Shooting Probes Lag, Report Says

The Los Angeles Police Department continues to struggle in its oversight and tracking of officer-involved shooting investigations, according to a report released Monday.

Also, the LAPD is so far behind with implementing a computerized risk-management system, the study found, it may require extension of a deadline for federal oversight of the force.

The quarterly review by federal monitor Michael Cherkasky is the last progress report issued ahead of a self-imposed June 15 deadline for the LAPD to comply with nearly 200 reforms, evaluations and audits governing officer behavior.

A U.S. District judge will decide by June 2006 whether the LAPD is in compliance with a federal consent decree by making “genuine and good-faith efforts” to make changes in key areas, including tracking citizen complaints, use of informants, supervision of undercover units and officer use-of-force investigations.

Cherkasky was appointed in June 2001 by a federal judge to monitor how well the LAPD’s complies with the decree signed by the city and the U.S. Department of Justice. Federal officials forced the decree in the wake of the Rampart corruption scandal, in which former Officer Rafael Perez told authorities he and other officers had routinely planted evidence, framed suspects and covered up unjustified shootings.

In Cherkasky’s report for the quarter that ended March 31, 2004, he warned that failure to get a complaint management system in place, known as TEAMS II, could lead to delays that “may very well necessitate an extension of the Monitorship.”

Cherkasky also scolded the LAPD’s Critical Incident Investigation Division, which looks into officer-involved shootings, for continued shortcomings in the handling of major use-of-force incidents.

“The Monitor identified witness interviews that were not recorded; insufficient documentation within investigation files; and failures to interview supervisors responding to the scene, interview identified witnesses, adequately canvass the area for witnesses and secure evidence,” Cherkasky noted.

He made a similar observation last year, but in his latest report he noted that after that warning the LAPD agreed with the findings and decided to relocate and reorganize the investigation group responsible for shootings under the control of the department’s internal affairs operation.

Cherkasky found that the two groups responsible for ensuring a major use-of-force investigation are continuing to fail to “uncover the deficiencies” his team of investigators found.

Inspector General Andre Birotte said he is seeking to hire more staff.

The latest report stands in marked contrast to the previous quarter when, in an upbeat assessment, Cherkasky said the LAPD was moving toward its goals of “substantial compliance.”

Chief William J. Bratton identified consent decree compliance as a cornerstone of his efforts to rebuild the LAPD. He was out of the country and unavailable for comment on the report.

Gerald Chaleff, the LAPD civilian official in charge of implementing consent decree reforms, said many of the problems in the report had been addressed and pointed to significant progress amid the negatives.

The annual cost of administering the consent decree is estimated at more than $50 million.