Judge Hears From Police Decree Critics, Backers

Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley on Friday told a judge overseeing the LAPD consent decree that more needs to be done to reform the police department.

As one of a half dozen officials and activists asked to formally comment to the court on their views of the decree, Cooley said additional steps must be taken to ensure that officer misconduct is quickly disclosed to prosecutors--a problem that some believe allowed the corruption to go unchecked in the LAPD’s Rampart Division.

Public Defender Michael P. Judge echoed Cooley’s concerns in his comments to U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Feess, saying the LAPD must be required to comply with the “Brady” law, which requires disclosure of wrongdoing by officers involved in court cases.

“Overall, the consent decree contains a valid structure for the implementation of much-needed stronger oversight of the Los Angeles Police Department,” the public defender wrote. “The decree is flawed, however, because it fails to address LAPD’s constitutional obligation to disclose Brady evidence to the prosecution.

“The Public Defender is convinced that one of the reasons the corruption in the Rampart CRASH union was undiscovered for so long is that the LAPD consistently failed and refused to disclose to the prosecution constitutionally mandated Brady exculpatory evidence.”

While Cooley and Judge called for stricter guidelines, others--including Warren Christopher--told the judge that they were pleased with the reforms outlined in the consent decree, which is intended to serve as the blueprint for overhauling the LAPD in the wake of the Rampart scandal. Police union officials, meanwhile, urged the judge to conduct further hearings before signing the document.

The decree includes dozens of fixes aimed at overhauling the police department. They range from strengthening the department’s internal affairs unit to setting up a computer tracking system to identify problem officers.

Los Angeles is the largest police department ever placed under a consent decree. The city agreed to the decree after the U.S. Justice Department threatened to sue the LAPD for engaging in a “pattern or practice” of civil rights violations.

After a hearing last month, Feess said he wants a say in choosing the monitor who will track the implementation of the decree. He said he won’t sign the document until the city and Justice Department present him with a suitable candidate.

In the meantime, he called on select members of the city’s law enforcement community to file “friend of the court” briefs to raise their concerns on the agreement.

He set Friday as the deadline for the briefs.

Cooley told the judge that, in one recent case, an LAPD official informed the court that there had been no complaints against an officer involved in the case within the last five years.

“This assertion was made despite the fact that the officer had been indicted by the Grand Jury the day before!” Cooley wrote.

He added: “It is essential that the department enter into a formal written protocol regarding referral of allegations of criminal misconduct.”

Meanwhile, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California urged Feess to “enter the consent decree as quickly as possible.”

“The provisions embodied in the consent decree are precisely the reforms necessary to restore civilian confidence in their police force and to assure police compliance with constitutional and respectful police practices,” the ACLU brief said.

Christopher said he believed the decree incorporated many of the reforms put forward by his commission, which was formed 10 years ago to recommend fixes for the LAPD in the wake of the Rodney King beating.

“This provides an assurance of compliance that has previously been lacking,” Christopher said of the decree.

He added that he supported Feess’ decision to demand a say in picking the monitor. “Such participation is essential, I believe, given that the relationship between the court and the monitor and the ability of the monitor to bring concerns to the attention of the court are keys to the success of this challenging assignment,” Christopher wrote.

Union officials told Feess that they were troubled by the decree, which calls for a computerized tracking system to identify problem officers. They also expressed concerns about the collection of data to determine if officers engage in “racial profiling.”

“The inference that an officer who stops a high percentage of minority suspects is a racist is inappropriate and misplaced,” wrote Barry Levin, an attorney for the Los Angeles Command Officers Assn. “The reporting requirements leave open the high risk to manipulate and misinterpret the data in an effort to undermine the legitimate and necessary goals of law enforcement.”