Of course, it’s distasteful to think of offering protection to officers who are charged with upholding the law and do nothing to prevent lawbreaking by one of their own. But those in law enforcement know that this kind of give-and-take compromise frequently oils the wheels of the criminal justice system and allows cases to be prosecuted.

Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti forced the issue Tuesday by offering “confidentiality” to LAPD officers who come forward to report crimes or misconduct that they witnessed but failed to report. Essentially, the prosecutors would consider the cops confidential informants, hide their identity from the LAPD and decide later whether the officers had to be used as witnesses and/or deserved some limited immunity from prosecution.

But there is now such apparent loathing between Garcetti and Parks that their every decision is political, sure to contain a calculated dig at the other. Garcetti, for example, gets to appear as if he is opening all doors to information when the practical effect may be minimal at best. How many officers would come forward under any circumstances, given the threat of being fired for it and the possibility of being ostracized as a snitch?

But there is a way to turn this to the public’s favor: an LAPD compromise. If the department makes it easier for cops to come forward and they actually do so, it puts the ball back in Garcetti’s court and pressures him to finally prosecute.

Ideally, none of this would be necessary. Ideally, the top cop and the chief prosecutor would put aside their differences and work together. But the same end can be reached if the department offers a break to officers who step forward with information right now.