LAPD Reforms Fade Like the Cheshire Cat

Astoundingly, the consent decree between the U.S. Department of Justice and the city of Los Angeles for the reform of the Los Angeles Police Department still has not gone into effect.

More than a year ago, the Justice Department said it found a pervasive pattern of abuses and violations of rights by LAPD officers. The Justice Department said it would sue the city unless it agreed to reforms. After months of secret negotiations, in October 2000, the City Council formally approved a consent decree containing dozens of LAPD improvements. Inexplicably and unacceptably, the consent decree still has not been implemented.

The consent decree is vital to reforming the LAPD. Decades of experience show that meaningful changes in policing will not occur voluntarily in Los Angeles. Many of the key improvements proposed by the Christopher Commission in 1991, such as a system to track the disciplinary records of officers, have not been instituted.

The consent decree offers hope of real LAPD reforms because it is a judicially enforceable order; the city must comply with the terms of the consent decree or face sanctions from the federal court. The consent decree provides for an independent monitor to oversee its implementation and contains reforms affecting almost every aspect of policing in Los Angeles. Among other changes, it would create a new system for receiving citizen complaints and increasing the authority for their investigation. It would also require data gathering about racial profiling and would create an improved procedure for handling officer-involved shootings.

But now, more than six months after the agreement was formally reached, the consent decree has not been approved or implemented. U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess, who presides over all Rampart scandal cases, could have approved the consent decree and put it into effect last Nov. 6, when the two sides filed their formal agreement with the court. Instead, Feess is waiting for the selection of the monitor before approving the consent decree. This is unnecessary and unwise; the reforms should have been mandated even if the oversight mechanism was not yet in place.

The Justice Department and the city must share the blame for the delay. The City Council should have insisted that the LAPD put the reforms into effect quickly, rather than waiting for the consent decree to be formally approved.

The concern is that neither the city nor the Justice Department has much enthusiasm for the agreement. Mayor Richard Riordan and Police Chief Bernard C. Parks opposed a consent decree and ultimately agreed to go along only when it was clear that there were enough votes on the City Council to approve it over a mayoral veto. It is still uncertain whether the Justice Department, under President Bush and Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, will seek to vigorously enforce the consent decree negotiated by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department. Last spring, while a presidential candidate, George W. Bush opposed the Justice Department bringing suits intended to reform local police departments.

The terms of the LAPD consent decree expressly provide that the independent monitor was to have been selected by March 1. An elaborate interview process was conducted and several finalists emerged. Yet more than two months after the deadline, no monitor has been named.

All of this means that it largely remains business as usual at the LAPD. Important reforms recommended by the LAPD’s Board of Inquiry and the Police Commission’s own study still have not been adopted. Every day, people’s rights are in jeopardy, and their lives at risk, because essential changes have not been implemented.

Moreover, it must be remembered that the consent decree is only the beginning of needed changes in the LAPD. The consent decree did not, however, address other important issues, such as the need for more protection for whistle-blowers within the department and significant improvements in the Internal Affairs Division, which investigates complaints of officer misconduct. Also, the consent decree does not include reforms that would require amendments to the City Charter, such as creating a full-time police commission and strengthening the independence of the LAPD’s inspector general. Nor does the agreement reform other parts of the criminal justice system that were shown to be flawed by the Rampart scandal, such as the city attorney’s office, the district attorney’s office and the courts.

Now that the Rampart scandal has faded from the news, there is reason for grave concern that the impetus for reform is also lessening. This must not happen.

The City Council should demand that the city attorney ask for the immediate approval of the consent decree and the appointment of an independent monitor. Judge Feess should immediately approve the document and insist on its implementation. He should set a deadline for the selection of the monitor and make clear that if it is not met, he will pick the person.

Too much time without meaningful reforms already has gone by. In this area, justice delayed really is justice denied.