LAPD Notice of Investigation Letter
May 8, 2000
James K. Hahn, Esquire
City Attorney
City of Los Angeles
1800 City Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Mr. Hahn:
As you are aware, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Division has been conducting a civil investigation of allegations
of police misconduct involving the Los Angeles Police Department
("LAPD"). As a result of our investigation, we have determined
that the LAPD is engaging in a pattern or practice of excessive
force, false arrests, and unreasonable searches and seizures in
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. Accordingly, I have authorized the filing of a
civil suit in United States District Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 14141, to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief to eliminate
the pattern or practice of misconduct. We would be willing to
defer filing suit, however, if City officials are interested in
negotiating a voluntary settlement in the form of a consent
decree to be filed with our civil complaint.
At the same time, this Department's investigations to
determine whether particular LAPD officers committed prosecutable
federal criminal offenses will continue. The decisions whether
to prosecute will be made based upon the facts of each individual
case.
Our civil investigation has included a variety of actions.
We have reviewed LAPD policy statements; reports on officer-involved shootings and incidents in which non-lethal force was
used; misconduct complaint files in which serious misconduct was
alleged; information on civil suits filed against the LAPD and
its officers; information on criminal charges filed against LAPD
officers; information relating to police training; and reports
and memoranda prepared by the LAPD, the Board of Police
Commissioners ("Police Commission"), and the Inspector General
that discuss or analyze reform initiatives. We have met with
LAPD leaders and Police Commission members on several occasions,
and have met with LAPD managers and supervisors responsible for
such matters as internal investigations, reviews of officer-
involved shootings, and training. The Department also has sought
to assist the LAPD in addressing potential officer misconduct by
providing funds to develop a comprehensive, computerized risk
management system.
We have found that the LAPD's pattern or practice of police
misconduct includes: the unconstitutional use of force by LAPD
officers, including improper officer-involved shootings; improper
seizures of persons, including making police stops not based on
reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause;
seizures of property not based on probable cause; and improper
searches of persons and property with insufficient cause.
Although we have concluded that these types of misconduct occur
on a regular basis in the LAPD, we believe that the majority of
officers are ethical, hardworking, and responsible individuals,
who have not, themselves, violated the constitutional rights of
the persons they serve and protect.
Serious deficiencies in City and LAPD policies and
procedures for training, supervising, and investigating and
disciplining police officers foster and perpetuate officer
misconduct. First, LAPD supervisors fail to supervise
adequately LAPD officers carrying out their routine policing
responsibilities. Supervisors do not, to the extent necessary,
direct, evaluate, and monitor officer performance in the field.
Supervisors fail to respond to the scene of significant
incidents; fail to adequately review reports, including arrest
and booking reports; fail to ensure the integrity of applications
for warrants and the use of confidential informants; and fail to
ensure the appropriate treatment of persons in police custody.
Many supervisors do not have the training necessary to perform
their supervisory responsibilities and correct deficiencies.
This failure in direct supervision has created an environment
where officers may engage in misconduct without detection and
intervention by LAPD supervisors.
The LAPD also has failed to supervise officers properly by
failing to identify and respond to patterns of at-risk officer
behavior. Specifically, the LAPD has failed to implement a
comprehensive risk management system to identify patterns of
at-risk conduct by individual officers and groups of officers,
such as patterns of uses of force, injury to citizens, and
citizen complaints. One important component of a risk management
system is an appropriate "early warning" system. As the Police
Commission acknowledged several years ago, the LAPD's current
"early warning" system, the Training, Evaluation, and Management
System ("TEAMS"), is inadequate. Despite this recognition,
however, the LAPD has failed to make progress in developing an
adequate "early warning" system. Indeed, it has not even
utilized the federal funds made available for this specific
purpose. The LAPD also has failed to utilize properly other
supervision and risk management tools, including meaningful
personnel evaluations, regular and appropriate integrity audits
of officers and units, integrity "sting" investigations, and
assessments of officers' history and performance when undertaking
actions such as promotions and sensitive assignments (e.g.,
assignments as field training officers or to specialized units).
In addition, the LAPD fails to respond properly to citizen
complaints of officer misconduct in that it conducts inadequate
investigations and adjudications of civilian complaints. Because
they are unlikely to be discovered and disciplined, officers are
not deterred from engaging in misconduct. Similarly, poorly
trained officers are not identified for re-training or
counseling. Together with the training and supervision
deficiencies identified above, inadequate complaint
investigations create an environment that allows police
misconduct to occur.
Finally, we have concluded that the Police Commission and
Inspector General do not have the resources needed to conduct
meaningful oversight of the LAPD in a consistent, ongoing manner.
Whether additional structural reforms also are needed is
something that we are continuing to examine, and are interested
in discussing with you if settlement negotiations are undertaken.
We note that other investigative bodies have made similar
findings regarding LAPD misconduct and deficient management
practices. Indeed, the LAPD has been aware, at least since the
1991 Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles
Police Department (the Christopher Commission Report), that its
management practices were inadequate to appropriately identify
and prevent misconduct by its officers. Such findings were
echoed in the Police Commission's 1996 Special Counsel report,
entitled Five Years Later, in various reports by the Police
Commission's Inspector General, and most recently in the March 1,
2000 Public Report of the LAPD Board of Inquiry into the Rampart
Area Corruption Incident ("BOI Report"). Still, the pattern or
practice of police misconduct, and the LAPD's failure to
adequately address it, continues.
We acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the LAPD and the
Police Commission to uncover the misconduct that occurred in the
Rampart Area, and to identify management practices that allowed
the misconduct to take place. We believe the BOI Report includes
many important recommendations for reform, and we are encouraged
by the commitment of the Police Commission and the Inspector
General to thoroughly evaluate a broad range of issues related to
and prompted by the BOI Report, including the LAPD's management
practices. We believe, however, that federal action now is
required to eliminate the pattern or practice of police
misconduct in the LAPD. The Department of Justice has extensive
experience in developing and implementing systems to ensure
officer integrity and accountability, and we have the ability to
obtain a resolution that will be implemented promptly and fully.
We will seek to use these resources to enhance and strengthen the
City's efforts to address the pattern or practice of misconduct.
Finally, we note that during our investigation we received
allegations of misconduct that, if substantiated, could violate
other statutes in addition to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. These statutes
include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c). Such allegations concern whether the
LAPD discriminates on the basis of race or national origin in its
law enforcement activities. We have not yet reached any final
determination with regard to these allegations.
We hope that we can work cooperatively to ensure that the
appropriate reforms are developed and implemented promptly and
effectively.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bill Lann Lee
Bill Lann Lee
Acting Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Honorable Richard J. Riordan
Mayor, City of Los Angeles
Gerald L. Chaleff, Esquire
President, Los Angeles
Board of Police Commissioners
Mr. Bernard C. Parks
Chief, Los Angeles Police Department
Updated July 25, 2008