Police Union Loses Bid for Role in Consent Decree

The judge overseeing Los Angeles police reform on Monday denied the police union’s request to intervene in the proposed consent decree between the city and the U.S. Justice Department.

But U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess said he would allow the Police Protective League and other interested organizations to be heard as friends of the court in future proceedings.

In the legal system, friend-of-the-court status is granted to parties who have special information that might otherwise escape the court’s attention.

Feess said in his 13-page ruling that the league, which represents nearly 9,000 rank-and-file officers, “has an important perspective on this action and may provide useful insight.”

However, permitting the league to intervene directly would only delay police reforms from being implemented, he said.

“Of course, we’re very disappointed in this ruling,” said Mitzi Grasso, the league’s new president, “but the fact that he is going to grant us a right to be heard, we welcome that, because we feel that our officers are large stakeholders in what happens.”

The decree, a response to the Rampart scandal, is designed to end what the Justice Department has termed “a pattern and practice” of the Los Angeles Police Department using excessive force, and falsely stopping and arresting citizens.

Feess did not name the other organizations to which he might grant friend-of-the-court status. The American Civil Liberties Union and civil rights lawyer Stephen Yagman have filed similar intervention requests. A hearing on their motions is set for Jan. 22.

The league made several previous attempts to intervene as the consent decree was being negotiated. All were unsuccessful.

Feess still must sign off on the pact before it can take effect. He has asked for clarification of several points and wants a say in the naming of an independent monitor.

In court papers, the police league argued that it had a right to intervene directly in the decree because its members could be charged with contempt for violations.

Not so, Feess wrote in his ruling. He said the league’s lawyers misread the document. Under the decree, he said, the city is responsible for police officer conduct, and only the city can be held accountable.

Feess found that the league did have a “significant protectable interest” to the extent that the decree affects the police union’s work contract with the city.

Anticipating that, he said, the decree requires the city to meet and confer with the league and refer any differences to the court for resolution.

He said the league wanted to scrap the entire meet-and-confer practice and have the court review all sticking points. He rejected that idea, citing “efficiency and judicial economy.”

Feess said he plans to issue a further order dealing with the scheduling of hearings and briefings from the city, the Justice Department and friends of the court.