Coalition Seeking Police Reform Role Suffers Setback

A federal judge tentatively rejected an ACLU-led coalition’s bid Monday to become a party to the proposed consent decree aimed at reforming the Los Angeles Police Department.

U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess said private groups and individuals do not have the right to intervene under the law that authorized the U.S. Justice Department’s action against the city’s police force amid the Rampart corruption scandal.

Mark D. Rosenbaum, counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, had argued that the Justice Department, now under President Bush, could no longer be trusted to aggressively implement the historic reform measure.

As evidence, he cited Bush campaign statements criticizing the federal government for meddling in local police matters.

In one such statement, Bush told the National Fraternal Order of Police: “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 or towns.”

The Los Angeles case is “anything but routine,” said Feess, noting that the city has a long, tortured history of alleged police abuse.

As for Bush’s public statements, Feess told Rosenbaum: “You’re far overstating and giving too much stock to what is said in a political campaign.”

While tentatively rejecting the ACLU motion, Feess said he planned to assign the ACLU, along with civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, an advisory role as friends of the court. Feess said he would issue his final ruling on the ACLU’s request to intervene in the decree after he reviews several court cases cited by Rosenbaum in his argument.

Last November, the Los Angeles City Council approved the consent decree under pressure from the Justice Department, which threatened to file a lawsuit against the city alleging that the LAPD engaged in a “pattern or practice” of civil rights violations.

The proposed reforms--to be carried out under the watchful eye of an independent monitor--include a computerized “early warning” system to identify problem officers, a new LAPD unit to investigate officer-involved shootings, and more power for the civilian Police Commission and its inspector general.

Reiterating comments he made at a hearing in December, Feess warned city and federal officials Monday that he will not sign off on the deal unless he is granted a say in the selection of the monitor.

The agreement--as originally drafted--calls for an outside overseer to be chosen by the city and the Justice Department. The judge is allowed to get involved only if the two parties cannot agree on the monitor--a provision that was incorporated into the decree in an effort to get Mayor Richard Riordan and several council members to abandon their opposition to the deal.

While attorneys for both sides said they were eager to meet with Feess to discuss his concerns, city officials said they hope to accommodate the judge without amending the decree.

“The document is the result of months of negotiations with the Department of Justice,” Chief Deputy City Atty. Tim McOsker said after the hearing. “It delivers a package of reforms that the city expects the judge to approve without modification.”

Also, any substantial amendment would require approval of the council and the mayor.

At least two council members said they still hold out hope that Los Angeles can get out of the federal consent decree. Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. introduced a motion last week calling for his colleagues to rescind their earlier approval of the consent decree. Councilman Hal Bernson agreed to second the motion, based on concerns that the judge and a monitor may end up “meddling” in department operations. The council is expected to debate Svorinich’s motion today.

Aside from serving as a check for the court monitor, the ACLU contended that community involvement in enforcing the decree would have “an important prophylactic effect because the LAPD would be less likely to withhold information.”

In its request to intervene, the ACLU said it wanted to establish a system, including a telephone hotline, for gathering information from citizens about the LAPD’s compliance with the decree.

Lawyers for the city and the Justice Department opposed the ACLU’s request for intervention.