• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
Memorandum
To: Los Angeles Board of Police CommissionersCc: Michael Dukakis, Professor, UCLA Department of Public Policy From: Kevin Barry Date: May 17, 2009Re: Restoring Public Access to LAPD Disciplinary Information
 
1. Summary 
 Although the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has had acontroversial and troubled history, for many years the Department was highly transparent to the public about officer discipline. While the LAPD still disclosesmore disciplinary information than most other law enforcement agencies, in recent years a considerable degree of that transparency has disappeared, in large part theresult of a 2006 California Supreme Court decision which cast serious doubt on thelegality of such practices under state law and brought about a major change inDepartment policy. Currently, the public has no way of knowing which LAPDofficers have engaged in official misconduct, and it is very difficult—oftentimesimpossible—to connect specific officer-involved incidents with their disciplinary outcomes. Because of the LAPD’s history of excessive force and poor community relations, especially with minority communities, this change of policy isparticularly problematic. By shielding important information from scrutiny, theDepartment has diminished the capacity of the media and the general public tohold it accountable for its actions, and this forced secrecy may be helping toperpetuate feelings of mistrust and cynicism in the community.
 
2
The purpose of this memo is to develop a strategy for the Los Angeles Boardof Police Commissioners (BOPC), in conjunction with LAPD and city leadership, torestore or improve public access to the Department’s disciplinary information. Iconsider four avenues: (1) legal action, (2) changes to LAPD policies andprocedures, (3) media outreach, and (4) legislative action. Due to legal andpolitical barriers, fully restoring the level of informational access and publicaccountability that once existed with respect to officer discipline does not appearto be a realistic goal. Based on judicial precedent, it is unlikely that the courts would offer any remedy. However, the LAPD could nonetheless make significantpolicy improvements within the constraints of state law, and a concerted effort toinform the media about disciplinary matters on an ongoing basis may increase theeffectiveness of the Department’s disclosure practices and assist in community outreach efforts. The potential for meaningful legislative action in this regard islimited, but there may be some viable policy ideas that members of theCommission could propose to state lawmakers. While there are a number of steps that the Police Commission could take onits own in an attempt to address the lack of public access to LAPD disciplinary information, the serious consideration of any major initiatives warrants acollaborative process. I recommend that the Commission convene a workinggroup of key stakeholders tasked with developing possible solutions to theproblem, and also solicit comments from the public to better inform the workinggroup’s analysis. Further, to the extent that any new policies are implemented as aresult of this process, I suggest a broad framework for their evaluation.
 
 
3
2. Background
The history of this issue dates back to the 1974
 Pitchess v. Superior Court 
 California Supreme Court decision, in which the court ruled that information oncomplaints of misconduct against any involved officers was, under certaincircumstances, discoverable by defendants in criminal proceedings. Subsequent tothis ruling, some law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, shredded theircomplaint files, resulting in the dismissal of many criminal cases. To address thisproblem, the state legislature passed a compromise measure that required law enforcement agencies to preserve complaint records for five years, but which madethese records confidential.
1
The confidentiality requirement was codified inCalifornia Penal Code § 832.7, which states:(a) Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records…areconfidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civilproceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046of the Evidence Code.
2
 (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a department or agency thatemploys peace or custodial officers may disseminate data regardingthe number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, notsustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if thatinformation is in a form which does not identify the individualsinvolved. Additionally, Penal Code § 832.8 defines “personnel records” as “any filemaintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency,”including “complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event
1
 http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/ms_copley_070624.shtml 
2
As a result of this law, the defense must submit a request to the judge (known as a “Pitchess motion”) toobtain information about complaints against any involved officer. The judge will then review eachofficer’s personnel records and provide the defense only with whatever information he or she deemspotentially relevant to the case.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
dawn-breedlove-6234

My father killed in front of my mother in Riverside County. The killers dad buddies of DA Rod Pacheco per fathers audio statement given to me by internal affairs without documenting giving it to me. We have been blocked from all justice and stalked for 2 years by the killer and his family. Audio and video http://nyefrank.typepad.com

reply12 / 08 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...