Judge Signals He Will Take Charge of LAPD Reforms

Concerned about his own role in overseeing Los Angeles police reform, a federal judge has so far declined to sign the federal consent decree on overhauling the LAPD because he wants clarification on a number of issues, including what say he will have in selecting an outside monitor to track the city’s compliance with the decree.

U.S. District Judge Garry Feess said he is troubled by the fact that the 94-page document left it up to the city and the federal Justice Department to choose the monitor. Once appointed, the monitor will be an officer of the court and will report to Feess.

“I won’t sign it that way,” he told lawyers for both sides at a hearing last month. “I’m not suggesting anything nefarious” on the part of the negotiators who drafted the decree, he added. “But this is something I’m going to be living with for a long time--at least five years.”

Feess’ reluctance to sign on the dotted line could delay implementation of the decree, and his comments make it clear that he intends to call the shots when it comes to enforcing the controversial document. The decree was finalized by the City Council in November after months of talks with the Justice Department.

Some city officials had hoped that Feess would stay on the sidelines, allowing city and Justice officials to push forward with the fixes, largely unfettered by the court.

“We saw the judge as more of an after-the-fact referee,” said Councilman Nick Pacheco, who initially opposed the council’s decision to enter into the consent decree.

Lawyers from the city attorney’s office said that, though they are not surprised that Feess wants to play an active role in enforcing the agreement, they want to avoid a situation in which the city and the Justice Department have to rewrite the decree. Changes would probably require the approval of the mayor and City Council, and, if they are significant, could reopen debate on one of the tensest topics of Mayor Richard Riordan’s eight-year tenure.

“We want to be able to accommodate the judge, whom we respect and trust,” said Tim McOsker, chief deputy city attorney. “But we want to make sure we hold to the process where the city and the Justice Department have a full and fair selection of the monitor.”

A spokesman for Riordan said the consent decree clearly states that the judge will have no role in selecting the monitor unless the city and the Justice Department fail to reach an agreement on the matter.

“Our position is that we should follow the letter of the law as it is laid out in the agreement,” said Deputy Mayor Ben Austin.

Although the consent decree is technically not enforceable until Feess signs it, city officials say they hope to have a monitor in place by March 1. People interested in the job are expected to apply by Jan. 16.

Feess’ concerns not only have implications for the timeline for implementing the reforms. His involvement could also affect the willingness of some people to apply for the monitor position.

“The judge is going to be solving disputes,” McOsker said. “I think Feess will figure prominently into the interest of the applicants.”

Although he is one of the newest members of the Los Angeles federal bench, Feess currently oversees pretrial proceedings in all Rampart-related civil rights cases.

A former federal prosecutor and a former Superior Court judge, Feess is intimately familiar with the workings of the Los Angeles Police Department. He served as deputy general counsel to the Christopher Commission, which investigated the department after the Rodney G. King beating.

Feess--who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton--also issued a novel ruling in a Rampart lawsuit, allowing the daughter of a police shooting victim to sue for being denied access to her father while he was in prison on trumped-up charges. Previously, courts granted such claims only to parents deprived of contact with their children.

City officials expected Feess to take a strong position on matters involving the LAPD. Nevertheless, his comments caught them somewhat off guard.

“I was surprised that he was as outspoken as he was,” said one person who attended the recent hearing on the consent decree.

It is not unusual for a judge to quibble with the terms of federal consent decrees. In Pittsburgh, another city under pressure from federal officials to reform its Police Department, a federal judge asked the city to prepare an addendum clarifying a number of issues in their decree. The city complied and the judge signed the document, two months after it was filed in court.

In addition to his remarks about the monitor, Feess told city and federal lawyers at the Dec. 19 hearing that he wouldn’t sign the decree until both sides agreed on a definition of “at-risk behavior” by police officers. The term appears throughout the legally binding agreement.

Under the decree, the Police Department is supposed to establish a system to spot officers engaged in at-risk behavior.

Feess strongly suggested that the two sides would be wise to confer with the Police Protective League in trying to come up with a definition. City officials said last week that they intend to meet soon to work out the definition that Feess is seeking.

Although his actions have kept the decree from being finalized, Feess has left no doubt about his intent to enforce it. During the negotiations over the document, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said they feared that George W. Bush, if elected president, would not vigorously enforce the decree. They cited remarks by Bush denouncing federal intervention in local police agencies.

Feess remarked during the recent hearing that he had been reading the morning newspaper and “some people in this town don’t seem to understand that this court is responsible for enforcing the decree.”