LAPD Handling of Officer Data Imperils Cases, Official Says

A top lawyer in the Los Angeles city attorney’s office said Tuesday that the way the Police Department handles complaint information on officers has created “a crisis” that could undermine successful prosecution of criminal defendants.

Cecil W. Marr warned the city’s civilian Police Commission that if the system is not changed soon, “we need to be prepared to have a lot of criminal cases dismissed.”

At issue is how the department responds to defense attorneys’ requests for relevant information from personnel files concerning an officer’s conduct or integrity. As outlined in a story in The Times last month, many defense lawyers argue that filing a so-called Pitchess motion is no guarantee that such information will be turned over. In fact, a Times investigation found numerous instances in which police and prosecutors failed to discover--or to disclose--relevant information about officer credibility.

Marr said he expects the filing of Pitchess motions to grow exponentially in the wake of the department’s Rampart Division corruption scandal.

“It’s going to be malpractice for a criminal defense attorney not to bring a Pitchess motion in cases involving Los Angeles police officers,” said Marr, who heads the city attorney’s police litigation unit. “We’re facing a crisis . . . a crisis that’s going to get a lot, lot worse before it gets better.”

Marr told the commissioners and LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks that the department’s current system, in which information about officers is housed in eight to 10 separate locations, is already regarded as inadequate by many in the criminal justice system, including judges.

“Quite frankly, many of the judges do not believe us when we tell them there are no files [on an officer],” Marr said.

Marr recommended that the commission implement a formal policy of document disclosure, plan a more efficient personnel record system and increase staffing to accommodate the anticipated increase in Pitchess motions.

Marr also briefed commissioners on a recent Court of Appeal decision that broadens the Pitchess case law.

Currently, even if a judge deems that there is information in an officer’s file that falls within a defense lawyer’s request, such information is limited to the past five years.

The recent decision, which will not become final for about 60 days, requires the department to turn over all information relating to officer misconduct or integrity issues. A judge would then decide whether the defense was entitled to see it, regardless of how old the complaint was.

Marr’s comments, and a supporting 12-page report, come amid intense debate over the efficacy of Pitchess motions as an alternative to prosecutors’ constitutional obligation to turn over exculpatory information, including facts that challenge the credibility of police witnesses in a case.

Superior Court Judge Larry P. Fidler, who has personally overturned nearly 100 cases tainted by alleged police misconduct uncovered in the Rampart scandal, has called for hearings to “fix” the problems with disclosure. The hearings are on hold, however, while an appeals court considers an argument by the district attorney’s office that Fidler is not authorized to hold such proceedings. Fidler declined comment Tuesday, citing the pending litigation in his court.

Los Angeles County Public Defender Michael P. Judge said Marr’s comments were a public acknowledgment that the city attorney and LAPD have serious problems with disclosing “important evidence of officer misconduct.”

“It should come as no surprise that there is very little trust of the process when there have been such chronic failures,” Judge said.

Marr’s remarks Tuesday were but the latest development in what many see as an evolution toward fuller disclosure within the criminal justice system brought about by the revelations of the Rampart scandal.

Last month, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti implemented a new policy aimed at ensuring that criminal defendants receive information to which they are entitled regarding police officer credibility.

The key aspect of the D.A.’s new approach is the creation of a centralized computer database that will track allegations of officer misconduct. Under the policy, prosecutors are required to run relevant officers’ names through the database before deciding whether to file a criminal case and before calling any officer to the witness stand.