•

~ II .

: II

~ II

I II

~ II

[ II

, II

I II

, '

i II I I f

• •

i 'I I.

: '\ ~ I

I II

~ II

.1 II

I '

I' II

, !' ~

I

• I

I

If II

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Copynght © 1991

By

•

lndcpcndcnt C11l11TIISsion on the Los .-\ngciL's [\1Ii(c Dcp.utmcnt All Rlghb Reserved

•

•

•

•

•

. ,
•
I
! ;
~
•
I
I •

I

•

I I

••

I II

•

Report of the Independent Commission .

Chapter 1.

Chapter 2. Chapter 3. Chapter 4.

Chapter 5.

Chapter 6.

Chapter 7. Chapter 8. Chapter 9.

Table Of Contents

,.JAr COpy

Letter of Transmittal Commission and Staff

F d ('1)

orewor .

Summary of Report.................................................................. (vii)

The Rodney King Beating and

the Questions It Has Raised.. 1

Los Angeles and Its Police Department .

The Problem of Excessive Force in the LAPD .

19 29

Racism and Bias Affecting the Use of

Excessive Force .

67

LAPD Culture, Community Relations,

and "Community Policing" .

Recruitment, Selection and

Psychological Testing ..

95

107

Training .

Promotion, Assignment and Other Personnellssues ..

Complaints and Discipline .

119

137 151

Chapter 10. Structural Issues -- The Police Commission

and the Chief of Police 181

Chapter 11. Implementation 225

Appendix I Mayor's Charge to the Independent Commission on the

Los Angeles Police Department

Joint Statement of Warren Christopher

and Justice John Arguelles -- April 4, 1991

The Ten-Point Plan Announced by Chief of Police Daryl Gates

Appendix" Commission and Staff Activities

! :

Table of Contents

Report of the Independent Commission

Foreword

The Rodney King beating stands as a landmark in the recent history of law enforcement, comparable to the Scottsboro case in 1931 and the Serpico case in 1967. Rightly called "sickening" by President Bush, and condemned by all segments of society, the King incident provides an opportunity for evaluation and reform of police procedures. Many saw the incident as particularly tragic because it happened in Los Angeles, whose police officers are among the most efficient and innovative in the nation.

Police violence is not a local problem. Recognizing its national character, police chiefs from 10 major cities convened soon after the King incident and emphasized that "the problem of excessive force in American policing is real." The same theme was stressed by Hubert Williams, President of the Police Foundation and former Chief of Police for Newark, New Jersey: "Police use of excessive force is a significant problem in this country, particularly in our inner cities." With the Knapp Commission on police corruption as a precedent, the most fundamental challenge for the Independent Commission is to recommend

Foreword (i)

Report of the Independent Commission

reforms that will help insure that such an incident is not repeated in Los Angeles or elsewhere in the nation.

Our Commission owes its existence to the George Holliday videotape of the Rodney King incident. Whether there even would have been a Los Angeles Police Department investigation without the video is doubtful, since the efforts of King's brother, Paul, to file a complaint were frustrated, and the report of the involved officers was falsified. Even if there had been an investigation, our case-by-case review of the handling of over 700 complaints indicates that without the Holliday videotape the complaint might have been adjudged to be "not sustained," because the officers' version conflicted with the account by King and his two passengers, who typically would have been viewed as not "independent. "

In the wake of the King incident and the public outcry, the Independent Commission was created by Mayor Tom Bradley on April 1, 1991, and soon merged with the Commission created by Los Angeles Chief of Police Daryl Gates. (See Appendix I for foundational documents.) Our efforts were endorsed by City Council President John Ferraro, District Attorney Ira Reiner, City Attorney James Hahn, and many other public officials.

Our Report concentrates on excessive force under color of law. We have sought to examine any aspect of the law enforcement structure in Los Angeles that might cause or contribute to the problem of excessive force, and this has led us to consider almost every aspect of the LAPD. We have tried, however, to avoid being drawn into issues that are only peripheral to our central inquiry.

Our Commission has conducted an unprecedented inquiry into the use of excessive force by a police department. More than 50 expert witnesses have been heard in 26 executive sessions. More than 150 representatives of community organizations and private citizens have been heard in five public hearings held by the full Commission in different sections of the City. Members of the Commission have taken many individual initiatives ranging from night time "ride-alongs" in patrol cars to meetings with groups of ministers and priests. More than 500 current and retired Los Angeles police officers have been interviewed. A staff of more than 60 lawyers, supported by three accounting and data analysis firms, has been at work for 1 00 days and many nights.

(II) Foreword

Report of the Independent Commission

Our work has been informed by nine major computer-aided studies of documents and statistics that yield their own truths independent of after-the-fact opinions or reconstruction. For example, we have conducted computerized studies of the Department's use of force reports from 1987 to 1991 and of all complaints filed by members of the public between 1986 and 1990. Our staff has reviewed the Mobile Digital Terminal communications (MOTs) of the Department's patrol cars for six sample months drawn from a 16 month period. We have examined with special care the files in the 83 civil damage cases involving excessive force claims that were settled by the City Attorney, with the approval of the City Council, for more than $15,000. In all, more than one million pages of documents have been reviewed.

Police work is dangerous. A routine arrest may suddenly turn into a violent confrontation, sometimes triggered by drugs, alcohol, or mental illness. Neighborhood gangs often directly challenge an officer's authority. To cope, police officers are given the unique right to use force, even deadly force, against others. The right to use force carries with it a heavy responsibility not to abuse it. The principal purpose of this Report is to present the results of our efforts to understand why and how often this authority has been abused, and to offer some down-to-earth recommendations for avoiding a repetition of incidents like that involving Rodney King.

This is a blunt report. We have received impressive cooperation from the LAPD as well as other agencies in the Los Angeles and national law enforcement communities. We seek to respond to this cooperation by being plainspoken.

The Commission found that there is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the Department regarding force. This finding is documented and confirmed, from several perspectives, by the detailed analyses of documents and statistics performed by the Commission. Our computerized study of the complaints filed in recent years shows a strong concentration of allegations against a problem group of officers. A comparable study of the use of force reports reveals a similar concentration. Graphic confirmation of improper attitudes and practices is provided by the brazen and extensive references to beatings and other excessive uses of force in the MOTs.

Foreword (iii)

Report of the Independent Commission

The Commission also found that the problem of excessive force is aggravated by racism and bias, again strikingly revealed in the MOTs.

The failure to control these officers is a management issue that is at the heart of the problem. The documents and data that we have analyzed have all been available to the Department; indeed, most of this information came from that source. The LAPD's failure to analyze and act upon these revealing data evidences a significant breakdown in the management and leadership of the Department. The Police Commission, lacking investigators or other resources, failed in its duty to monitor the Department in this sensitive use of force area. The Department not only failed to deal with the problem group of officers but it often rewarded them with positive evaluations and promotions.

Our findings drive our principal recommendations. We urge that the leadership of the LAPD go beyond rhetoric in carrying out its existing policies against excessive force. From the Chief of Police on down to the sergeants, this means taking a firm stand against the "bad guys" on the force and employing all the instruments available -- training, discipline, assignments, and promotion. It also means monitoring and auditing all available data -- patrol car transmissions, use of force reports, and citizen complaints -- and then acting on the data. We urge a comparable effort to monitor and root out the manifestations of racism and bias.

We recommend a new standard of accountability. Los Angeles should have a Police Department whose Chief is accountable to civilian officials for the Department's performance, and where ranking officers are responsible for the conduct of those they lead. The Police Commission needs new personnel, more resources, and an enhanced commitment to carrying out its duties under the Charter. Ugly incidents will not diminish until ranking officers know they will be held responsible for what happens in their sector, whether or not they personally participate.

It will be said, and rightly so, that this Report does not devote enough attention to the good work done by the men and women of the LAPD. We have tried to recognize the enormous contribution to public safety made by police officers. Certainly we do not wish to cast a shadow on the multitude of police officers who perform their arduous duties in exemplary fashion. Our principal responsibility, however, was to assess the question of excessive force. Having

(iv) Foreword

Report of the Independent Commission

found the problem to be serious, we have been obliged to concentrate on causes and cures.

It will also be said that excessive use of force by police officers is only a reflection of the violence of our society. Television and motion pictures have not only excused excessive force but have sometimes portrayed it in positive hues. The vast majority of Los Angeles police officers, members of a Department with nationally recognized strengths, aspire to a higher standard and deserve a nobler image. We hope this Report will help achieve both.

Foreword (v)

....

Report of the Independent Commission

(vi) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

Summary of Report

The videotaped beating of Rodney G. King by three uniformed officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, in the presence of a sergeant and with a large group of other officers standing by, galvanized public demand for evaluation and reform of police procedures involving the use of force. In the wake of the incident and the resulting widespread outcry, the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department was created. The Commission sought to examine all aspects of the law enforcement structure in Los Angeles that might cause or contribute to the problem of excessive force. The Report is unanimous.

The King beating raised fundamental questions about the LAPD, including:

• the apparent failure to control or discipline officers with repeated complaints of excessive force

• concerns about the LAPD's "culture" and officers' attitudes toward racial and other minorities

Summary of Report (vii)

Report of the Independent Commission

• the difficulties the public encounters in attempting to make complaints against LAPD officers

• the role of the LAPD leadership and civilian oversight authorities in addressing or contributing to these problems

These and related questions and concerns form the basis for the Commission's work.

LOS ANGELES AND ITS POLICE FORCE

The LAPD is headed by Police Chief Daryl Gates with an executive staff currently consisting of two assistant chiefs, five deputy chiefs, and 17 commanders. The City Charter provides that the Department is ultimately under the control and oversight of the five-member civilian Board of Police Commissioners. The Office of Operations, headed by Assistant Chief Robert Vernon, accounts for approximately 84% of the Department's personnel, including most patrol officers and detectives. The Office of Operations has 18 separate geographic areas within the City, divided among four bureaus (Central, South, West, and Valley). There are currently about 8,450 sworn police officers, augmented by more than 2,000 civilian LAPD employees.

While the overall rate of violent crime in the United States increased three and one-half times between 1960 and 1989, the rate in Los Angeles during the same period was more than twice the national average. According to 1986 data recently published by the Police Foundation, the Los Angeles police were the busiest among the officers in the nation's largest six cities. As crime rates soar, police officers must contend with more and more potential and actual violence each day. One moment officers must confront a life-threatening situation; the next they must deal with citizen problems requiring understanding and kindness. The difficulties of policing in Los Angeles are compounded by its vast geographic area and the ethnic diversity of its population. The 1990 census data reflect how enormous that diversity is: Latinos constitute 40% of the total population; Whites 37%; African-Americans 13%; and Asian/Pacific Islanders and others 10%. Of the police departments of the six largest United States cities, the LAPD has the fewest officers per resident and the fewest officers per square mile. Yet the LAPD boasts more arrests per officer than

(viii) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

other forces. Moreover, by all accounts, the LAPD is generally efficient, sophisticated, and free of corruption.

THE PROBLEM OF EXCESSIVE FORCE

LAPD officers exercising physical force must comply with the Department's Use of Force Policy and Guidelines, as well as California law. Both the LAPD Policy and the Penal Code require that force be reasonable; the Policy also requires that force be necessary. An officer may resort to force only where he or she faces a credible threat, and then may use only the minimum amount necessary to control the suspect.

The Commission has found that there is a significant number of LAPD officers who repetitively misuse force and persistently ignore the written policies and guidelines of the Department regarding force. The evidence obtained by the Commission shows that this group has received inadequate supervisory and management attention"

Former Assistant Chief Jesse Brewer testified that this lack of management attention and accountability is the "essence of the excessive force problem .... We know who the bad guys are. Reputations become well known, especially to the sergeants and then of course to lieutenants and the captains in the areas .... But I don't see anyone bring these people up .... " Assistant Chief David Dotson testified that "we have failed miserably" to hold supervisors accountable for excessive force by officers under their command. Interviews with a large number of present and former LAPD officers yield similar conclusions. Senior and rank-and-file officers generally stated that a significant number of officers tended to use force excessively, that these problem officers were well known in their divisions, that the Department's efforts to control or discipline those officers were inadequate, and that their supervisors were not held accountable for excessive use of force by officers in their command.

The Commission's extensive computerized analvsis of the data provided by the Department (personnel complaints, use of force reports, and reports of officer-involved shootings) shows that a significant group of problem officers poses a much higher risk of excessive force than other officers:

• Of approximately 1,800 officers against whom an allegation of excessive force or improper tactics was made from 1986 to 1990, more than 1,400 had only one or two allegations.

Summary of Report (ix)

•

,

Report of the Independent Commission

But 183 officers had four or more allegations, 44 had six or more, 16 had eight or more, and one had 16 such allegations.

• Of nearly 6,000 officers identified as involved in use of force reports from January 1987 to March 1991, more than 4,000 had fewer than five reports each. But 63 officers had 20 or more reports each. The top 5% of the officers (ranked by number of reports) accounted for more than 20% of all reports ....

Blending the data disclosed even more troubling patterns. For example, in the years covered, one officer had 13 allegations of excessive force and improper tactics, 5 other complaint allegations, 28 use of force reports, and 1 shooting. Another had 6 excessive force/improper tactics allegations, 19 other complaint allegations, 10 use of force reports, and 3 shootings. A third officer had 7 excessive force/improper tactic allegations, 7 other complaint allegations, 27 use of force reports, and 1 shooting.

A review of personnel files of the 44 officers identified from the LAPD database who had six or more allegations of excessive force or improper tactics for the period 1986 through 1990 disclosed that the picture conveyed was often incomplete and at odds with contemporaneous comments appearing in complaint files. As a general matter, the performance evaluation reports for those problem officers were very positive, documenting every complimentary comment received and expressing optimism about the officer's progress in the Department. The performance evaluations generally did not give an accurate picture of the officers' disciplinary history, failing to record "sustained" complaints or to discuss their significance, and failing to assess the officer's judgment and contacts with the public in light of disturbing patterns of complaints.

The existence of a significant number of officers with an unacceptable and improper attitude regarding the use of force is supported by the Commission's extensive review of computer messages sent to and from patrol cars throughout the City over the units' Mobile Digital Terminals ("MDTs"). The Commission's staff examined 182 days of MDT transmissions selected from the period from November 1989 to March 1991. Although the vast majority of messages reviewed consisted of routine police communications, there were hundreds of improper messages, including scores in which officers talked

(x) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

about beating suspects: "Capture him, beat him and treat him like dirt .... " Officers also used the communications system to express their eagerness to be involved in shooting incidents. The transmissions also make clear that some officers enjoy the excitement of a pursuit and view it as an opportunity for violence against a fleeing suspect.

The patrol car transmissions can be monitored by a field supervisor and are stored in a database where they could be (but were not) audited. That many officers would feel free to type messages about force under such circumstances suggests a serious problem with respect to excessive force. That supervisors made no effort to monitor or control those messages evidences a significant breakdown in the Department's management responsibility.

The Commission also reviewed the LAPD's investigation and discipline of the officers involved in all 83 civil lawsuits alleging excessive or improper force by LAPD officers for the period 1986 through 1990 that resulted in a settlement or judgment of more than $15,000. A majority of cases involved clear and often egregious officer misconduct resulting in serious injury or death to the victim. The LAPD's investigation of these 83 cases was deficient in many respects, and discipline against the officers involved was frequently light and often nonexistent.

While the precise size and identity of the problem group of officers cannot be specified without significant further investigation, its existence must be recognized and addressed. The LAPD has a number of tools to promote and enforce its policy that only reasonable and necessary force be used by officers. There are rewards and incentives such as promotions and pay upgrades. The discipline system exists to impose sanctions for misconduct. Officers can be

reassigned. Supervisors can monitor and counsel officers under their

command. Officers can be trained at the Police Academy and, more

importantly, in the field, in the proper use of force.

The Commission believes that the Department has not made sufficient efforts to use those tools effectively to address the significant number of officers who appear to be using force excessively and improperly. The leadership of the LAPD must send a much clearer and more effective message that excessive force will not be tolerated and that officers and their supervisors will be

Summary of Report (xi)

Report of the Independent Commission

evaluated to an important extent by how well they abide by and advance the Department's policy regarding use of force.

RACISM AND BIAS

The problem of excessive force is aggravated by racism and bias within the LAPD. That nexus is sharply illustrated by the results of a survey recently taken by the LAPD of the attitudes of its sworn officers. The survey of 960 officers found that approximately one-quarter (24.5%) of 650 officers responding agreed that "racial bias (prejudice) on the part of officers toward minority citizens currently exists and contributes to a negative interaction between police and community." More than one-quarter (27.6%) agreed that "an officer's prejudice towards the suspect's race may lead to the use of excessive force."

The Commission's review of MDT transmissions revealed an appreciable number of disturbing and recurrent racial remarks. Some of the remarks describe minorities through animal analogies ("sounds like monkey slapping time"). Often made in the context of discussing pursuits or beating suspects, the offensive remarks cover the spectrum of racial and ethnic minorities in the City ("I would love to drive down Slauson with a flame thrower ... we would have a barbecue"; "I almost got me a Mexican last night but he dropped the dam gun to quick, lots of wit"). The officers typing the MDT messages apparently had little concern that they would be disciplined for making such remarks. Supervisors failed to monitor the messages or to impose discipline for improper remarks and were themselves frequently the source of offensive comments when in the field.

These attitudes of prejudice and intolerance are translated into unacceptable behavior in the field. Testimony from a variety of witnesses depict the LAPD as an organization with practices and procedures that are conducive to discriminatory treatment and officer misconduct directed to members of minority groups. Witnesses repeatedly told of LAPD officers verbally harassing minorities, detaining African-American and Latino men who fit certain generalized descriptions of suspects, employing unnecessarily invasive or humiliating tactics in minority neighborhoods and using excessive force. While the Commission does not purport to adjudicate the validity of any

l

(xII) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

one of these numerous complaints, the intensity and frequency of them reveal a serious problem.

Bias within the LAPD is not confined to officers' treatment of the public, but is also reflected in conduct directed to fellow officers who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups. The MDT messages and other evidence suggest that minority officers are still too frequently subjected to racist slurs and comments and to discriminatory treatment within the Department. While the relative number of officers who openly make racially derogatory comments or treat minority officers in a demeaning manner is small, their attitudes and behavior have a large impact because of the failure of supervisors to enforce vigorously and consistently the Department's policies against racism. That failure conveys to minority and non-minority officers alike the message that such conduct is in practice condoned by the Department.

The LAPD has made substantial progress in hiring minorities and women since the 1981 consent decree settling discrimination lawsuits against the Department. That effort should continue, including efforts to recruit Asians and other minorities who are not covered by the consent decree. The Department's statistics show, however, that the vast majority of minority officers are concentrated in the entry level police officer ranks in the Department. More than 80% of African-American, Latino and Asian officers hold the rank of Police Officer I-III. Many minority officers cite white dominance of managerial positions within the LAPD as one reason for the Department's continued tolerance of racially motivated language and behavior.

Bias within the LAPD is not limited to racist and ethnic prejudices but includes strongly felt bias based on gender and sexual orientation. Current LAPD policy prohibits all discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation. A tension remains, however, between the LAPD's official policy and actual practice. The Commission believes that the LAPD must act to implement fully its formal policy of nondiscrimination in the recruitment and promotion of gay and lesbian officers.

A 1987 LAPD study concluded that female officers were subjected to a double standard and subtle harassment and were not accepted as part of the working culture. As revealed in interviews of many of the officers charged with training new recruits, the problem has not abated in the last four years.

Summary of Report (xiii)

Report of the Independent Commission

Although female LAPD officers are in fact performing effectively, they are having a difficult time being accepted on a full and equal basis.

The Commission heard substantial evidence that female officers utilize a style of policing that minimizes the use of excessive force. Data examined by the Commission indicate that LAPD female officers are involved in use of excessive force at rates substantially below those of male officers. Those statistics, as confirmed by both academic studies and anecdotal evidence, also indicate that women officers perform at least as well as their male counterparts when measured by traditional standards.

The Commission believes that the Chief of Police must seek tangible ways, for example, through the use of the discipline system, to establish the principle that racism and bias based on ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated within the Department. Racism and bias cannot be eliminated without active leadership from the top. Minority and female officers must be given full and equal opportunity to assume leadership positions in the LAPD. They must be assigned on a fully nondiscriminatory basis to the more desirable, "coveted" positions and promoted on the same nondiscriminatory basis to supervisory and managerial posltlons,

COMMUNITY POLICING

The LAPD has an organizational culture that emphasizes crime control over crime prevention and that isolates the police from the communities and the people they serve. With the full support of many, the LAPD insists on aggressive detection of major crimes and a rapid, seven-minute response time to calls for service. Patrol officers are evaluated by statistical measures (for example, the number of calls handled and arrests made) and are rewarded for being "hardnosed." This style of poliCing produces results, but it does so at the risk of creating a siege mentality that alienates the officer from the community.

Witness after witness testified to unnecessarily aggressive confrontations between LAPD officers and citizens, particularly members of minority communities. From the statements of these citizens, as well as many present and former senior LAPD officers, it is apparent that too many LAPD patrol officers view citizens with resentment and hostility; too many treat the public with rudeness and disrespect. LAPD officers themselves seem to recognize the extent of the problem: nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of the 650 officers who

(xiv) Summary of Report

-~~ - -" -- - - - - - -~------ - -r- - -------- - -- --

Report of the Independent Commission

responded to the recent LAPD survey expressed the opinion that "increased interaction with the community would improve the Department's relations with citizens."

A model of community policing has gained increased acceptance in other parts of the country during the past 10 years. The community policing model places service to the public and prevention of crime as the primary role of police in society and emphasizes problem solving, with active citizen involvement in defining those matters that are important to the community, rather than arrest statistics. Officers at the patrol level are required to spend less time in their cars communicating with other officers and more time on the street communicating with citizens. Proponents of this style of policing insist that addressing the causes of crime makes police officers more effective crimefighters, and at the same time enhances the quality of life in the neighborhood.

The LAPD made early efforts to incorporate community policing principles and has continued to experiment with those concepts. For example, the LAPD's nationally recognized DARE program has been viewed by officers and the public alike as a major achievement. The LAPD remains committed, however, to its traditional style of law enforcement with an emphasis on crime control and arrests. LAPD officers are encouraged to command and to confront, not to communicate. Community policing concepts, if successfully implemented, offer the prospect of effective crime prevention and substantially improved community relations. Although community-based policing is not a panacea for the problem of crime in society, the LAPD should carefully implement this model on a City-wide basis. This will require a fundamental change in values. The Department must recognize the merits of community involvement in matters that affect local neighborhoods, develop programs to gain an adequate understanding of what is important to particular communities, and learn to manage departmental affairs in ways that are consistent with the community views expressed. Above all, the Department must understand that it is accountable to all segments of the community.

RECRUITMENT

Although 40% of the candidates for admission to the Police Academy are disqualified as a result of psychological testing and background investigation, the Commission's review indicated that the initial psychological evaluation is an

Summary of Report (xv)

Report of the Independent Commission

ineffective predictor of an applicant's tendencies toward violent behavior and that the background investigation pays too little attention to a candidate's history of violence. Experts agree that the best predictor of future behavior is previous behavior. Thus, the background investigation offers the best hope of screening out violence-prone applicants. Unfortunately, the background investigators are overworked and inadequately trained.

Improved screening of applicants is not enough. Police work modifies behavior. Many emotional and psychological problems may develop during an officer's tenure on the force. Officers may enter the force well suited psychologically for the job, but may suffer from burnout, alcohol-related problems, cynicism, or disenchantment, all of which can result in poor control over their behavior. A person's susceptibility to the behavior-modifying experiences of police work may not be revealed during even the most skilled and sophisticated psychological evaluation process. Accordingly, officers should be retested periodically to determine both psychological and physical problems. In addition, supervisors must understand their role to include training and counseling officers to cope with the problems policing can often entail, so that they may be dealt with before an officer loses control or requires disciplinary action.

TRAINING

LAPD officer training has three phases. Each recruit spends approximately six months at the Police Academy. The new officer then spends one year on probation working with more experienced patrol officers who serve as field training officers ("FTOs"). Thereafter, all officers receive continuing training, which includes mandatory field training and daily training at roll call. The Commission believes that in each phase of the training additional emphasis is needed on the use of verbal skills rather than physical force to control potentially volatile situations and on the development of human relationship skills.

The quality of instruction at the Police Academy is generally impressive.

However, at present the curriculum provides only eight hours in cultural awareness training. No more than 1-1/2 hours is devoted to any ethnic group. Substantially more training on this important topic is essential. In addition, the Academy's current Spanish language program needs to be reviewed and

(xvi) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

current deficiencies corrected. Officers with an interest in developing broader language skills should be encouraged to do so.

Upon graduation the new officer works as a "probationary officer" assigned to various field training officers. The FTOs guide new officers' first contacts with citizens and have primary responsibility for introducing the probationers to the culture and traditions of the Department. The Commission's interviews of FTOs in four representative divisions revealed that many FTOs openly perpetuate the siege mentality that alienates patrol officers from the community and pass on to their trainees confrontational attitudes of hostility and disrespect for the public. This problem is in part the result of flaws in the way FTOs are selected and trained. The hiring of a very large number of new officers in 1989, which required the use of less experienced FTOs, greatly exacerbated the problem.

Any officer promoted to Police Officer III by passing a written examination covering Department policies and procedures is eligible to serve as an FTO. At present there are no formal eligibility or disqualification criteria for the FTO position based on an applicants' disciplinary records. Fourteen of the FTOs in the four divisions the Commission studied had been promoted to FTO despite having been disciplined for use of excessive force or use of improper tactics. There also appears to be little emphasis on selecting FTOs who have an interest in training junior officers, and an FTO's training ability is given little weight in his or her evaluation.

The most influential training received by a probationer comes from the example set by his or her FTO. Virtually all of the FTOs interviewed stated that their primary objective in training probationers is to instill good "officer safety skills." While the Commission recognizes the importance of such skills in police work, the probationers' world is quickly divided into "we/they" categories, which is exacerbated by the failure to integrate any cultural awareness or sensitivity training into field training.

The Commission believes that, to become FTOs, officers should be required to pass written and oral tests designed to measure communications skills, teaching aptitude, and knowledge of Departmental policies regarding appropriate use of force, cultural sensitivity, community relations, and nondiscrimination. Officers with an aptitude for and interest in training junior officers should be encouraged by effective incentives to apply for FTO positions. In addition, the training program for FTOs should be modified to

Summary of Report (xvii)

~-

,

Report of the Independent Commission

place greater emphasis on communication skills and the appropriate use of force. Successful completion of FTO School should be required before an FTO begins teaching probationers.

PROMOTION, ASSIGNMENT, AND OTHER PERSONNEL ISSUES

In the civil service process for promotion of officers in the LAPD, the information considered includes performance evaluations, educational and training background, and all sustained complaints. The number and nature of any not sustained complaints, however, are not considered. The Commission recommends that a summary of not sustained complaints be considered in promotion decisions, as well as in paygrade advancements and assignments to desirable positions that are discretionary within the LAPD and outside the civil service system.

This is not to say that a past complaint history, even including a sustained complaint for excessive force, should automatically bar an officer from promotion. But there should be a careful consideration of the officer's complaint history including a summary of not sustained complaints, and particularly multiple complaints with similar fact patterns.

Complaint histories should also be considered in assiqnrnent of problem officers who may be using force improperly. For example, a problem officer can be paired with an officer with excellent communications skills that may lessen the need for use of force, as opposed to a partner involved in prior incidents of force with that problem officer. Another example is asslqnments to the jail facilities where potential for abuse by officers with a propensity to use excessive force is high. As several incidents examined by the Commission made clear, transfer of an officer to another geographical area is not likely to address a problem of excessive force without other remedial measures such as increased supervising, training and counseling.

Since 1980 the Department has permitted police officers working in patrol to select the geographic area or division for their patrol assignment subsequent to their initial assignment after completion of probation. As a result, sergeants and patrol officers tend to remain in one division for extended periods. The Commission believes that assignment procedures should be modified to require rotation through various divisions to ensure that officers work in a wide range of pollee functions and varied patrol locations during their careers. Such

(xvIII) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

a rotation program will increase officers' experience and also will enable the Department to deploy police patrols with greater diversity throughout the City.

Under the current promotion system officers generally must leave patrol to advance within the Department. Notwithstanding the importance of the patrol function, therefore, the better officers are encouraged to abandon patrol. To give patrol increased emphasis and to retain good, experienced officers, the LAPD should increase rewards and incentives for patrol officers.

PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS AND OFFICER DISCIPLINE

No area of police operations received more adverse comment during the Commission's public hearings than the Department's handling of complaints against LAPD officers, particularly allegations involving the use of excessive force. Statistics make the public's frustration understandable. Of the 2,152 citizen allegations of excessive force from 1986 through 1990, only 42 were sustained.

All personnel complaints are reviewed by a captain in the LAPD's Internal Affairs Division ("lAD") to determine whether the complaint will be investigated by lAD or the charged officer's division. Generally lAD investigates only a few cases because of limited resources. Wherever investigated, the matter is initially adjudicated by the charged officer's division commanding officer, with a review by the area and bureau commanders.

The Commission has found that the complaint system is skewed against complainants. People who wish to file complaints face significant hurdles. Some intake officers actively discourage filing by being uncooperative or requiring lonq waits before completing a complaint form. In many heavily Latino divisions, there is often no Spanish speaking officer available to take complaints.

Division investigations are frequently inadequate. Based on a review of more than 700 complaint investigation files, the Commission found many deficiencies. For example, in a number of complaint files the Commission reviewed, there was no indication that the investigators had attempted to identify or locate independent witnesses or, if identified, to interview them. lAD investigations, on the whole, were of a higher quality than the division investigations. Although the LAPD has a special "officer involved shooting team," the Commission also found serious flaws in the investigation of shooting

Summary of Report (xix)

Report of the Independent Commission

cases. Officers are frequently interviewed as a group, and statements are often not recorded until the completion of a "pre-interview."

The process of complaint adjudication is also flawed. First, there is no uniform basis for categorizing witnesses as "independent" or "non-involved" as opposed to "involved," although that distinction can determine whether a complaint is "not sustained" or "sustained." Some commanding officers also evaluate witnesses' credibility in inconsistent and biased ways that improperly favor the officer. Moreover, even when excessive force complaints are sustained, the punishment is more lenient than it should be. As explained by one deputy chief, there is greater punishment for conduct that embarrasses the Department (such as theft or drug use) than for conduct that reflects improper treatment of citizens. Statistical data also support the inference that the Department treats excessive force violations more leniently than it treats other types of officer misconduct.

Perhaps the greatest Single barrier to the effective investigation and adjudication of complaints is the officers' unwritten code of silence: an officer does not provide adverse information against a fellow officer. While loyalty and support are necessary qualities, they cannot justify the violation of an officer's public responsibilities to ensure compliance with the law, including LAPD regulations.

A major overhaul of the disciplinary system is necessary to correct these problems. The Commission recommends creation of the Office of the Inspector General within the Police Commission with responsibility to oversee the disciplinary process and to participate in the adjudication and punishment of the most serious cases. The Police Commission should be responsible for overseeing the complaint intake process. Citizens must believe they can lodge complaints that will be investigated and determined fairly. All complaints relating to excessive force (including improper tactics) should be investigated by lAD, rather than at the involved officer's division, and should be subject to periodic audits by the Inspector General. While the Chief of Police should remain the one primarily responsible for imposing discipline in individual cases, the Police Commission should set guidelines as a matter of policy and hold the Chief accountable for following them.

1

(xx) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

STRUCTURAL ISSUES

Although the City Charter assigns the Police Commission ultimate control over Department policies, its authority over the Department and the Chief of Police is illusory. Structural and operational constraints greatly weaken the Police Commission's power to hold the Chief accountable and therefore its ability to perform its management responsibilities, including effective oversight. Real power and authority reside in the Chief.

The Chief of Police is the general manager and chief administrative officer of the Police Department. The Police Commission selects the Chief from among top competitors in a civil service examination administered by the Personnel Department. Candidates from outside the Department are disadvantaged by City Charter provisions and seniority rules.

The Chief's civil service status largely protects him or her from disciplinary action or discharge by giving him a "substantial property right" in his job and declaring that he cannot be suspended or removed except for "good and sufficient cause" based upon an act or omission occurring within the prior year. In addition, recently enacted Charter Amendment 5 empowers the City Council to review and override the actions of the City's commissions, including the Police Commission.

The Police Commission's staff is headed by the Commanding Officer, Commission Operations, a sworn LAPD officer chosen by the Police Commissioners, who normally serves in that post for two to three years. Because the Police Commission depends heavily on the Commanding Officer to review information received from the Department and to identify issues, it must also rely on his willingness to criticize his superior officers. However, he lacks the requisite independence because his future transfer and promotion are at the discretion of the Chief of Police, and he is part of the Chief's command structure as well as being answerable to the Police Commission.

The Police Commission receives summaries, prepared by the Department, of disciplinary actions against sworn officers, but cannot itself impose discipline. The summaries are brief and often late, making it impossible for the Police Commission to monitor systematically the discipline imposed by the Chief in use of force and other cases.

The Commission believes that the Department should continue to be under the general oversight and control of a five-member, part-time citizen Police

Summary of Report (xxi)

Commission. substantially.

Commissioners' compensation should be increased They should serve a maximum of five years with staggered

Report of the Independent Commission

terms. The Police Commission's independent staff should be increased by adding civilian employees, including management auditors, computer systems data analysts, and investigators with law enforcement experience. It is vital that the Police Commission's staff be placed under the control of an independent civilian Chief of Staff, a general manager level employee.

The Chief of Police must be more responsive to the Police Commission and the City's elected leadership, but also must be protected against improper political influences. To achieve this balance, the Chief should serve a five-year term, renewable at the discretion of the Police Commission for one additional five-year term. The selection, tenure, discipline, and removal of the Chief should be exempted from existing civil service provisions. The Chief should be appointed by the Mayor, with advice from the Police Commission and the consent of the City Council after an open competition. The Police Commission should have the authority to terminate the Chief prior to the expiration of the first or second five-year term, but the final decision to terminate should require the concurrence of the Mayor and be subject to a reversal by vote of two-thirds of the City Council.

IMPLEMENTATION

Full implementation of this Report will require action by the Mayor, the City Council, the Police Commission, the Police Department, and ultimately the voters. To monitor the progress of reform, the City Council should require reports on implementation at six month intervals from the Mayor, the Council's own Human Resources and Labor Relations Committee, the Police Commission, and the Police Department. The Commission should reconvene in six months to assess the implementation of its recommendations and to report to the public.

Chief Gates has served the LAPD and the City 42 years, the past 13 years as Chief of Police. He has achieved a noteworthy record of public service in a stressful and demanding profession. For the reasons set forth in support of the recommendation that the Chief of Police be limited to two five-year terms, the Commission believes that commencement of a transition in that office is now appropriate. The Commission also believes that the interests of harmony and

(xxii) Summary of Report

Report of the Independent Commission

healing would be served if the Police Commission is now reconstituted with members not identified with the recent controversy involving the Chief.

More than any other factor, the attitude and actions of the leaders of the Police Department and other City agencies will determine whether the recommendations of this Report are adopted. To make genuine progress on issues relating to excessive force, racism and bias, leadership must avoid sending mixed signals. We urge those leaders to give priority to stopping the use of excessive force and curbing racism and bias and thereby to bring the LAPD to a new level of excellence and esteem throughout Los Angeles.

Summary of Report (xxiii)

Report of the Independent Commission

Chapter One:

The Rodney King Beating and The Questions It Has Raised

RODNEY G. KING -- MARCH 3, 1991 3

The Pursuit 4

Arrival Of Additional LAPD Units 5

Beating And Arrest 5

Post-Arrest Events 8

THE DEPARTMENT'S REACTION TO ATTEMPTS

TO REPORT THE KING INCIDENT 9

Paul King 9

George Holliday............................................................................................ 11

THE LAPD OFFICERS AT THE SCENE 11

THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE

TO THE RODNEY KING INCIDENT................................................................. 12

COMPUTER AND RADIO TRANSMISSIONS 14

THE PUBLIC RESPONSE 15

THE AFTERMATH OF THE BEATING:

QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS 16

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 1

Report of the Independent Commission

2 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

Report of the Independent Commission

"[They! should know better than run, they are gomg to pay a price when they do that."

LAPD dispatcher requesting

an ambulance for Rodney King March 3, 1991 '

Chapter One:

The Rodney King Beating and the Questions It Has Raised

RODNEY G. KING -- MARCH 3,1991

Rarely has the work of an amateur photographer so captured the nation's attention as did the dramatic and disturbing scene recorded by George Holliday's video camera in the early morning of March 3, 1991 -- the morning Rodney G. King, a 25-year-old African-American, was beaten by three uniformed officers of the Los Angeles Police Department while a sergeant and a large group of LAPD, California Highway Patrol, and Los Angeles Unified School District officers stood by. The Holliday tape showed the officers clubbing King with 56 baton strokes and kicking him in the head and body. Within days, television stations across the country broadcast and rebroadcast the tape, provoking a public outcry against police abuse.

This Commission is not responsible for determining the culpability of the officers involved in the King incident; that is properly in the hands of the courts. Nevertheless, the King incident is described here in some detail because it was that event that led to the creation of this Commission, and

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 3

Report of the Independent Commission

because in many respects the King beating raises most of the issues we consider.

The Pursuit

California Highway Patrol Officers Melanie Singer and Timothy Singer first observed King's white Hyundai at approximately 12:40 a.m. on Sunday morning, March 3, 1991, in the Pacoima area of the northeastern San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. King's vehicle was approaching from the rear of the CHP vehicle at a high speed as the Singers drove westbound on the Interstate 210 freeway. King was driving, accompanied by two passengers, both of whom were also African-Americans. King passed the patrol car and then slowed. The CHP unit left the freeway and immediately reentered to pace King's vehicle, which had resumed traveling at a high speed.

The CHP officers reported that King's vehicle "was traveling at 110 to 115 m.p.h. (using the #1, 2 and 3 lanes)." (Some have questioned whether a Hyundai is capable of being driven in excess of 100 m.p.h.) The CHP unit activated its emergency lights and siren. King slowed somewhat, but failed to stop. Instead, he left the freeway and continued through a stop sign at the bottom of the ramp at approximately 50 m.p.h. King drove westbound at a high speed (estimated at 80 m.p.h.), reportedly running a red light. One passenger in King's car, Bryant Allen, reportedly urged King to slow down and pull over. The other passenger, Freddie Helms, said he was asleep during the entire chase. (Helms subsequently died in an unrelated traffic accident.)

LAPD patrol car unit 16A23, assigned to Officers Laurence M. Powell and Timothy Wind, joined the pursuit as the LAPD's primary pursuit car. A Los Angeles Unified School District Police squad car which was in the area also joined the pursuit.

King apparently stopped at a red light at the corner of Osborne Street and Foothill Boulevard in Lakeview Terrace. When the light turned green, King pulled through the intersection and came to a stop. The time was 12:50 a.m. An LAPD unit, probably 16A23, radioed a "Code 6" -- indicating that the chase had concluded.

I

4 Chapter 1 : The Rodney King Beating

Report of the Independent Commission

Arrival of Additional LAPD Units

Following the Code 6 broadcast from the field, the LAPD Radio Transmission Operator (RTO) reported the Code 6 and "cleared" the broadcast frequencies so that units in other divisions monitoring the pursuit could return to normal transmissions. Approximately 60 seconds later, an unknown voice reported to the RTO, " ... Foothill and Osborne, there appears to be sufficient units here." At 12:50:50 a.m., the RTO broadcast a "Code 4". According to the LAPD manual, a Code 4 notifies all units that "additional assistance is not needed at the scene" and indicates that all units not at the

1 scene "shall return to their assigned patrol area."

In all, 11 additional LAPD units (including one helicopter) with 21 officers arrived at the end-of-pursuit scene. At least 12 of the officers arrived following v' the Code 4 broadcast. A number of these officers had no convincing explanation for why they went to the scene after the Code 4 broadcast. For example, five of the officers were at Foothill Station doing paperwork at the end of their shift when they heard the pursuit broadcast on the radio. The five took two separate cars, joined the pursuit, and continued to its termination after the Code 4. One of these officers told District Attorney investigators that he proceeded to the scene after the Code 4 "to see what was happening."

Officers Theodore J. Briseno and Rolando Solano heard a radio call of the

CHP pursuit and were heading toward the pursuit when they were designated the LAPD's secondary pursuit car. They then heard that the pursuing units were Code 6, saw flashing police lights off in the distance, and proceeded to the scene. As they parked, King was beginning to get out of his car in response to directions from officers at the site. Sergeant Stacey Koon also arrived at the scene as the pursuit ended. Sergeant Koon was an assigned field supervisor responsible for monitoring the activities of Foothill officers.

Beating and Arrest

Disputed Events Before the Holliday Video

At the termination of the pursuit, CHP Officer Timothy Singer, following "felony stop" procedures, used a loudspeaker to order all occupants out of King's car. Passengers Allen and Helms exited the car on the right-hand side. According to Koon and Powell, King initially refused to comply with the

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 5

Report of the Independent Commission

order to leave his car. Both stated that when he finally did leave the car, he did not follow directions, reentered the car, and then came back out.

In a statement to the press on March 6, 1991, King insisted he had followed orders to exit the car. Passenger Allen told investigators that King responded to the initial command, but neglected to unbuckle his seat belt, thus requiring him to sit down again to undo it before actually leaving the car.

CHP Officer Melanie Singer told District Attorney investigators that she began to approach King intending to perform a "felony kneeling" procedure to take him into custody. However, the LAPD sergeant told her to stay back, "that they [the LAPD] would handle it."

When King first stepped out of the car, Koon said he "felt threatened,

2

but felt enough confidence in his officers to take care of the situation." Koon

described King as big and muscular. (The arrest report lists King as 6'3" tall, weighing 225 pounds.) He said he believed King was "disoriented and unbalanced" and under the influence of PCP.

After he left the car, King was ordered to lie flat on the ground.

According to Koon and Powell, King responded by getting down on all fours, 3

slapping the ground, and refusing to lie down. Powell said he tried to force 4

King to the ground, but King rose up and almost knocked him off his feet.

Use of the Taser

Koon ordered the officers to "stand clear." King was still on the ground. Koon fired the Taser electric stun gun once, and then again. Koon subsequently reported that King did not respond to either firing. Powell's arrest report states that the Taser "temporarily halt[ed] deft's [King's] attack," and Solano stated that the Taser appeared to affect King at first because the suspect shook and yelled for almost five seconds.

Beating with Batons: Events on the Holliday Video

As George Holliday's videotape begins, King is on the ground. He rose and moved toward Powell. Solano termed it a "lunge," and said it was in the direction of Koon. It is not possible to tell from the videotape if King's movement is intended as an attack or simply an effort to get away. Taser wires can be seen coming from King's body.

6 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

Report of the Independent Commission

As King moved forward, Powell struck King with his baton. The blow hit King's head, and he went down immediately. Powell hit King several additional times with his baton. The videotape shows Briseno moving in to try to stop Powell from swinging, and Powell then backing up. Koon reportedly

5

yelled "that's enough." King then rose to his knees; Powell and Wind

continued to hit King with their batons while he was on the ground. King was struck again and again.

Koon acknowledged that he ordered the baton blows, directing 6

Powell and Wind to hit King with "power strokes." According to Koon, Powell

and Wind used "bursts of power strokes, then backed off."

Notwithstanding the repeated "power strokes" with the batons, the tape shows that King apparently continued to try to get up. Koon ordered the officers to "hit his joints, hit his wrists, hit his elbows, hit his knees, hit his ankles." Powell said he tried to strike King only in the arms and legs.

Finally, after 56 baton blows and six kicks, five or six officers swarmed in and placed King in both handcuffs and cord cuffs restraining his arms and legs. King was dragged on his stomach to the side of the road to await arrival of a rescue ambulance.

King's Passengers

Bryant Allen and Freddie Helms both complied with officers' commands at the end of the pursuit to exit the Hyundai and to lie flat on the ground, in the so-called "prone-out" position. They were immediately handcuffed. A School District police officer had his gun drawn on the two of them as they lay on the ground on the passenger side of the car.

Passengers Allen and Helms both heard screams from King, but could not see any of the beating because of their positions on the right side of the car. They were ordered not to look and to keep their heads on the ground. According to Helms, when he raised his head to get it out of the dirt, he was kicked in the side and hit in the head with a baton, drawing blood. Helms was treated at Huntington Memorial Hospital the next morning. Allen alleged he was kicked several times. After King had been handcuffed, Allen and Helms were pulled to their feet, taken to CHP squad cars, asked for identification, checked by computer, and released at the scene.

Chapter 1 : The Rodney King Beating 7

L_ __

Report of the Independent Commission

Racial References During the Incident

The officers involved in the use of force, as well as those who witnessed the incident, denied that any racial epithets or slurs were used. King told reporters in March 1991 that he heard "a little bit of yellinq," but that "they beat me so bad I would not pay attention to what they were saying." By early May 1991, however, King, through his attorney Steven Lerman, maintained that officers repeatedly screamed racial slurs during the incident.

On May 7, 1991, Los Angeles public television station KCET broadcast an "enhanced audio" version of George Holltday's videotape. According to KCET, the enhanced video indicates that as King is being beaten, an officer is yelling "nigger, hands behind your back--your back." An audio enhancement done for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, on the other hand, was described as "inconclusive."

Post-Arrest Events

King was taken by rescue ambulance to Pacifica Hospital of the Valley for emergency treatment. Wind and Officer Susan Clemmer rode with King in the ambulance. King received 20 stitches, including five on the inside of his mouth, and was then transferred to the jail ward at County-USC Medical Center. Medical records indicate that King had a broken cheekbone and a broken right ankle. In his negligence claim filed with the City, King alleged he had suffered "11 sku" fractures, permanent brain damage, broken [bones and teeth], kidney damage [and] emotional and physical trauma."

Blood and urine samples taken from King five hours after his arrest showed that his blood-alcohol level was 0.075%, indicating that at the time of his arrest, he was over the level (0.08%) at which one can be presumed intoxicated under California law. The tests also showed "traces" of marijuana (26 ng/ml), but no indication of PCP or any other i"egal drug.

King was booked for evading arrest and held for four days. He was released on Wednesday, March 6, after prosecutors determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

8 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

,

Report of the Independent Commission

Inaccurate Reports After the King Beating

Following the King beating, Powell prepared the Department's standard form arrest report. Powell described his use of the baton and King's alleged resistance:

Deft recovered almost immediately [from the effects of the Taser] and resumed his hostile charge in our direction. Ofcr Wind and I drew our batons to defend against deft's attack and struck him several times in the arm and leg areas to incapacitate him. Deft. continued resisting kicking and swinging his arms at us. We finally kicked deft down and he was subdued by several ofcrs using the swarm technique.

Powell'S report of the incident is inconsistent with the scenes captured on the Holliday videotape in terms of the number and location of baton blows, as well as in the description of King's "resistance."

King's injuries and medical treatment ("MT") were also described in the arrest report: "Deft was MT'd for abrasions and contusions on his face, arms, legs and torso areas." In his daily sergeant's log report, Koon included a similar description of King's injuries: "Several facial cuts due to contact with

7 asphalt. Of a minor nature. A split inner lip. Suspect oblivious to pain."

THE DEPARTMENT'S REACTION TO ATTEMPTS TO REPORT THE KING INCIDENT

Both video cameraman George Holliday and Paul King, Rodney's brother, attempted to report the apparent police abuse of Rodney King.

Paul King

Paul King was awakened by Rodney King's passenger, Bryant Allen, on Sunday, March 3, at approximately 4:00 a.m., and told that his brother Rodney had been beaten and arrested by the police. Allen also said someone might have videotaped the incident. On Monday morning, Paul King went to the Foothill Station to complain about the treatment of his brother.

The officer at the front desk told Paul King he would have to wait. After waiting and then growing impatient, Paul King returned to the front desk as a sergeant came out from the back of the station. Paul King said he wanted to

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 9

Report of the Independent Commission

make a complaint about his brother; the sergeant took Paul King back to a detective's interview room.

According to Paul King, the sergeant went in and out of the interview room several times during the 40 minutes Paul King was there, spending approximately half of that time out of the room. The sergeant states that he left the room once for about 30 minutes to find the arrest report and to attempt to locate a use of force report, which is required after any LAPD officer uses force more severe than a "firm grip." Paul King specifically asked about the procedures for making a complaint and advised the sergeant that a videotape of the incident existed.

According to Paul King, the sergeant began by asking whether he had ever been in trouble. Paul King responded that he was there to talk about Rodney King, not himself. The sergeant recalls discussing the public perception of and reaction to police officers in general in an effort to make Paul King feel more comfortable.

The sergeant told Paul King that he would check the logs and said something to the effect that an investigation was going on. In response to Paul King's inquiry as to what was being investigated, the sergeant told him that Rodney King was in "big trouble," that he had been caught in a high-speed chase going 100 m.p.h. or so and that, according to the reported ground for the arrest, Rodney King had put someone's life in danger, possibly a police officer.

The sergeant told Paul King that he should try to find the video, and that the video could be of help. The sergeant did not at any time fill out a personnel complaint form. According to Paul King, when he left Foothill Station "I knew I hadn't made a complaint."

The sergeant told the Commission staff he followed usual procedures when conducting the Paul King interview. The sergeant explained that when an individual makes a general complaint of police misconduct without specific details, he conducts a preliminary investigation. If that investigation reveals facts that, if true, would warrant discipline, a personnel complaint is prepared. If no complaint is prepared, the information he gathers is written down and passed along to his superior officers. Based on the general information he received from Paul King, the sergeant reported in his daily log that no further action was necessary, pending completion and evaluation of the use of force report or receipt of additional evidence such as the videotape.

10 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

Report of the Independent Commission

George Holliday

George Holliday reported that he called the Foothill Station on Monday, March 4, intending to offer his videotape to the police. Holliday informed the desk officer who answered the call that he had witnessed an incident involving a motorist who had been beaten by LAPD officers. Holliday said he inquired as to the condition of the motorist and was told that "we [the LAPD] do not release information like that."

According to Holliday, the desk officer made no attempt to learn any details of the event Holliday witnessed. No personnel complaint was generated as a result of his call. Holliday said he did not inform the Foothill officer that he had videotaped the beating.

Confronted with what he viewed as disinterest on the part of the LAPD, Hotliday made arrangements with Los Angeles television station KTLA to broadcast the videotape on Monday evening. The following day the tape received national exposure on the Cable News Network, and thereafter was reported widely in the media.

THE LAPD OFFICERS AT THE SCENE

Twenty-three LAPD officers responded to the scene of the Rodney King incident. Four LAPD officers -- Sergeant Koon and Officers Powell, Briseno, and Wind -- were directly involved in the use of force and have been indicted on felony charges, including assault with a deadly weapon. Koon and Powell are also charged with submission of a false police report. Two of the LAPD officers were in a helicopter overhead. Ten other LAPD officers were actually present on the ground during some portion of the beating. Seven other LAPD officers merely drove by the scene or otherwise did not directly witness the use of force. Four uniformed officers from two other law enforcement agencies -- the California Highway Patrol and the Los Angeles Unified School District -- were also at the scene.

The ages of these 23 LAPD officers ranged from 23 to 48 years. Their experience varied from 10 days to 29 years since graduation from the Police Academy. In the group were one African-American male, one African-American female, four Latino males, two white females, and 15 white males. Four of the 10 LAPD bystanders were field training officers responsible for supervising

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 11

Report of the Independent Commission

"probationary" officers in their first year after graduation from the Police Academy.

Earlier that evening during roll call, a training session on use of the baton had been conducted in the parking lot of the Foothill Station. Both Powell and Wind participated in that session.

Because of the pending criminal trial of the four indicted officers, the Commission's access to their personnel files was restricted by court order. Based on published reports and public documents, however, it appears that three of the four indicted officers had been named in prior complaints for excessive force. Public records confirm that one officer had been suspended for 66 days in 1987 for kicking and hitting a Latino suspect with a baton. This officer was also the subject of a 1985 excessive force complaint, corroborated by a witness who came forward with information to the Commission, that had been rejected by the LAPD as "not sustained." According to press reports, another officer had been suspended for five days in 1986 for failing to report his use of force against a suspect following a vehicle pursuit and foot chase. (The suspect's excessive force complaint against the officer was held "not sustained" by the LAPD.) A third indicted officer was the subject of a 1986 "not sustained" complaint for excessive force against a handcuffed suspect. Since the King incident, that officer has been sued by a citizen who alleges that the officer broke his arm by hitting him with a baton in 1989.

, 1

:,

THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE RODNEY KING INCIDENT

The Rodney King beating was televised on March 4 on local Los Angeles station KTLA. The public reaction was immediate and overwhelming. Telephone calls expressing outrage at Rodney King's treatment flooded the Mayor's Office, the Police Department, and the media. The strong negative reaction included expressions of shock by some that such an incident could occur in Los Angeles, given the LAPD's national reputation for professional policing.

Immediately after the Holliday video was televised, Police Chief Daryl Gates stated that the tape was "shocking," but that he would withhold judgment on the behavior of the officers until the incident could be investigated. Chief Gates also described the incident as an aberration and expressed his hope that the public would not judge the entire Department on this one case. Mayor Tom

12 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

Report of the Independent Commission

Bradley said he was "shocked and outraged" by the incident and emphasized that "this is something we cannot, and will not tolerate."

By March 6, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, and the Los Angeles Police Department's Internal Affairs Division had begun investigations. The Police Commission, the civilian panel that oversees the Police Department, also began an inquiry.

On March 27, Chief Gates announced a "10-Point Plan" (included in Appendix I) in response to the Rodney King beating, stating that "there must be a thorough and diligent search for any underlying reasons why those officers engaged in such lawlessness." In addition, Chief Gates made several personnel changes in the command structure at the Valley Bureau and Foothill Division, the area where the King beating occurred. The Valley Bureau commander was reassigned to LAPD headquarters and an African-American officer was made commander of patrol officers at the Foothill Division. The Foothill Division Commanding Officer, Captain Tim McBride, remained in his position.

Four officers were indicted by the District Attorney's office on criminal charges: Sergeant Stacey Koon and Officers Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, and Theodore Briseno. Wind, a first-year officer still on probation, has been fired; the other three officers face administrative hearings in which the Department is seeking their dismissal. The District Attorney's office did not seek indictments against the 17 LAPD officers who were at the scene and did not attempt to prevent the beating or report it to their superiors. The District Attorney, however, referred the matter of the bystanders to the United States Attorney for an assessment of whether federal civil rights laws were violated. To date, the United States Attorney has taken no action against the bystanders. The Department has transferred most of the bystander officers to other divisions within the City, and disciplinary action is pending against some of the bystanders. The watch commander (a lieutenant) was also transferred from Foothill Division.

The CHP has disciplined its officers present at the King beating, as well as their superiors in the chain of command. CHP Officers Timothy and Melanie Singer received written reprimands for failing to report the excessive use of force in sufficient detail. The sergeant who was their immediate supervisor was suspended for 10 days for his delay in informing his supervising lieutenant of

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 13

Report of the Independent Commission

the King beating. The CHP lieutenant was demoted to sergeant for failing to initiate an investigation of the incident. The Los Angeles School District terminated its officers who were at the scene.

COMPUTER AND RADIO TRANSMISSIONS

Computer and radio messages transmitted among officers immediately after the beating raised additional concerns that the King beating was part of a larger pattern of police abuse. Shortly before the King beating, Powell'S and Wind's patrol unit transmitted the computer message that an earlier domestic dispute between an African-American couple was "right out of 'Gorillas in the Mist'," a reference to a motion picture about the study of gorillas in Africa.

The initial report of the beating came at 12:56 a.m., when Koon's unit reported to the Watch Commander's desk at Foothill Station, "You just had a big time use of force ... tased and beat the suspect of CHP pursuit, Big Time." The station responded at 12:57 a.m., "Oh well ... I'm sure the lizard didn't deserve it ... HAHA I'll let them know OK."

Whoever was operating the Watch Commander'S MDT did "let them know." At 12:57 a.m., the message went out from the station: "They just tased and beat the susp up big time in the pursuit." At 1 :07 a.m., a further message said: "CHP chasing ... failing to yield ... passed A23 [Powell's and Wind's

car] they became primary then went C6 [Code 6] ... got 415 [disturbance

call] then tased, then beat ... basic stuff really."

In response to a request from the scene for assistance for a "victim of a beating," the LAPD dispatcher called the Los Angeles Fire Department for a rescue ambulance:

p.o.: ... Foothill & Osborne. In the valley dude

(Fire Department dispatcher laughs) and like he got beat up.

F.D.: (laugh) wait (laugh).

P.O.: We are on scene.

F.D.: Hold, hold on, give me the address again.

P.O.: Foothill & Osborne, he pissed us off, so I guess he needs an ambulance now.

F.D.: Oh, Osborne. Little attitude adjustment?

14 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

I

Report of the Independent Commission

P.O.:

F.D.:

P.O.:

F.D.:

P.O.:

F.D.:

P.O.:

Yeah, we had to chase him. OH!

CHP and us, I think that kind of irritated us a little.

Why would you want to do that for? (laughter) should know better than run, they are going to pay a price when they do that.

What type of incident would you say this is. It's a ... it's a ... battery, he got beat up.

Powell's and Wind's unit transmitted the word "oops" at 1 :12 a.m. to foot patrol officers working the Sunland Tujunga area of Foothill Division, who were not at the scene of the beating. The following exchange then occurred during the next five minutes:

"Oops, what?"

[From Powell/Wind] "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

"Oh not again ... why for you do that ... I thought you agreed to chill out for a while. what did he do.?"

[From Powell/Wind] "I think he was dusted . . . many broken bones later after the pursuit."

At Pacifica Hospital, where King was taken for initial treatment, nurses reported that the officers who accompanied King (who included Wind) openly joked and bragged about the number of times King had been hit.

THE PUBLIC RESPONSE

As noted above, public reaction to the King beating, and in particular to the degree and duration of the force used, was clear: the officers' conduct as depicted in the videotape was denounced as intolerable. Public outrage focused not simply on the fact that the officers involved used more than 50 "power strokes" with their batons and kicks to Rodney King's head and body in an open, public location, but also on the presence at the scene of a

Chapter 1 : The Rodney King Beating 15

Report of the Independent Commission

sergeant, who failed to control the situation, and a large number of other officers, none of whom attempted to intervene.

Moreover, the videotape and subsequently reported computer communications provoked concern that the beating was an example of widespread, racially motivated "street justice" administered by some in the LAPD, and reinforced the belief, particularly held by some members of Los Angeles' minority communities, that excessive use of force by the LAPD is common.

That view is shared by many outside Los Angeles' minority communities.

A Los Angeles Times poll conducted on March 7-8, 1991, found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of the respondents in the City of Los Angeles, including a majority of whites, said that they believed incidents of police brutality involving the LAPD are "common." The same question asked two weeks later produced comparable results, with 68% of all respondents (59% of whites, 87% of African-Americans, and 80% of Latinos) stating that incidents of LAPD brutality were either "very common" or "fairly common." A similar, although somewhat less dramatic, perception concerning the LAPD's excessive use of force was found a year before the King beating. More than half (53%) of those from the City of Los Angeles who responded to a February 1990 Times poll stated that there was at least some police brutality within the City. In contrast, only 37% of the Orange County respondents believed there was some police brutality in their area.

,

l

THE AFTERMATH OF THE BEATING:

QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS

The Rodney King beating gave immediate rise to myriad questions about the Los Angeles Police Department. Concerns were voiced about the openness of the officers' conduct; the presence of a sergeant who failed to control and indeed directed the violence; the puzzling convergence of so many officers at the end-of-pursuit location after the Code 4 broadcast that no assistance was needed; the number of officers who stood by during the beating and failed to report it afterwards; and the radio comments and computer transmissions before and after the incident that suggested a possible racial motivation and a ready acceptance of excessive force as "basic stuff" by LAPD officers.

16 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

J

Report of the Independent Commission

More fundamental questions quickly arose as well:

• concerns about the LAPO's "culture" and officers' attitudes toward racial and other minorities

• the apparent failure to control or discipline officers with repeated complaints of excessive force

• the accuracy with which arrest and use of force reports are completed

• the inability to screen out applicants to the LAPD with psychological profiles indicating a propensity to violence

• the possibility that "street justice" is regularly meted out by LAPD officers after a pursuit or chase

• the disparity between the training received at the Police Academy and the way the LAPO operates in the field

• the difficulties the public encounters in attempting to make complaints against LAPD officers

• the role of the LAPD leadership and civilian oversight authorities in addressing or contributing to these problems

These and related questions and concerns form the basis for the Commission's work.

Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating 17

Report of the Independent Commission

NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE

1. LAPD Manual, Vol. 4, p.289.

2. Excerpt from LAPD Internal Affairs Report, quoted in the May 21, 1991 edition of the Los Angeles Times, hereinafter referred to as "IADfTimes."

3. IADfTimes
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id. 18 Chapter 1: The Rodney King Beating

r

Report of the Independent Commission

Chapter Two:

Los Angeles and Its Police Department

LOS ANGELES................. 21

THE STRUCTURE AND STAFFING OF THE LAPD 22

VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS 23

PRIOR INCIDENTS 25

THE LAPD'S POLICY ON USE OF FORCE 26

Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department 19

Report of the Independent Commission

§

1

J

! I

r

I

f

i

l

20 Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department

Report of the Independent Commission

In 1986, LAPD officers had the highest average number of violent and property crime arrests among officers in the six largest cities in the United States

Data from the Police Foundation, The Big Six:

Policing America's Largest Cities (1991)

Chapter Two:

Los Angeles and its Police Department

LOS ANGELES

Los Angeles is the second largest city in the nation, with over 3.4 million people living within its 465 square mile area. The City sits within Los Angeles County, composed of 87 smaller cities and a number of unincorporated areas, with a total additional population of almost 5.5 million. The area is bounded by large neighboring populations in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties.

Recent census data reflect the enormous diversity and dramatic changes in Los Angeles' population mix. According to the 1990 Preliminary Census, the City's white population constitutes 37% of the total; African-Americans, 13%;

1

Latinos, 40%; and Asian/Pacific Islanders and others, 10%. These numbers

reflect the large Latino and Asian immigration into Southern California and the steady rise in the Latino population generally within the area. In many respects, Los Angeles is a city subdivided into a patchwork of communities, neighborhoods, cities-within-the-City, barrios, ghettos, and enclaves marked by residential segregation and a large percentage of recent immigrants only beginning their acculturation. Over 80 languages are spoken by students in the

Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department 21

Report of the Independent Commission

Los Angeles City schools, and 39% of these students come from homes where English is not the primary language. The automobile strongly influences life in Los Angeles, with the City's freeways symbolizing the far-ranging mobility of the area's populace.

Los Angeles is rightly viewed as a fast-paced, upwardly mobile, ethnically diverse, and modern city. Unhappily, violent crime has become another distressing aspect of Los Angeles life, aggravated by the influx of drug trafficking and the presence of numerous violent neighborhood gangs.

This, then, is the working environment of the Los Angeles Police Department.

THE STRUCTURE AND STAFFING OF THE LAPD

The Police Department is headed by Chief of Police Daryl Gates, with an executive staff currently consisting of two assistant chiefs, five deputy chiefs, and 17 commanders. The following organizational chart (Table 2-1) shows the Department's overall structure. As discussed more fully in Chapter 10 of this Report, the City Charter provides that the Department is ultimately under the control and oversight of the five-member civilian Board of Police Commissioners (referred to throughout this Report as the "Police Commission").

The Department is divided into three administrative offices: Administrative Services, Operations, and Special Services. The Office of Operations, headed by Assistant Chief Robert Vernon, accounts for about 84% of the Department's personnel, including the patrol officers and detectives whose activities are most familiar to the public. There are 18 separate geographic areas under the Office of Operations, divided among four bureaus (Central, South, West, Valley) as illustrated on the following bureau map (Table 2-2). In addition, some 42 other police departments coexist in the City and County of Los Angeles, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol.

The LAPD currently numbers approximately 8,450 sworn police officers, augmented by over 2,000 civilian personnel. According to 1986 data recently published by the Police Foundation concerning the police departments in the country's six largest cities, The Big Six: Policing America's Largest Cities (1991), Los Angeles has the lowest ratio of sworn officers per resident (2:1,000) and the second lowest ratio of officers per square mile (15:1). As of 1986,

22 Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department

..--- .---

~ ~

~ !

r-----lli ~ I

~ I

~ ~

r--

-

-

l

UlCATII. If IUIEAIS 01 AlEas

CEITIAL InEAI

~ , :'~ Sf

VALLEY IUIUI

1l4lnlMt .. ... - ....

9 VAl IUTS AIEl U40S'llltol"" Itt-.m

10 liST YIllET AlU itOIt_l5J 'u-nu

150011THHOlLIIOOO'IE' , ... n ... "

H'-Mr.

FGiTKlLL "" zrs.ltSllllfsr

M.· ..

IT OE'IOIISHIIE AlE, ou.",_. '"-11.

!lA.REI CUTf. l~. llS.,[SS!

"'-N"

SUPPl! OIYIS~' HStU.llun

.U-rHt

.lAllOIYISIOI

'lO, lIS lIIlUS 51 '''-Ult

J'J~"'£ OMSICII ,~~ I lIS llIlUS " .n-, ...

IIIOTOI TI'.SPOIl (MY1SIOl SII s..1'fOlOst

-n-141$

POLICE ACADO' Sla. AC.dlU III I"-JUI

'1. SU'NlT OIVISIQI !SS (1 .. 111(1 Sf

111-, ...

III(TIIOPOlITAIIOIYISIOI 1'1(11.

• n· ...

'.PIII! SUlsm~. '",sm

;E1HUl "fA ': : u~ 51

""IlI' .mAIT AlU ., ~, TfWl.l $I II~· IOU

4 ~Ollr.'ECI ARfA

: ; "UI SI 1~1·I"J

'tQiiH,USi ARU

.. , .u',I"ale..,

'3 ~E'TO. AREA HI "'rtlSf 115'~ln

WEST IUIUI

H! ;;,,"~ Mlf

SOlnlll£1I

ua s """'SI.SIIII!' 'IS-Inl

SOUTHlEST'IU

15f' ... r.l.rllf'I.~"" 115-,.

",II1II AlEA

'115 ... '_ ..... UI-HII

12 Tm SlifE! AlEA m,mlst

' .......

SOUTHEAST AlE A ·u I "'I. Sf

... - ...

~OUYIOOO ARU J~! • 'M~I n{ 11)-',"

r .llSHII( ".U 11!'WfIlCf .... I'~ --011

d ItS! LOS AlG(LES AlEA ut wnr ....

I't-lr,.

if 'ACIFIC ARU /!,l :n,U"" )'J·tll'

AREA

BOUNDARIES

of ~.

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

"1."'1'1 •. \ Mbt \AUt uP .... 'O ... , .1t''''''.1''''~ J"tl "'",,, .•• \,,1, l AU

FORM 17.00.00

!

I I

TABLE 2-2

A AUGUST 1988

Report of the Independent Commission

Houston, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit all had more officers per resident than Los Angeles.

As in all of the police departments in the six largest cities, white officers (68.7% of the Department in 1986) are overrepresented in the LAPD in comparison with the percentage of whites in the City's total population. As of 1986, African-American officers made up 12.4% of the LAPD and Latinos made up 16.5% of the force, reflecting aggressive recruiting among both groups spurred by a consent decree governing the recruitment, hiring, and promotion of African-Americans and Latinos. The percentage of African-Americans in the LAPD has now grown to 13.6%. In addition, the Department has about 2% Asian officers and aims to increase this percentage to 7% by the year 2000.

The LAPD has a reputation as a hard working, car-based mobile strike force that is tough on criminals. The Police Foundation data bear this out. To deal with the criminal challenge, the LAPD pioneered the use of SWAT teams, helicopters, and a motorized battering ram.

VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS

The Commission received extensive information regarding the relationship between national violent crime trends and those evident in Los Angeles, summarized in the following table (Table 2-3). While the overall rate of violent crime in the United States increased from 200 incidents per 100,000 residents in 1960 to 700 incidents per 100,000 residents in 19a9, the crimes reported per person in Los Angeles during the same time period were more than twice the national average. According to the Police Foundation, in 19a6 Los Angeles police were the busiest among the officers in the six largest cities in the United States. For each sworn officer that year, Los Angeles had the highest number of recorded violent crimes (9.2 compared with 5.2 in New York, the second highest), and the highest number of recorded property crimes (35.2 compared with 32.1 in Houston). LAPD officers had the highest average number of violent crime arrests (3.1 per officer compared with 1.9 in Detroit, the second highest), and the highest average number of property crime arrests (4.4 per officer compared with 3.8 in both Chicago and Houston).

In 19a6, compared with officers in the other five of the six largest cities in the United States, members of the LAPD killed or wounded the greatest number of civilians, adjusted to the size of the police force. LAPD officers killed

Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department 23

r

o CDC/) ~w

-

w .....

aU

~a: (/)0

w:i ~~

a: co

70 Z

N -

~f- 0 ..:1Zz

~w « ~_J

o~

-_J

>« u.Z 00

w~ ~z a::

(j) co en

o co 0)

~

o co 0)

~

C\I~C\I LO~C\J

· .. ...

(t')~~ oo~~

COON 000)

cocooilcoooco

~ C\I

I'-cocooO)ooco

· . . . . . .

OO')OLOl'-ooO) oo(t')~oo(t')~LO LO(t')I'-LOCOl'-oo

~~

LOLOI'-CO~~oo

· . . . . . .

(t')I'-O(t')~NCO co(t')oo(W)C\lCO~ (W)I'-O') CO ('t)LOO>

O')(w)LO~~LOoo

· . . . . . .

oco(W)cocnoo> (01'-000')0('1)0 ~('I)~('I)C\lC\I('I)

rn Q)

c

Q) "0

::J 0)

«J c o

-

«J

c

~

-

~ Q) o c ~ "0 '-

o o o «J

c

- '-

o a. Q)

'-

II)

- ...

o c. Q)

a::

Q)

E

-

o

C

"0 "0 o 0)

«J o

s: o

Q) o

... :J o (/)

...

o

E

...

o

-

-

o

z

~

-

~

o

..

OJ U.

l

Report of the Independent Commission

3.0 persons per 1,000 sworn officers and wounded 8.1 persons per 1,000 sworn officers. In Detroit, with the second highest violent and property crime arrest rate, the comparable numbers were 1.2 and 5.0, respectively.

In terms of officers killed in 1986, Los Angeles' rate per 5,000 officers was 1.4, compared with Philadelphia at 1.5, Houston at 2.2, Detroit at 3.0, and -- on the lower side -- New York and Chicago each at 0.4. An April 25, 1991, New York Times article reported that, contrary to public perception, statistics show that the streets of America are considerably less deadly for police officers today than they were 20 years ago. Last year 65 officers nationally were killed in the line of duty, the lowest number since 1968 and about half the peak rate of 120 officers a year in the early 1970's. Police work remains dangerous, however, as the tragic death of Officer Tina Kerbat last February and the recent crash of a police helicopter killing Officers Gary Howe and Charles Champe make painfully clear.

Social scientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists who have studied the problem of violence report that the United States is one of the most violent societies in the world. One expert consultant to the Commission, Louis J. West, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA, has observed that the United States has been experiencing an epidemic of interpersonal violence for more than 30 years. Since 1960, the annual incidence of all violent crimes combined (homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and armed robbery) has quadrupled. In Los Angeles, like most of the biggest cities, crime rates are much higher, with Los Angeles consistently 2.5 times higher than the national average.

As crime rates soar, police officers must contend with more and more actual and potential violence each day. LAPD officers frequently face injuryproducing and life-threatening situations. They are dispatched to scenes of shootings, murders, robberies, and burglaries; called to investigate incidents of rape and physical or sexual child abuse; and required to respond to domestic disputes, in which officers are mediators, referees, and often victims of violence themselves. One moment officers must confront armed felons; the next they must deal with predicaments requiring kindness, caring, and supportiveness. As Dr. West emphasizes:

[I]t is important to realize that police officers are now required to be diagnosticians and, indeed, gatekeepers with respect to the intoxicated, the

24 Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department

,

Report of the Independent Commission

mentally ill, the traumatized, the emotionally distraught, the bereaved, and even those in the grip of existential despair. It may well be that the police have more total contact with disturbed individuals in our society than does any other category of health professionals.2

Although the Commission focused its inquiry on Los Angeles and its Police Department, violence, stress, and the use of force are not simply a Los Angeles concern, as the comments of Dr. West and the Big Six data compiled by the Police Foundation bear witness. Indeed, shortly after the formation of this Commission, the heads of 11 police departments from 10 cities around the country (Baltimore, Boston, Bridgeport, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Portland, St. Petersburg, San Diego, and Tulsa) called for a national commission on crime and violence to track instances of police brutality, stating that the problem of excessive force is real and is linked to drugs, strife, and urban

3 decay.

PRIOR INCIDENTS

The Rodney King incident was not the first instance of a highly charged, notorious event spurring calls for inquiry and reform in Los Angeles. In the glare of such scrutiny, some constructive changes in Police Department policies and procedures have occurred at various times. For example, the "Sleepy Lagoon" incident in the 1940's triggered concerns about discrimination against Latinos; the discovery in the 1970's of secret intelligence files in the Police Department led to a policy against the Department spying on Los

4

Angeles citizens' lawful activities; and the 1979 fatal shooting of Eulia Love led

to reforms in the Department's use of force policy. Perhaps the most wellknown event was the six-day riot in South-Central Los Angeles during the summer of 1965, leading to the creation of the Governor's Commission on the Los Angeles Riots (the McCone Commission).

Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department 25

Report of the Independent Commission

THE LAPD'S POLICY ON USE OF FORCE

Because this Report is largely concerned with excessive use of force, it is appropriate to set forth the Police Department's stated policy and its guidelines regarding the proper uses of force.

LAPD officers exercising physical force must comply with the LAPD's use of force policy and guidelines, adopted by the Police Commission in 1979, as well as California law. The LAPD policy states:

In a complex urban society, officers are daily confronted with situations where control must be exercised to effect arrests and to protect the public safety. Control may be achieved through advice, warnings, and persuasion, or by the use of physical force. While the use of reasonable physical force may be necessary in situations which cannot be otherwise controlled, force may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances. Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm.

California Penal Code Section 835a states in part: "Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance."

The use of force policy and the Penal Code both require that the force used be reasonable; the use of force policy also requires that the force used be necessary. The LAPD's use of force guidelines explain that an officer may resort to force only where he or she faces a credible threat. A suspect's verbal threats of violence by themselves do not justify use of physical force.

In addition, under the use of force guidelines, an officer is required to react to a suspect's behavior with the minimum amount of force necessary to control the suspect. As the suspect escalates or de-escalates his or her level of resistance or aggressiveness, the officer must react accordingly. The guidelines identify five levels of force and the permissible use of force techniques within each level, as illustrated in the following use of force scale (Table 2-4). The five levels are (1) verbalization; (2) firm grip; (3) compliance holds; (4) intermediate force, including the use of the baton, kicks, swarm,

26 Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department

j

~ I N

,

......
'd
.....
!Jl+J
-o 0
r-i~
rLI >to ttl
0 'd:I:U
~ 0 til
0 ~r-i • S
f.t. o tJl ~
~ ~ • ttl
~ Q)~Q)Q)
..::I o.r::-~
Q 0.0 .....
~ 00 f.t.
rLI
Q
til
ttl
rLI o
E-i
-e r-i
H ttl
Q U
rLI r:: til ~ ..... ~
~rLI O.!><: S til Q)
~UttlQ)o.tIl
rLlO ttl· ... ~.r:: ttl ttl
E-i~ ~~en(JenE-i
ZO
Hf.t.
rLI
0
Z
~
H
..::len
Po. 0
~..::I
00
O:I:
Po.
H
~
t.!)
~
H
f.t. ~
H
<t!
u
U') Z
0
~ H
U E-i
0::: ~
0 N
f.t. H
..::I
f.t. ~
0 CO
~
~ ~
U') :::-
:::>
.
L Report of the Independent Commission

chemical spray, saps, and taser; and (5) deadly force, including the modified carotid hold (sometimes called a "chokehold") and firearms.

The central task of the Commission was to determine whether and how the LAPD's use of force policy and guidelines are followed in practice.

Chapter 2: Los Angeles and Its Police Department 27

Report of the Independent Commission

i

j

28 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

Chapter Three:

The Problem of Excessive Force In the LAPD

EXCESSIVE FORCE AS A MANAGEMENT PROBLEM IN THE LAPD 32

THE "PROBLEM GROUP" OF OFFICERS WITH

HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF COMPLAINTS, USES

OF FORCE, AND SHOOTINGS 35

COMMISSION STUDY OF ONE GROUP OF OFFICERS WITH

FREQUENT EXCESSIVE OR IMPROPER FORCE COMPLAINTS 39

Statistical Profile of the 44 Officers 40

Review of Personnel Files and Performance

Evaluations of the 44 Officers 40

DISCUSSION OF BEATINGS, SHOOTINGS, AND PURSUITS

IN PATROL CAR COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS 48

FORCE-RELATED CIVIL LITIGATION INVOLVING LAPD

OFFICERS 55

Citizen Claims and Civil Litigation

Involving the Use of Force 55

Analysis of LAPD Investigation and Discipline

in Cases Costing the City More than $15,000 56

Specific Cases and the Underlying

LAPD Investigations 57

Civil Litigation As a Management Problem 60

RECOMMENDATIONS 61

Leadership... 61

Command Accountabil ity 62

Supervision, Monitoring, and Counseling 62

Management Attention to Civil Litigation.... 63

Audio and Videotaping of Contacts Between

the Police and the Public 63

"Mid-Level" Use of Force Options 64

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 29

Report of the Independent Commission

30 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

"We know who the bad guys are .... We know the [officers] who are getting into trouble more than anyone else."

Former LAPD Assistant Chief Jesse Brewer

"R U gOing to beat em up like U did the last time. n

Computer message sent between LAPD patrol cars

Chapter Three:

The Problem of Excessive Force In the LAPD

The LAPD can be justifiably proud of its many strengths. It is widely recognized throughout the United States for efficiency, absence of corruption, quality of personnel, sophistication of technology, and accomplishments in crimefighting.

The Commission has found, however, that there is a significant number of officers who repetitively misuse force and persistently ignore the written policies and guidelines of the Department regarding force. By their misconduct, this group of officers tarnishes the reputations of the vast majority of LAPD officers who do their increasingly difficult job of policing the City with courage, skill, and judgment. While there are broader issues of LAPD "culture" and community relations that bear on the problem of excessive force in ways that we discuss in subsequent chapters, we concentrate here on the failure to control these problem officers. This is a management issue that we see as the heart of the problem of excessive force.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 31

Report of the Independent Commission

EXCESSIVE FORCE AS A MANAGEMENT PROBLEM IN THE LAPD

The problem of excessive force in the LAPD is fundamentally a problem of supervision, management, and leadership. What leaps out from the Department's own statistics -- and is confirmed by LAPD officers at the command level and in the rank-and-file -- is that a "problem group" of officers use force, and are the subject of complaints alleging excessive or improper force, far more frequently than most other officers. Yet, the evidence obtained by the Commission shows that this group has received inadequate supervisory and management attention.

Jesse Brewer, a retired 38-year LAPD veteran who served as Assistant Chief from 1987 until February 1991, testified before the Commission that this lack of management attention and accountability is the "essence of the excessive force problem" in the LAPD:

We know who the bad guys are. Reputations become well known, especially to the sergeants and then of course to lieutenants and the captains in the areas. We know the ones who are getting into trouble more than anyone else. But, I don't see anyone bringing these people up and saying, "Look, you are not conforming, you are not measuring up. You need to take a look at yourself and your conduct and the way you're treating people" and so forth. I don't see that occurring.

* * *

The sergeants don't, they're not held accountable so why should they be that much concerned. They know that some of these officers who do generate the most complaints are also the ones who make a lot of arrests and write a lot of tickets and so forth and the sergeants, I have a feeling that they don't think that much is going to happen to them anyway if they tried to take action and perhaps not even be supported by the lieutenant or the captain all the way up the line when they do take action against some individual.

* * *

I think more attention needs to be paid to these people that we know are ones who constantly get into trouble. It appears we have a large number, large -- I don't know how large the number is -- we

32 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

J

Report of the Independent Commission

have a number of people who have established a reputation for generating complaints. And we know ( that when you get one complaint, there are probably three or four instances where the same thing has occurred, but no complaint has been lodged because people don't necessarily, all people don't necessarily make complaints. And so we would say that if a person is generating an inordinate number of complaints, that someone in the chain of command and probably the captain, should be looking at these individuals and at least informing them that they are going to be closely scrutinized and their conduct is going to be monitored. So that I think, perhaps, that would ... we would work with these individuals that we know are creating problems for us in the field.

Chief of Police Daryl Gates recognized, in his testimony before the Commission, that the system for monitoring and counseling officers with a disturbing pattern of use of force or personnel complaints "has fallen by the wayside by some but not all" in the past four or five years and that the job "has been done too haphazardly" in recent years. Assistant Chief David Dotson, who heads the Department's Office of Special Services, testified that "we have failed miserably" in the LAPD to hold supervisors accountable for excessive force by officers under their command:

There's one thing about discipline that I don't want to get away from, or don't want to get away from the subject without mentioning it. In my judgment, we do a very poor job of management and supervisory accountability.

* * *

. . . higher command officers when learning of [incidents of excessive force] having occurred took no action or very indecisive action, very weak and slow approach to doing something. Let me tell you that none of those people [the higher command officers], with rare exceptions, have been disciplined. And, in fact, I'm not even sure they've been counseled in many of these incidents.

* * *

And so, that's an area that I believe we have failed miserably in, is holding people accountable for the actions of their people.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 33

r

Report of the Independent Commission

Interviews of many present and former LAPD officers by the Commission staff yielded conclusions similar to those of Assistant Chiefs Brewer and Dotson. Senior and rank-and-file officers generally stated that a significant number of officers tended to use force excessively, that these problem officers were well known in their divisions, and that the Department did not do enough to control or discipline these officers. The officers interviewed felt that supervisors were not held accountable by their superiors for excessive use of force by their subordinates, and consequently supervisors paid little attention to the problem.

This information from Commission interviews is supported by the results of a written survey of 960 randomly selected officers conducted by the LAPD in May 1991. Thirty percent of the 650 officers responding agreed -- as does this Commission -- that "the use of excessive force is a serious problem facing the Department." (Of the remainder, 53% disagreed and 17% had no opinion.)

A significant percentage of officers in this survey agreed with the statement that "an officer is justified in administering physical punishment to a suspect who has committed a heinous crime" (4.9%) or "to a suspect with a bad or uncooperative attitude" (4.6%). (Another 11% of the officers had no opinion on the statements regarding physical punishment of suspects, while 84% disagreed.) That nearly 5% of LAPD officers would acknowledge in a written survey sponsored by the Department that an officer would be entitled to use "street justice" against suspects with a "bad or uncooperative attitude," and that 11 % would have "no opinion," are evidence of a serious problem in attitude toward use of force among a significant group of LAPD officers.

The LAPD has a number of tools, which are discussed in subsequent chapters of this Report, to promote and enforce its policy that only reasonable and necessary force be used by officers. There are rewards and incentives such as promotion, pay upgrades, and transfers to desirable assignments. Sanctions for misconduct (including termination) can be imposed through the discipline system. Officers can be reassigned or transferred by administrative order. Supervisors can monitor and counsel officers under their command. Officers can be trained in the proper use of force at the Police Academy and, perhaps more importantly, in the field.

The Commission believes that the Department has not made sufficient efforts to use these tools effectively to address the significant number of officers

,

34 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

who appear to be using force excessively and improperly. The leadership of the LAPD must send a much clearer and more effective message that excessive force will not be tolerated. That message must also make plain that officers and their supervisors will be evaluated to an important extent by how well they abide by and advance the Department's policy regarding the use of force.

THE "PROBLEM GROUP" OF OFFICERS WITH HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF COMPLAINTS, USES OF FORCE, AND SHOOTINGS

A group of officers who appear to pose a much higher risk of using excessive force than other officers is readily identifiable in the computer data provided to the Commission by the Department. These data include: all personnel complaints filed against LAPD officers from January 1986 through December 1990; all use of force reports for the period January 1987 through March 1991; and all reports of officer involved shootings for the period January 1986 through April 1991.

The data may be described briefly as follows. Personnel complaints against officers, which are discussed in Chapter 9 in connection with the LAPD discipline system, are ruled by the Department to be "sustained" (meaning the officer is guilty of the misconduct alleged), "not sustained" (meaning that because the evidence is conflicting it cannot be determined whether the alleged misconduct occurred), "unfounded" (meaning that the alleged misconduct did not occur), or "exonerated" (meaning that the conduct did occur, but was justified under LAPD policy).

The LAPD classifies complaints into categories such as "excessive force," "improper tactics," "conduct unbecoming an officer," "neglect of duty," "dishonesty," and others. (See Table 3-1.) Each complaint can, and often does, have multiple allegations in different categories. Complaints classified by the LAPD as "excessive force" or "improper tactics" typically involve allegations of improper or unnecessary force, and the Commission's analysis focused on complaints in these categories. Analysis of other categories of complaints, however, has shown that complaints in categories such as "neglect of duty," "conduct unbecoming an officer," and "dishonesty" may also be related to improper use of force. As discussed in Chapter 9, very few citizen allegations of excessive force (2.0%) were ruled sustained by the LAPD in the five years

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 35

..

Report of the Independent Commission

from 1986 through 1990. Only 4.8% of the public's improper tactics allegations were ruled sustained during this period.

A use of force report must be completed whenever an LAPD officer uses force greater than "firm grip" compliance. The report identifies all officers involved in the use of force and usually is written by a sergeant based on the account of the officers involved in the use of force. The report includes information regarding the nature of the force used (for example, baton, firearm), any injury received by the individual, and other data. LAPD data indicate that use of force reports are filed in approximately 1 % of arrests. The evidence available to the Commission indicates that officers using force do not always report it, but the extent of such underreporting is difficult to determine. Approximately 6,000 officers are identified as involved in a use of force in one or more use of force reports in the LAPD computer database of all reports made between January 1987 and March 1991.

An officer involved shooting report is required to be filed every time an officer discharges a firearm, whether accrdentally or intentionally, and whether or not anyone is hit or injured by the shot.

When these data are sorted by officer serial number, the responses are remarkable and disturbing:

• Complaints. Of approximately 1,800 officers against whom an allegation of excessive force or improper tactics was made from 1986 through 1990, over 1,400 officers had only one or two allegations. But 183 officers had four or more alleqatr ~s, 44 had six or more, 16 had eight or r' 'e, and one had 16 allegations. The top 10% of officers ranked by number of excessive force or improper tactics allegations accounted for 27.5% of all such allegations. (See Table 3-2.)

• Use of Force Reports. Of nearly 6,000 officers identified as involved in a use of force in use of force reports from January 1987 through March 1991, more than 4,000 had less than five reports each. But 63 officers had 20 or more reports each. The top 5% of officers ranked by number of reports accounted for more than 20% of all reports, and the top 10% accounted for 33%. (See Tables 3-3 and 3-4.)

j

J

36 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

TABLE 3-2

CONCENTRATION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST LAPD OFFICERS FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE OR IMPROPER TACTICS

JANUARY 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 1990

1,

U) c:: o

TiS

C) Q)

« '0

....

Q)

.D

E

::J

Z

Top 10% of Officers Ranked by Number of Allegations of Excessive Force or Improper Tactics Account for 27.5% of the Total Number of Allegations.

....................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................•................

1 oth 20th 30th 40th 50th 60th 70th 80th 90th 1 ooth

Percentile (Each Bar represents approximately 180 Officers)

• 1,802 officers received at least one allegation of excessive force or improper tactics during the period January 1986 through December 1990.

• Officers were ranked according to number of allegations per officer.

• Allegations were concentrated in relatively few officers.

Source: LAPD Complaint Database.

TABLE 3-3

USE OF FORCE REPORTS

OFFICERS RANKED BY NUMBER OF USE OF FORCE REPORTS FROM JANUARY 1987 THROUGH MARCH 1991

I 1

f

l

4,033 Officers Had Less Than 5 Use of Force

...................................................... ······················1 Reports Each

I/) 1, ....

G)

o

5 1,

.... 4> .!l

E

::J Z

63 Officers Had 20 or More Use of Force Reports Each

1 Number of Reports Per Officer

Note: A use of force report generally lists more than one officer involved in the use of force reported. In this analysis, each listing of an officer in a use of force report was treated as a separate report.

Source: LAPD Use of Force Database.

TABLE 3-4

CONCENTRATION OF LAPD OFFICERS LISTED IN USE OF FORCE REPORTS

~

o 7. o,

Q)

a:

Q) 6.

~ o

u.. 5.

'0

Q)

CIJ 4.

=>

-

o

~ 3.

Q) ..0

~ 2.

Z

5,976 OFFICERS LISTED IN AT LEAST ONE USE OF FORCE REPORT FILED FROM JANUARY 1987 THROUGH MARCH 1991

9.

8.

Top 10% of Officers Ranked by Number of Use of Force Reports Account for 33.2% of All Use of Force Reports.

J .

; .

1.

1····················································· ..........................................................•. ,

1 oth 20th 30th 40th 50th 60th 70th 80th 90th 1 ooth

Percentile (Each Bar represents approximately 598 Officers)

Note: A use of force report generally lists more than one officer as involved in the use of force reported. In this analysis, each listing of an officer in a use of force report was treated as a separate report.

Source: LAPD Use of Force Database.

TABLE 3-5

COMPARISON OF "TOP 44" OFFICERS RECEIVING FORCE COMPLAINTS WITH ALL OFFICERS LISTED

IN USE OF FORCE REPORTS

A VERAGE PER OFFICER OF FORCE-RELATED COMPLAINT AUEGATIONS, OTHER COMPLAINT AUEGATIONS, AND USE OF FORCE REPORTS

1
1
(f)
c
0
iii 1
01
a>
~
L-
0
~
0
a.
a>
a:
.....
0
'11=
a>
~
L-
a>
~ .,j •••••••••.•............•............................••.••..............•..•.••.••.••••••.........•...••.•••..•••.•••..••••.....•••••.•.•....••••

Allegations of Excessive Force or Improper Tactics Listed in Complaints

(Jan. 1986 - Dec. 1990)

Allegations other than Use of Force Reports

Excessive Force or (Jan. 1987 - Mar. 1991)

Improper Tactics

(Jan. 1986 - Dec. 1990)

• "Top 44" officers are all officers with six or more allegations of excessive force or improper tactics in personnel complaints for the period January 1986 through December 1990.

• The "Top 44" officers are compared with all officers identified in a use of force report as involved in a use of force for the period January 1987 through March 1991.

Source: LAPD Complaint and Use of Force Databases.

Report of the Independent Commission

•

Shootings by Officers. Of 662 officers involved in any shooting from 1986 through April 1991, 19 officers were involved in three or more.

Blending these data identifies even more troubling patterns. For the years covered by the database,

• one officer had 13 allegations of excessive force and improper tactics, five other complaint allegations, 28 use of force reports, and one shooting;

• another had six excessive force and improper tactics allegations, 19 other complaint allegations, 10 use of force reports, and three shootings;

• another had seven excessive force and improper tactics allegations, seven other complaint allegations, 27 use of force reports, and one shooting; and

• another had eight excessive force and improper tactics allegations, nine other complaint allegations, and 35 use of force reports.

Extending the search beyond the LAPD computer data to LAPD personnel files and complaint investigations reveals that many of the officers with patterns of repetitive use of force from 1986 forward had similar patterns in earlier years. In one case, an officer (whose initial background investigation indicated he had a problem controlling his temper) was the subject of 19 personnel complaints, including at least three shootings and 11 complaints of excessive force, in his first 2-1/2 years with the LAPD. A City psychiatrist reported at that time that the officer's aggressive and violent tendencies were likely to continue or even increase. This prediction was borne out in the officer's remaining 17-1/2 years on the force, during which he accumulated an additional 43 complaint allegations, including 16 for excessive force or improper tactics. Another 20- year veteran retired after accumulating 19 personnel complaints, of which at least 13 were related to improper use of force.

The data obtained by the Commission from the LAPD are generally consistent with those reported in a June 1991 Daily News study drawn from data for an earlier 5-1/2 year period. The Oaily News reported that there were

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 37

Report of the Independent Commission

1,931 officers named in complaints of "excessive or unnecessary" force; 254 officers were named in three or more such complaints and accounted for 30% of the complaints; and 47 officers had five or more complaints.

To be sure, misconduct is not established merely by the fact that an officer has many use of force reports, repeated personnel complaints, or even several shootings. It may be argued that active officers assigned to high-crime areas or specialized duties will appropriately use force more often, and may generate more complaints against them, than the "average" officer. Yet, there are many "productive" officers in high-crime areas who do not accumulate complaints, shootings, and use of force reports in relatively large numbers. The extreme concentration of these data cannot be explained solely by officer assignments or arrest rates.

While the precise size and identity of this problem group cannot be specified (at least without significant further investigation), its existence must be recognized and addressed. As Chief Gates and former Assistant Chief Brewer testified, the group must receive monitoring, counseling, and management attention by supervisors and command officers. For example, when asked what analysis the Department had done regarding the 5% of officers filing use of force reports who accounted for over 20% of reports filed, Chief Gates replied:

If you had a build-up of that kind and not a proper audit and a careful review of it and follow-up, we would have been negligent. No question about it.

Despite repeated requests by the Commission and a diligent search by the LAPD for any such audit or review of the concentration of use of force reports among officers, none was found and provided to the Commission. Nor did the Department have any overall analysis of the officers with multiple complaint histories involving excessive force (except for a not-yet-completed study begun after the Rodney King incident at the time the Commission was reviewing the officer complaint data). Many command officers and supervisors interviewed by the Commission staff were not even aware of the LAPD computer database from which they could obtain a list of the personnel complaints, use of force reports, and shooting data for any officer under their supervision.

A prime example of inadequate management and supervision of officers with respect to the use of force is the highly publicized 39th and Dalton drug

38 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

,

Report of the Independent Commission

raid in August 1988. Eighty-eight officers conducting a search for drugs in four apartments in an African-American and Latino neighborhood were commanded only by a sergeant. The officers inflicted massive property damage on the apartments: walls and ceilings were demolished by battering rams; virtually all windows were smashed; sinks and toilets were torn away from pipes. LAPD investigators catalogued 127 separate acts of "vandalism." The City has paid over $3.4 million to settle property damage claims stemming from the raid, and further claims are pending. Three LAPD officers, including the senior officer (a captain) involved in the preparation for the raid, were charged with but acquitted of criminal vandalism; a fourth officer pleaded no contest to the vandalism charge. Internal LAPD reports found serious management failures in the planning and execution of the raid. One such report concluded that the officers involved "were led astray by poor supervision and management" and "generally understood" from the instructions they received that the homes were to be made "uninhabitable." The report noted that the highest ranking officer present during the raid "failed to take charge when there were obvious signs of misconduct occurring in his presence ... [and] opted instead to leave the scene."

Yet, as Assistant Chief Dotson testified, few of the officers in the chain of command have been held accountable for the 39th and Dalton raid. Moreover, many of the officers involved in the raid have subsequently been promoted: 20 of the 42 officers at the police officer II (PII) level were promoted to police officer III (Pili), and many of them are now serving as field training officers. Four of the Pills have been promoted to detective or sergeant, including the officer who was disciplined for making false statements in a search warrant affidavit. Four of the officers have been promoted twice since the raid.

COMMISSION STUDY OF ONE GROUP OF OFFICERS WITH FREQUENT EXCESSIVE OR IMPROPER FORCE COMPLAINTS

To look more closely at the LAPD's management of one possible group of problem officers, the Commission staff identified from the LAPD database the 44 officers with six or more allegations of excessive force or improper tactics _for the period 1986 through 1990. The staff then reviewed these officers' personnel files and the files of over 200 investigations by the LAPD of complaints against these officers alleging excessive force or improper tactics.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 39

i

Report of the Independent Commission

The selection of this group of officers for the Commission's study is not meant to suggest that the potential "problem officers" are limited to this group. Indeed, scrutiny would be appropriate for the 5% (or approximately 300) officers in the 1987-1991 use of force report database who account for 20% of those use of force reports (see Table 3-4 above). An even larger group of officers would be identified by combining the databases containing personnel complaints, use of force reports, and officer involved shooting reports for recent years. Supervisors in the field, of course, have the benefit of first-hand experience with officers who may be causing problems in the use of force. There is no bright line defining this group, in the Commission's view. The discussion of the 44 officers selected here on the basis of six force-related complaints in five years is for purposes of illustration, not definition.

Statistical Profile of the 44 Officers

The LAPD computer database indicates that the use of force by officers in this group should have received careful management scrutiny. Nineteen of the 44 are in the highest 1 % of all officers ranked by a cumulative total of use of force reports, officer involved shooting reports, and personnel complaint allegations. Forty of the officers are in the top 5% of this group, and all 44 are in the top 10% of this group.

The 44 officers were compared against all officers identified in the database as having been involved in a use of force for the period January 1987 through March 1991. The results are shown in accompanying Table 3-5. The top 44 received an average of 7.6 allegations of excessive force or improper tactics compared to 0.6 for all officers reported to be using force; the top 44 received an average of 6.5 personnel complaint allegations of all other types, compared to an average of 1.9 for all officers reported to be USing force; and the top 44 were involved in an average of 13 uses of force compared to 4.2 for all officers reported to be using force.

Review of Personnel Files and Performance Evaluations of the 44 Officers

The evaluation of LAPD officers' performance is recorded in "Performance Evaluation Reports." After completing a probationary period, each officer is evaluated every six months on this form, which presents multiple categories for rating and comment. The rating categories, as to which each officer is judged

40 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

L

Report of the Independent Commission

as "Strong," "Competent," or "Needs Improvement," include, among others, "quality of public contacts," "performance under stress," "communication skills," and "judgment and common sense." The form also contains sections that invite narrative comments on the officer's performance and that require insertion of the number of disciplinary actions involving the officer during the six month period under review. This form is used, for example, in making promotion decisions and considering officers' requests for desirable assignments in particular geographic areas or specialized units.

As a general matter, the performance evaluation reports on these 44 officers were very positive. The reports tended to document every complimentary comment, including every formal commendation, received by the officer. They were also uniformly optimistic about the officer's progress and prospects on the force. However, also as a general proposition, the performance evaluations failed to give an accurate picture of the disciplinary histories of these officers. They commonly did not record sustained complaints and failed to comment on the substance and significance of such complaints. The reports did not mention that an officer was the subject of one or more not sustained or unfounded complaints during the period under review. As a result, the picture conveyed in an officer's personnel evaluation file was often incomplete and commonly at odds with contemporaneous comments appearing in the officer's sustained and not sustained complaint files.

Supervisors preparing these reports are responsible for informing themselves about the "quality of public contacts" of officers under their command, the pattern of force-related complaints against these officers, and similar matters. Personnel complaint information is available to the supervisor preparing the evaluation report. A summary card listing all complaints against the officer, whether or not sustained, is maintained in the division files, and the officer's personnel file maintained in LAPD headquarters contains detailed information regarding sustained complaints. A list of complaints, their dispositions, and other information is available from the LAPD computer database (although the existence of the database apparently is not widely known within the LAPD). Investigation files on not sustained complaints (as opposed to a listing of not sustained complaints), however, are generally not available to the supervisor.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 41

Report of the Independent Commission

Many performance evaluations mentioned the absence of personnel complaints as a ground for concluding that a particular officer was doing well. In some instances, the statement was simply wrong. The converse generally was not mentioned in performance evaluations: that is, the presence of personnel complaints, and in particular a pattern of not sustained complaints, was not used as a ground for concluding that further inquiry concerning a

particular officer's progress was warranted.

With a few exceptions, supervisors, in making assignments, did not appear to take account of multiple sustained and not sustained complaints involving excessive force or improper tactics. In that minority of cases in which such facts seemed to be taken into account, the decision to reassign the officer often came too late to prevent a serious incident of misconduct, or the officer was reassigned to a job in which his apparent problems created further risk. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that supervisors considered an officer's multiple complaint history in deciding with whom the officer should be paired on assignment and, more importantly, whether the officer was a suitable candidate for training probationers.

Several examples will illustrate these general observations.

Officer A joined the LAPD in 1982. In late 1986 and 1987, he received six complaints for excessive force or improper tactics. Two of the complaints had charges sustained, including one allegation of dragging a cord cuffed arrestee down the hallway of the police station by his feet. Four additional complaints concerning excessive force on arrestees were not sustained. One of the investigation reports on one of the later not sustained complaints nonetheless notes that the complaint was the officer's

fifth complaint during the last 18 months involving excessive force and/or improper tactics .... [H]e is either very unfortunate in his propensity to be the object of personnel complaints, or he possesses an abrasive demeanor with the public.

In contrast, Officer A's performance reviews for the same period make no mention of the sustained or unsustained reports: the performance evaluation prepared in the Spring 1987 report speaks of the officer's consistent high quality and notes in particular that "his citizen contacts reflect a high professional quality, mixed with a truly caring attitude." The Fall 1987 report is similarly glowing, noting, among other things, that Officer A "projects an image

42 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

j

f

Report of the Independent Commission

of impartiality, fairness and professionalism in his contacts with the public .... " In the Spring 1988 evaluation report, it is recommended that Officer A be promoted to a training officer position.

In 1989, Officer A received two more complaints for excessive force, which the Department ruled not sustained. One of the investigation reports notes that the "allegations in this complaint are serious" and, if true, the officer involved needs "to promptly redirect [his] behavior." The complaint is seen as "a disturbing sign." The report concludes that Officer A should be confronted in his interview with the possibility that excessive force was used and should be "encouraged to call a supervisor immediately when presented with an aggravated incident. He can also expect to be supervised more closely than in the past."

His performance review for the same period, however, makes no reference to the counseling, the complaints, or the possibility that Officer A used excessive force. The report simply states that Officer A "continues to perform in an outstanding manner."

Officer 8 has been with the LAPD for many years. In 1982, he was accused of striking an arrestee on the back of the neck with the butt of a shotgun for no apparent reason while the arrestee was kneeling and handcuffed. A charge of improper tactics was sustained. His performance

evaluation for the same period does not discuss the sustained complaint. Rather, the evaluation states that Officer 8's

most outstanding asset is his outstanding personality and easy going manner which he uses to his best advantage in the field. His calm and collective [sic] approach while dealing with the general public is indicative of his lack of personnel complaints during this rating period.

His subsequent performance review similarly does not take account of the sustained charge of hitting a handcuffed arrestee on the back of the head with a shotgun. That review concludes that

Officer [8] has been time tested in a myriad of field situations requiring quick thinking, self confidence and a high tolerance to stress. He always comes through with flying colors. There is nothing in patrol work that Officer [8] cannot handle with the utmost competence and expertise . . .. His stable personality and mature perspective toward police

Ji -

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 43

work help develop his probationers with . . . a conscious avoidance of overreaction.

Report of the Independent Commission

In April 1988, Officer B was accused of several counts of excessive force against a 13 year old juvenile. The charges were held not sustained, although it was noted in the investigation report that Officer B had seven sustained complaints during his tenure with the LAPD. His performance evaluation for the period makes no mention of the seven sustained complaints or the unsustained complaint of April 1988, noting that Officer B "has a low-key personality and can make decisions based upon the facts at hand without becoming personally involved."

In 1989, Officer B was the subject of another complaint of excessive force and improper tactics alleging that an arrestee was thrown from a chair and kicked in the back and on the side of his head while handcuffed and lying on his stomach. The charges were held not sustained despite corroborative medical evidence and testimony. One count of failure to notify a supervisor and file a use of force report was sustained, however, and the officer was admonished.

The officer's last performance review was in Spring 1991. Despite seven sustained complaints over the course of his career and a string of unsustained complaints for excessive force, including three such complaints between 1987 and 1989, the officer continued to be praised highly: "[h]is contacts with the public are always professional and positive and his attitude with the citizens is one of concern." The report concludes that the officer is "currently preparing himself for the upcoming sergeant's exam. He would be an asset to the ranks of sergeant. "

The file on Officer C presented a number of problems. The first is that crucial performance evaluations were missing -- a difficulty encountered in many of the personnel files reviewed. In 1987, a departmental complaint was initiated alleging that Officer C detained four African-American males for questioning and unnecessarily struck two of the suspects several times on their backs and sides while they were kneeling with their hands behind their heads. There were numerous witnesses to the incident, including local businessmen, neighbors, and a passing television crew. LAPD officers reviewing this conduct described it as "immature, unprofessional, and unethical," "unexcusable," "border[ing) on being criminal in nature," and indicated that " [s]everal persons

44 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

who testified [at Officer C's disciplinary hearing] obviously now believe that the Los Angeles Department and its officers resort to acts of brutality." A 10-day suspension was imposed. There were no performance reviews contained in the personnel file covering the periods during which this incident occurred or was investigated.

Thereafter, in 1989, Officer C had charges sustained of kicking an arrestee in his midsection after Officer C told the arrestee to exit his car, get on his knees, and place his hands on his head. The investigation file regarding this complaint reflects that the officer had been the subject of two prior allegations of excessive force that were not sustained and one charge that was sustained (described above). The report concludes that the officer appears not to have been deterred from "his pattern of gratuitous violence." "The instant complaint, coming as it does on the heels of another serious use of excessive force ... calls to question [the officer's] abilities to continue to perform his duties as a police officer in a manner consistent with this Department's requirements."

Officer C's performance review for this period makes no mention of this incident or the 1987 incident, even though the officer was suspended during this review period because of the 1987 incident. Rather, the evaluation concludes that Officer C "usually conducts himself in a manner that inspires respect for the law and instills public confidence," "has a positive effect on morale and works well with his peers," and "is able to communicate clearly with other officers, supervisors and citizens in need of police service." The subsequent evaluation form for the period March - August 1989 is also missing from the file.

Approximately six months after the last incident, another excessive force complaint was sustained against this officer for kicking a suspect after removing him from a police car. The commanding officer who reviewed the investigation of this complaint discussed Officer C's prior history of complaints and concluded that

in each case, the alleged misconduct occurred in a controlled situation where the complainant was restrained and presented no immediate threat .... The use of excessive force is a symptom displayed by officers which is indicative, among other things, of extremely poor judgment. [Officer C] has displayed this significant deficiency on prior occasions and displayed it in abundance on the evening of this incident.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 45

Report of the Independent Commission

Officer C's commanding officer concluded that his employment should be terminated, and it was noted that he had been advised by his commanding officer following his last suspension that any recurrent misconduct would likely result in his termination. It did not, however: the officer instead received a 10- day suspension. His performance evaluation for the period makes only passing mention of the incident, and his most recent evaluation indicates that the officer remains on the force and is generally complimented for his continuing good work.

Officer D, who was removed from the force in 1988, had a particularly troubling seven-year career with the LAPD. His file contains references to at least nine sustained complaints and eight unsustained complaints for excessive force or improper tactics between December 1986 and September 1987. There are evaluation forms missing from this file. Indeed, there is only one semiannual performance evaluation report in the personnel file of this officer for the period September 1986 through December 1988. That report describes Officer D as "strong" in the categories of "judgement and common sense" and "reliability." The report concludes that the officer has been observed to be

eager, enthusiastic and motivated in the performance of his duties. In fact, this supervisor normally utilizes [Officer D] in assignments where it is critical for something to be done right the first time.

During the period covered by this performance evaluation, the officer was admonished for neglect of duty and had a complaint filed against him that resulted in a 22-day suspension for neglect of duty/unbecoming conduct. There were also three unsustained complaints during the evaluation period. None of these is mentioned in the performance evaluation.

The commanding officer who signed this glowing performance review on October 27, 1987, also Signed on the same day a notice identifying the 22 days for which the officer would be suspended for neglect of duty and unbecoming conduct.

During the same period of time, it was noted in a personnel complaint that this officer was paired with another officer who had a lengthy history of abusive behavior:

Both [officers] have a lengthy record of similar complaints. Primarily they all involve aggravated

46 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

I

Report of the Independent Commission

circumstances such as a chase resulting in a field detention wherein the arrestee alleges he was struck or kicked.

Officer 0 was permitted to serve in a training capacity from 1985 through the end of his career, notwithstanding the string of sustained and unsustained complaints. Officer 0 was finally removed from the force after he, while on duty, removed a prisoner in custody from the holding tank, took him to a secluded location on three occasions, and beat him. He was also found to have engaged in a cover-up of the incident and to have advised a probationary officer working with him "not to worry about it."

In several instances, comments on probation reports disclosed tendencies that later became severe problems but appear not to have been systematically tracked after the probationary period. For example, it was noted in investigations for excessive use of force that Officer E had a "propensity for attracting personnel complaints" and had not yet "learned the techniques of appeasing the public." It was further noted in another investigation that his demeanor was such as seemingly to "encourage his field contact to complain." None of these observations was noted in Officer E's positive performance evaluations.

If the probationary reports had been checked, however, his supervisors might have noted that Officer E had been criticized for "a tendency to be rude to victims" and "a tendency to become rude to the public" and to exhibit "an unprofessional manner at times." He was also observed to become "very defensive" when told he made a mistake, to be "quick to fabricate excuses for his actions," and "to get angry with the training officers during counseling."

Although under the present discipline system (see Chapter 9) a not sustained complaint may not properly be used as a basis for disciplining an officer, information developed in investigations of such complaints can and should be used to educate superior officers as to the strengths and weaknesses of officers under their command and to promote, assign, supervise, and counsel them accordingly. The performance evaluation files of these officers reflect that this has not been adequately done.

The LAPD guidelines for preparation of the performance evaluation reports contain several provisions that may limit a supervisor's ability to discuss an officer's complaint history in the evaluation. Under the guidelines, the

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 47

Report of the Independent Commission

supervisor is to comment on personally observed activities of the officer during the six-month rating period and to discuss, in connection with discipline, sustained complaints that occurred during the evaluation period. However, the evaluator is permitted to comment on poor judgment not amounting to misconduct (i.e., not resulting in a sustained complaint) that may have precipitated the complaint. Whether the inadequacies in these performance evaluations resulted from LAPD policy regarding preparation of the report or from failures in the implementation of that policy (or some combination of the two), decisive action is necessary to correct the management failures reflected in these files.

DISCUSSION OF BEATINGS, SHOOTINGS, AND PURSUITS IN PATROL CAR COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS

The existence of a significant number of officers with an unacceptable and improper attitude regarding the use of force is supported by the Commission's review of computer messages sent from patrol cars throughout the City. Those messages also evidence the LAPD's management problem in the area of use of force.

The LAPD's Mobile Digital Terminal ("MDT") system is a sophisticated communications network through which patrol cars are linked with headquarters and each other by computer terminals in each car. Officers transmit messages by typing them into the terminal in their patrol car and receive messages on the terminal screen. The MDT network offers the

I advantage that it cannot be monitored by civilians as can police radio communications. Under LAPD policy and regulations, the MDT communications are subject to monitoring by supervisors, who can read

messages coming across their terminal screens, and auditing by the LAPD Communications Division, which can review printouts of messages stored on computer disks.

Given public concern over the MDT messages from officers involved in the King incident, the Commission staff reviewed all MDT communications between patrol cars for approximately 180 days selected over the 16-month period from November 1989 through February 1991. (A chronological listing of approximately 700 MDT messages selected from those reviewed by the Commission staff, and an explanation of the operation of the MDT system, are

48 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force .

t

Report of the Independent Commission

separately available from the Commission offices.) Although the vast majority of messages reviewed appeared to be routine police communications, there were a number of messages, similar to those publicized after the King incident, in which officers from all geographical areas of the City talked about beating suspects and other members of the public:

• "Capture him, beat him and treat him like dirt

"

"Sounds like a job for the dynamic duo .,. after I beat him what doo I book him for and do I have to do a use of force [report]"

• "I was out of vehicle, whippin on a couple of em, how r u."

"Sgt Brutality."

• "Wakeup ... the susp on our perimeter got caught, but he got beat by a BB bat"

"Tell [an officer] to use a baton next time"

• "Gary.Jt you see [name ornittedj.iqrab him and beat him..he has a fel warr"

"Rgr will destroy him"

• "No problemmm ... we R hungry ... we got a little physical wi a [name omitted] on Colomb us ... it was fun ... we had to teach him a little respect ... for the police ... hahahahaha ... we had fun . . . no stick time though."

• "Did U arrest the 85yr old lady of just beat her up."

"We just slapped her around a bit ... she/s getting mit [medical treatment] right now."

• "We prond him straight out of his jaguar ..... " "He is crying like a baby."

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 49

Report of the Independent Commission

"Did U educate him."

"Take 1 handcuff off and slap him around." "He is crying to hard and there is 4 detectives here."

"Well dont seatbelt him in and slam on the brakes a couple times on the way to the sta .... "

• "1 hope there is enough units to set up a powwow around the susp so he can get a good spanking and nobody c it .... "

"U mean susps ... cut to pieces .... "

• "I,m going to kill this guy."

"Haaaaaa .. you,re so bad .. u cutie u .... I,11 be back I,m going to do it"

"I obviously didn,t beat this guy enough. He got right back up and is still being obnoxious. "

• "My partner wants to know if you beat those guys ... "

"Yes ... "

• "We'li start with beat the drunk and go from there gotta go now talk to u later."

• "Juvi says U hit him with flashlight ... I didn't see U do that"

"Smile. I'm against viol"

• "I would just beat and release that fat slob in the red suit named ... Homey Claus ... and I heard reindeers real good eating . . . hohoho mofo ... "

• "U missed out bro, we backed 2X53 [a patrol unit] on a poss shots fired from veh. some of

50 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

I

Report of the Independent Commission

the susps had some big boot marks on their heads, once they were in custody."

• "The last load went to a family of illegals living in the brush along side the pas frwy . . . I thought the woman was going to cry ... so I hit her with my baton"

• "What, did U beat another guy" "Let's discuss it later"

• "We're sitting on a C37 that was dropped off by two Mexicans ... going to sit on it for a while."

"R U going to beat em up like U did the last one"

• "[Name omitted] who did u beat up this time"

• "[Name omitted] wanna go over to Delano later and hand out some street justice ... "

• "Ti was fun .. but no chance to bust heads .. sorry"

"Oh well .... maybe next time"

• "So are you going to take that call" "After the beating"

• "Did you really break his arm" "Along with other misc parts"

"We have his oriental buddy for 11364"

"Great ... make sure u burn him if he's on felony probation ... by the way does he need any breaking ... "

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 51

Report of the Independent Commission

• "They give me a stick they give mee a gun they pay me 50G:s to have some fun"

In a number of messages, officers showed their awareness of Department monitoring procedures:

• "Cease fire ... we r being monitored"

• "Can't say on MDT ... but M.T. [medical treatment] was needed."

"I fig ... it was ugly ... oh well ... U know what happens . . . my guy is gonna need it too if he gives me a hassle ... "

• "This is the only job I've ever had where U don't have freedom of speech. As U can tell I'm aggravated but still smiling and glad to serve and protect. The last sentence was put in just in case they're monitoring. Ha ha"

Officers also used the MDT system to express their attitudes regarding shooting suspects:

• "Go get em my-man, and shoot him twice for me"

• "Looking to end 1990 with a good shotgun killing ruggg"

"Raa a full moon and a full gun make for rewards from god"

"A full moon and a full gun makes for a night of fun"

"Everybody you kill in the line of duty becomes a slave in the afterlife"

"Then U will have a lot of slaves ... "

• "I should a shoot 'em huh, I missed another chance dammmmmm"

"I am getting soft"

52 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

I _ _j

Report of the Independent Commission

•

"We got a burglar tonight, who was cold 6c and had nine thousand dollars warrant

you want any help just holler"

"No: I'm just going to shoot him:"

• "If I find it itl be ois [officer-involved shooting] time. God I wanna to kill something oh so bad point to ooi 361."

The MDT transmissions make clear that some officers relish the excitement of a pursuit, and some view a pursuit as an opportunity for violence against the running suspect. One patrol unit advised another to "drop back a block before you light him up [referring to the patrol car light and Siren], we want a good run." Other MDT messages expressing an eagerness for pursuits included:

• "U don't call what u do really work, last time u spoke u were in foot pursuit, C/6 [Code 6]"

"Caught the sob too ... had to beat him on the head and pull him off his movig rn/c ... when are we getting together foray brewski"

• "1m gonna bk my pursuit susp. Hope he gets ugly so I can vent my hate. Hrr hrr ... A-H"

• "Ok whens my next pursuit????"

• "If U get into anything, make it a pursuit okay ... I love pursuits ... "

• "Don't even try it, it was nice and quiet, don't start any mess/hahahaha"

"Just for that we're gonna get into a pursuit with C-6 Charles susps ... "

• "OK its ur turn for a pursuit ... I love them"

• "Well ... find me a pursuit ... make this an exciting nite ... jjeezz I req to work here cuz it's busy ... and nothing happens"

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 53

•

"Stand by we feel pretty good, we may have another foot pursuit here soon" ha ha ha ha"

Report of the Independent Commission

• "Getting energy for the foot pursuit and shooting ... I won't lose the susp"

• "Roger, thinks I'm hoping for a great busy night ... I love pursuits"

"U think you can handle Sgts huh, haaa out Us can't even handle us why do u think you can. An let me know sometime I'll take u out busy nites are best Its been fun lately. Almost shot a dummy, had a good fight an the pursuit. Ha sick huh"

MDT messages can be monitored by a field supervisor, who has the capability of reading on his or her MDT screen the messages being sent between two other units. A commanding officer told the Commission staff, however, that such contemporaneous monitoring "was not routinely done." The Department acknowledges that, in addition to contemporaneous monitoring, it stores MDT transmissions in a database and has the ability to review them and to audit officers' use of the system for improper messages. Prior to the King incident, however, there was no requirement that area commanders regularly audit the MDT printouts. If a complaint was made against an officer, the Department sometimes would review relevant MDT transcripts as part of its investigation, but no regular review of transcripts was conducted. In short, the MDT materials reviewed by the Commission's staff were equally available to the Department, but no effort was made to review them. Only when the MDT messages following the Rodney King incident inflamed the public did the Department take action to monitor and audit the system. It then found, by its own count, 260 patently offensive comments over

•

a one-month period.

That officers would feel free to type such messages as those listed above into the Department's official computer communications channel, knowing that the communications were subject to monitoring, is, in the Commission's view, evidence of a serious problem with respect to excessive force in the LAPD. The apparent confidence of these officers that nothing would be done about their

54 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

inflammatory statements suggests a tolerance within the LAPD of attitudes condoning violence against the public.

FORCE-RELATED CIVIL LITIGATION INVOLVING LAPD OFFICERS

Before and since the King incident, lawsuits alleging improper use of force by LAPD officers have been a source of public concern. Large settlements and jury verdicts frequently have been in the headlines. Questions have been raised regarding how effectively the LAPD investigates and disciplines the officers who are involved in conduct for which the City pays millions of dollars every year.

The Commission staff reviewed the files of all 83 cases of alleged excessive or improper force by LAPD officers that resulted in a settlement or judgment of more than $15,000 during the five-year period 1986 through 1990. Based on the evidence examined in this review, a majority of the cases appeared to involve clear and often egregious misconduct resulting in serious injury or death to victims, although some of the cases involved accidental or negligent conduct. The LAPD's investigation of these 83 cases was flawed in many respects, and discipline against the officers involved was frequently light or nonexistent. Moreover, the LAPD does not have adequate procedures in place to review or learn from the results of this litigation.

Citizen Claims and Civil Litigation Involving the Use of Force Claims

From 1986 through 1990, members of the public filed over 2,500 claims alleging personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of force by LAPD officers. Not all claims were pursued formally in court, but filing such a claim is prerequisite to a lawsuit. Most claims are routinely denied by the City, largely because of inadequate resources to investigate claims.

Claims alleging excessive use of force represented the majority of all claims filed against the LAPD (excluding claims arising from traffic incidents). During this five-year period, members of the public filed 3,716 claims with the City for non-traffic related incidents involving the LAPD. Over two-thirds of these claims involved allegations of excessive use of force against police officers. Although the total number of non-traffic related claims declined consistently from 1986 to 1990, the proportion of excessive force claims

~-----

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 55

Report of the Independent Commission

remained constant. Approximately one-third of the excessive force claims were eventually litigated. Assault and battery was the single largest category of allegations, constituting over 25% of the total allegations in all non-traffic related claims against the LAPD.

Civil Litigation

From 1986 through 1990, the City paid in excess of $20 million in judgments, settlements, and jury verdicts in over 300 lawsuits against LAPD officers alleging excessive use of force. This amount does not include the cost of defending these suits. Excessive force cases accounted for nearly 85% (93% in 1990) of the total amount of damages and settlements the City incurred in non-traffic related police litigation during this period. As with the citizen claims discussed above, assault and battery was the single largest category of allegations in all non-traffic related police litigation.

Physical beatings were the most common type of excessive force at issue. Physical abuse by baton, punches, kicks, and other types of beatings accounted for over half of the excessive force allegations. Injury or death by gunshot was significant, representing 22% of the allegations. Nearly a quarter of the cases involved a pursuit, either by automobile or foot, resulting in a variety of injuries once the arrestee was apprehended. Although shootings were the most common use of force at issue at the end of a pursuit, baton beatings were a close second. The pursuit cases accounted for approximately $3.7 million in settlements or judgments. In 42% of the cases, the officers used force after the suspect was physically subdued or in custody. The most common setting in these cases was the basic arrest. In 60% of these cases, the officers' use of force in arresting suspects, without any pursuit, resulted in injury or death.

Analysis of LAPD Investigation and Discipline in Cases Costing the City More than $15,000

In addition to reviewing the litigation files of all 83 excessive force cases resulting in settlements or judgments of more than $15,000, the Commission staff reviewed all investigation files made available by the LAPD and personnel files of the officers involved in the incidents (excluding the personnel files for the officers involved in the 39th and Dalton litigation).

56 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

----------------------~-

Report of the Independent Commission

The LAPD's Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") investigated 23 out of the 83 incidents. Fifty-two of the incidents were investigated by either the RobberyHomicide Division (for shootings) or the division where the officer was deployed at the time of the incident. Fourteen incidents were not investigated at all by the LAPD. (The total number of investigations and uninvestigated incidents exceeds the number of incidents due to multiple investigations in certain cases.) Only 29% of the investigations resulted in at least one allegation sustained against an officer for excessive use of force or improper tactics. Eleven officers were involved in two incidents each.

The LAPD disciplined only 21 % of the officers investigated in the 83 incidents. The majority (61%) of the officers involved in the investigated incidents received no discipline. (For 18% of the officers investigated, it could not be determined whether they received discipline.) Of the officers who were disciplined, nearly half were not suspended or terminated, but instead received admonishments or training. The great majority of those suspended (80%) were suspended for 22 days or less. Only three officers, 6% of those investigated, were terminated.

The majority of the officers (84%) received overall positive ratings in their personnel performance evaluations (the data for 8% was unavailable) and 42% of the officers have been promoted since the date of the incident (promotion data for 22% were unavailable).

Specific Cases and the Underlying LAPD Investigations

We summarize briefly below a few of the troublesome cases involving excessive force by LAPD officers and the LAPD discipline, if any, imposed on the officers involved.

Murrales v. City of Los Angeles

Luis Milton Murrales, a 24-year old Latino man, lost the sight in his right eye when LAPD officers beat him at the end of a pursuit in April 1988. Two LAPD officers saw Murrales commit a traffic violation and began a pursuit that ended when Murrales' car collided with another pursuing police car. Murrales tried to run, but several LAPD officers found him hiding under a stairwell and ordered him out. Murrales claimed that, once he emerged from the stairwell, one officer struck him with a baton, and that after he fell to the ground, other

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 57

Report of the Independent Commission

officers joined in beating and kicking his face and body. After he was taken to Rampart Station, the officers allegedly continued the beating and threatened to kill him. Although none of the 28 LAPD officers involved in the incident corroborated Murrales' version, several did admit to striking Murrales on his shoulders, head, and arms, but only after Murrales had allegedly swung his gym bag at the officers. Medical records of the loss of his Sight, however, supported Murrales' account. The City settled the case for $177,500.

Describing the incident, the commanding officer acknowledged that a "lynch mob" mentality appeared to have existed once Murrales fled the scene on foot. However, after an LAPD investigation, no allegations were sustained against the officers involved. Four officers who used force on Murrales had similar prior incidents.

Alfred Johnson v. City of Los Angeles

In a 1981 altercation with LAPD officers, Johnson, an AfricanAmerican, apparently resisted arrest while under the influence of PCP. The officers placed handcuffs and leg restraints on him. Johnson alleged that the officers then removed the back seat of the car and put Johnson over the drive shaft. An officer then placed the seat on top of Johnson and rode to the station on top of the seat. The officers denied ever placing Johnson on the drive shaft. Medical records indicate that after the arrest, Johnson had large third degree burns requiring skin grafts. Johnson received a $28,500 settlement. There was no LAPD investigation, and no officer involved in the incident received any discipline.

Bernal v. City of Los Angeles

Michael Bernal, a white male, lost two teeth and suffered multiple concussions resulting in permanent brain damage when several officers beat him in a holding cell in May 1981. Bernal had been arrested for outstanding traffic warrants. The officers claimed Bernal became belligerent when ordered to carry a mattress to a cell. When Bernal brushed the mattress against him, an officer placed Bernal in a chokehold and brought Bernal to the ground with the help of two other officers. The officers allegedly punched Bernal over 15 times in the face, kicked him in the groin, and slammed his head against the floor.

j

58 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

The officers denied ever striking Bernal. The City Attorney recommended settling the case for $300,000.

The lAD interviewed Bernal, the prisoners who witnessed the incident, two sergeants on duty at the time of the incident, and the three officers involved in the incident. The counts of excessive force, discourtesy to a prisoner, and abusive language were sustained. The LAPD suspended two officers for five and 10 days respectively. One of the officers received seven complaints between January 1986 and December 1990. The other officer had 12 complaints filed against him during that period.

De La Cruz, et al. v. City of Los Angeles

Two officers observed two young Latino men in a high-crime area.

The officers suspected that the individuals were gang members involved in a burglary. The officers ordered the individuals to stand against a fence with their hands up. Jose Sanchez, a relative of the two young men, approached the officers and demanded an explanation. The officers ordered Sanchez to take his hands out of his pockets. Sanchez refused because he claimed he was doing nothing wrong and was on his own property. Fearing a concealed weapon, the officers grabbed Sanchez, shook him, and pushed him into the fence. When other family members attempted to intervene, one of the officers swung his baton at the group. The officer contended that someone tugged at his holster. One of the baton blows struck a pregnant woman in the stomach. Sanchez claimed that on the ride to the station, the officer struck him again with a baton. A jury returned a verdict for compensatory damages of $160,000 in favor of the seven plaintiffs involved in the incident.

The LAPD did not investigate the use of force in this incident, and consequently the officers received no discipline. During the six-month period immediately following the incident, one of the two officers was promoted to Pili and received excellent evaluations. Between January 1987 and March 1991, the same officer generated 23 use of force reports.

Abel Romero v. City of Los Angeles

In a September 1984 incident, the LAPD put out a call that a van involved in a homicide was seen near Fifth and Main. The call failed to mention that the suspects were young African-American gang members. The police

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 59

Report of the Independent Commission

responded to the call by stopping Abel Romero in his van. Romero is a middle-aged Latino man who speaks little English and has no criminal history. The officers ordered Romero, only in English, to exit the van and kneel on the sidewalk. Romero apparently had difficulty understanding the orders, but in an attempt to cooperate, he exited the van with his hands over his head. Romero knelt down, then stood up and sat down. Feeling that Romero was willfully failing to comply, an officer kicked Romero from behind, pushed him on the sidewalk, and then placed his knee in Romero's back to achieve a rear wrist lock. Romero suffered strained wrists, a bruised upper back and ribs, and profusely bleeding facial cuts. Romero stated that his face was slammed into the sidewalk with such force that he momentarily lost consciousness. When the officers realized the mistake, they released Romero at the scene. The City Attorney's office recommended settlement for $30,000.

The only investigation by the LAPD was by the supervising officer, who prepared a use of force report. The evidence indicated that the language barrier created the misperception that Romero refused to cooperate. One of the officers admitted that Romero seemed to do his best to cooperate. Nevertheless, the supervising officer found the use of force to be in policy. No officer received any discipline.

Civil Litigation As a Management Problem

Chief Gates testified that the LAPD lacks effective procedures or "feedback" for reviewing the results of civil litigation involving LAPD officers. The City Attorney essentially agreed. The delays and difficulty encountered by the LAPD in providing the Commission with information regarding the investigation and discipline of officers involved in these incidents confirms the lack of management attention to this aspect of the use of force problem in the Department. Given the millions of dollars paid by the City as a result of use of force by LAPD officers, and the egregious conduct revealed in some of the lawsuits, the Department must establish procedures to monitor the results of civil litigation and make use of the information obtained.

This is not to suggest that merely because a lawsuit alleging improper force is settled on the recommendation of the City Attorney, or a jury verdict is returned for the plaintiff, one should conclude that the officer involved is guilty of misconduct or that the LAPD should discipline the officer. A sympathetic

•

,

60 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

plaintiff may prevail, or lawyers may advise settlement, even if the officer's conduct was in policy. Moreover, the present one-year limitation under the City Charter on conduct that may be used for disciplinary suspension or termination of officers (a limitation that the Commission recommends in Chapter 9 be removed) may prevent disciplinary action based on evidence obtained in civil litigation relating to incidents years in the past.

The complexities and uncertainties of civil litigation, however, cannot justify the apparent inattention on the part of the LAPD to instances of serious misconduct. Where suspension of an officer is not possible under the present rules, an official reprimand may still be issued to an officer. The LAPD may use additional counseling, training, and supervision for officers whose problems with use of force are established in civil litigation. The Commission's review of five years of litigation and related disciplinary files demonstrates that this manifestation of the excessive force problem in the LAPD needs to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The LAPD has done an outstanding job, by all accounts, of creating a culture in which officers generally do not steal, take bribes, or use drugs. The LAPD must apply the same management tools that have been successful in attacking those problems to the problem of excessive force. Subsequent chapters will address specific recommendations in areas such as training, promotion, discipline, community relations, and the structure of the Department. We address here several broad recommendations that apply to the system as a whole.

Leadership

The leadership of the LAPD must give priority to curbing excessive use of force. The leaders must make this priority felt throughout the system, in the powerful incentives and disincentives that influence the behavior of police officers.

Especially in a quasi-military organization such as the LAPD, the leadership has great power to bring about change and a concomitant responsibility to use that power wisely and effectively. The leaders of the LAPD can send, if they want to, an unequivocal message that the pride so often expressed and widely

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 61

Report of the Independent Commission

felt within the Department is deserved only if officers act within the law in the use of force and exercise restraint in the power entrusted to them. That message has not been sent. Without it, meaningful progress in reducing excessive force by the LAPD cannot be achieved.

The Police Commission must be part of this leadership effort. We explain in detail in Chapter 10 our recommendations for strengthening that body. We emphasize here that Police Commission audits and review of the excessive force problem must be accompanied by a firm resolve to accord this issue the priority it requires in the LAPD's policies and goals.

Command Accountability

Command officers have not been held accountable for excessive or unnecessary force by officers whom they supervise. This must change. Accountability means that command officers will be evaluated on the basis of how officers under their supervision adhere to the Department's policies regarding use of force. Accountability must be stressed throughout the system. When an incident of excessive force occurs, supervisors up the chain of command must be accountable, regardless of whether they actually participated in the wrongful conduct.

Supervision, Monitoring, and Counseling

lieutenants and sergeants working with officers in the field must monitor the use of force by those they supervise. The guidelines for preparation of performance evaluation reports must be revised to require supervisors to assess information from complaint histories, especially where a repetitive pattern exists. The Department must provide command officers with the statistical information already available and readily accessible for use by appropriate command officers. Supervisors must understand what force is being used and why, detect "early warning" signs of a developing problem, and arrange for officers to receive the training and counseling they need to exercise the appropriate level of restraint in contacts with the public. Training must be more than perfunctory, as we discuss in detail in Chapter 7. Officers should be encouraged to receive professional counseling by experts if appropriate. If counseling and training do not work, discipline must.

62 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

Report of the Independent Commission

Management Attention to Civil Litigation

The City of Los Angeles is paying millions each year in defense, settlement, and verdicts in cases alleging violence and brutality by LAPD officers. This problem must not be dismissed as resulting from out-of-control juries or inadequate defense lawyers. Too often in the cases studied by the Commission, the officers' conduct was egregious, their testimony not credible, and the City Attorney's settlement recommendation prudent in the face of the evidence and likely result.

LAPD management must recognize that the problem of litigation is a reflection of the more fundamental problem of excessive force, not in all cases to be sure, but in far too many of them. Prompt investigation and discipline, if appropriate, should be pursued. Information about officers' conduct that becomes available in the litigation should be used in evaluating those officers. Conduct that results in large settlements or judgments, including punitive damages awarded on the basis of egregious or intentional misconduct, should be carefully studied to determine what went wrong and why. In addition, the Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office and other interested bodies of City government, might consider arbitration or mediation of claims that are now routinely denied and often lead to more expensive litigation.

Audio and Videotaping of Contacts Between the Police and the Public

A promising possibility for reducing excessive force and assisting the LAPD and the City in defending civil litigation is video technology. The state-of-the-art technology utilizes a small camera mounted in the patrol vehicle, which can be turned on either manually, or automatically with lights or sirens. The camera can be equipped with a wide-angle lens and rotated 360 degrees. The unit is equipped with a wireless remote microphone capable of picking up sound within 1,000 feet of the patrol car. The unit is tamper proof, and the tape is kept in a secure box in the patrol vehicle's trunk. It cannot be erased or re-recorded.

Chief Gates, Assistant Chief Vernon, and Commander Bostic in testimony before the Commission endorsed this concept as having substantial merit. Similar technology has been used for a number of years in various jurisdictions. The Commission recommends that the LAPD pursue efforts to use such technology, including the formulation of proposed Department guidelines for

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 63

Report of the Independent Commission

use of video technology and experimental use in a substantial number of patrol cars.

The Commission recognizes that many have asserted that in some situations officers may fail, intentionally or otherwise, to use the video and audio equipment properly to record the event at issue. Possible ways to address this concern should be studied as part of the experimental program recommended here.

According to the LAPD officer studying the use of video technology, installation in patrol vehicles Department-wide could cost roughly between $5 and $8 million. In addition, the cost of videotapes could run as high as $1 million per year. While this expenditure must be weighed against other competing needs, the costs of video technology may be offset or recouped if the system reduces excessive force claims (because the tapes demonstrate that the officers acted appropriately and because officers would be more careful to use force appropriately). Videotaping might also promote officer safety by deterring violence by suspects against police officers.

"Mid-Level" Use of Force Options

Many LAPD officers have contended that a major problem with the Department's use of force policy is the perceived gap in "middle level" use of force options. When dealing with a combative suspect, many officers complain of a lack of realistic Department-approved options between talking and using the baton.

While other options are available at the baton force level -- specifically, chemical mace and taser -- they are less frequently used than the baton and are believed by many officers to be less effective. A large number of officers interviewed urged reinstatement of the carotid chokehold, which restricts the flow of blood, as a "mid-level" use of force option. As discussed in Chapter 10, the Police Commission in 1982 equated the carotid and bar-arm chokeholds with other forms of "deadly force" on the use of force escalation scale, in response to reports that the chokehold had caused several deaths. The officers advocating return to use of the carotid hold, many of whom joined the force after its use was limited, assert that it is more humane than striking someone with a baton. The Department, however, made no recommendation to the Commission regarding the carotid or bar-arm chokehold.

64 Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force

I

,

Report of the Independent Commission

The Department is interested in testing a chemical agent called capstun, used by the FBI and numerous other law enforcement agencies. Several officers also indicated support for the stun gun. This weapon, like the taser, uses an electrical charge to control the suspect but, unlike the taser, is held in contact with the suspect.

In the Commission's view, before the implementation of these or other tactical approaches can be recommended, a thorough study by police, medical, scientific, psychological, and other appropriate experts should be undertaken as part of a comprehensive evaluation of middle-level use of force options by the Department and the Police Commission.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Excessive Force 65