Why police need scrutiny: Lessons from Maywood
The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial today urging measures that will make the personnel records of law enforcement officers less secret. This editorial comes days after this newpaper's reporters broke a story about Maywood Police Department, which is referred as the agency of second chances.
Most people would simply call it the law enforcement agency from Hell.
Staffed by officers who were fired by other agencies for committing serious misconduct or even criminal offenses, the department came under intense scrutiny after those officers transferred their bad behavior to their new department. A department where even the current chief who promised to turn it all around is a convicted criminal.
Why police need scrutiny
The editorial addresses the issues of confidentiality in terms of accessing police personnel information particularly in the wake of the controversial Copley decision last summer by the state supreme court.
(excerpt)
Maywood's challenges are so pervasive that no single solution — certainly no single piece of legislation — can turn it around. But one bill could help prevent future Maywoods from happening by restoring the public's access to information about the people who patrol their streets. State Senate Bill 1019, by Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), is a response to the California Supreme Court decision last August that ended the ability of many cities to open officer employment and discipline records.
People in just about every city in this country are long past tired of asking their elected officials why a police officer that got into trouble in another city was brought to do the same in their city. Accounts circulate every single day of departments hiring officers who are registered sex offenders, departments hiring officers who committed home invasion robberies. Officers who flunked probation due to "bizarre" or "unprofessional" or even "unlawful" activity yet like bad colds turned up in other places, wearing different uniforms as if nothing happened and they had arrived with clean slates in their new positions.
And you know what? As far as the public is concerned, they don't have any histories at all. And the police officers they will work alongside won't know their backgrounds either.
The public has no clue that the officer who stopped them for a ticket, searched their house or person or shot their son may have brought a laundry list of misconduct or problems from some place else or in some cases more than one prior law enforcement agency. Instead, they are patted on the heads like little children and told not to worry about such things and if they can't stop worrying, well it's none of their business anyway. Even the agencies who hire these officers don't get the full stories on their backgrounds nor do the officers who must work with them, often in dangerous situations.
One officer involved with hiring in the Riverside Police Department said that it's like going on a treasure hunt to find out any problems that their prospective employee might have when deciding whether he or she makes the cut to work for them. The unfortunate thing too, is that there's no way to know whether the agency that employed the prospective employee is telling the hiring agency how great he or she is because it's true or because they'll do anything to get that person out of their own agency because of ongoing problems. Because it's getting harder and harder in the state of California to fire police officers for misconduct, law enforcement agencies may opt for this strategy to clean up their agencies, but what happens is that it just shifts the problems to an unsuspecting police department which may be inclined to do the same thing to another department down the line. And so the cycle continues, as public trust in the involved law enforcement agencies declines and deteriorates further.
There should be legislation to address that issue so that law enforcement agencies who hire laterals can make better informed decisions about whether this person is right for their department. The city of Riverside for example, has given out physical disability and stress retirements for several lateral officers within five or so years of hiring them, including former officer, Bill Rhetts who was hired from the Los Angeles Police Department in 1997 despite having been involved in two officer-involved shootings within six months of his departure from that agency. Another officer hired from the LAPD in 1999 who had worked in the scandal-plagued Rampart division lasted three years in the Riverside Police Department before taking either a physical disability or stress retirement, in the wake of three law suits filed against him within his first year there.
And the local governments that employ these officers also apparently have no idea what's going on, as shown by Maywood Councilman Sam Pena who claimed that until he read the Times investigative article, he had no idea that his city's law enforcement agency had more than a few "bad apples". The year is still young, but his words might yet prove to be the understatement of the year.
But when a scandal, like that currently hitting the city of Maywood and others threatening to break at similar small and medium "second chance" agencies across the country, happens and people again revisit the same issues, a big one being whether or not the personnel records of police officers should be shrouded even from those entrusted to provide oversight over these law enforcement agencies. It also addresses the issues of whether or not the public hearings of commissions in cities like Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco should be reinstated, at a critical time when legislation intended to address the Copley decision is making its rounds through both legislative houses in Sacramento.
It might not happen in April. It might not happen this year, but it will happen and the departments that fight these actions to loosen restrictions will have only themselves to blame for taking the opportunity to prove that they could handle the enormous responsibility of confidentiality laws and then flunking the curve.
It's likely that this current generation will see the laws regarding police personnel records relaxed in part because of Maywood Police Department and other agencies like it out there that haven't been uncovered yet but are just one scandal away from coming to light.
It won't be the public that will make this happen. It will be the law enforcement agencies themselves that will bring this to fruition as other Maywoods out there pop up, unable to stand the glare of public attention on them.
Meanwhile back to that train wreck known as Maywood Police Department.
Police Chief Richard J. Lyons made an announcement two days ago, that he will implement a series of reforms to clean up Maywood Police Department, according to an article published in today's Los Angeles Times.
Maywood police reforms promised
Of course, Lyons himself has been in trouble with the law just like many of the officers in his department. He was initially convicted by a jury of assaulting his girlfriend. That verdict was overturned by a judge due to actions taken by the defense attorney during jury selection but Lyons eventually was convicted of making verbal threats against the same woman. He had been fired by El Monte Police Department in relation to that incident, before being hired by Maywood.
And that is one of the major problems in the sad saga of Maywood Police Department, also known as the "second chance" agency for police officers who have been fired by other law enforcement agencies for committing serious misconduct including criminal offenses. Over one-third of its current sworn force is made up of officers with criminal histories or ones who have been terminated from other police departments.
It's pretty clear that Lyons had to come forward and say something in public, because his department was facing investigations by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, the State Attorney General's office and the FBI to determine whether its officers committed criminal conduct or engaged in patterns and practices which were dominated by racism, sexual harassment and excessive force incidents.
But now, with outside agencies breathing down Maywood's neck, now all of a sudden there are serious problems that need to be fixed.
Maywood Councilman Sam Pena had been quoted in the earlier Los Angeles Times article as saying that he didn't believe there was a serious problem in Maywood's police department and that every agency had a few "bad apples". But after he had read the article, he had second thoughts.
(excerpt)
"I was surprised, to say the least," Peña said. "The thing that's going through my mind is what was the police administration thinking when they allowed these people to go through. That's what I want to know. And that's what I'm going to be asking."
Mr. Pena, those questions should have been asked a long time ago, back when your constituents were complaining against allegations of misconduct which ranged from a coverup of an officer-involved shooting that cost the city over $2 million to settle to an officer impregnating a female police explorer. There is no excuse for needing to read a newspaper to find out exactly what's going on in your city's police department. In fact, the reason why the situation in Maywood has reached a crisis point is because the city council apparently wasn't paying attention to what was going on in front of their faces.
The problems facing Maywood, a small agency of about 37 sworn officers that polices a small, but densely populated city in Los Angeles County are certainly serious enough for an outside agency to come in, investigate and place the department into receivership. Another option will be for Maywood to contract its law enforcement services from the county's sheriff department.
Still, Lyons came out in public with reforms that would impact the areas of internal investigations, background checks and the use of saps by officers, a device banned in many law enforcement agencies. Background investigations of officers would be handed over to a private investigative agency, as would the handling of police complaints which no longer will be investigated internally.
(excerpt)
"The Maywood Police Department is committed to professionalism and has been fully cooperative with the Los Angeles County district attorney's office and the California state attorney general's office," Lyons said.
"The public should view the Maywood Police Department as a whole and note the positive and hard work performed by officers on a daily basis."
That will be much easier for the public to do if the department's leadership and the city government step up to the plate and fix the mess that this agency has turned into during periods of neglect and mismanagement. As for officers who are working hard to make a positive contribution, they should be the first to stand in line in hopes that serious reforms do take place, whether that process of pushing for them is implemented from inside or outside the department. Even with the latest press conference that took place only because of the outside probes and the embarrassment caused by being exposed in the local newspaper, it's more probable that it will be the federal and/or state agencies that will be applying the pressure. Federal and state consent decrees provide the pressure and often the tools to begin the implementation process for serious reforms.
Often that's the case, even as the cities and counties howl about "outside agitators" and the like that are only coming in as a last resort to address problems that the local governments had allowed to fester for decades.
That was the case in Riverside, Los Angeles, New Orleans and now Maywood, California which will probably be the latest department to join the growing fraternity of law enforcement agencies that are placed under consent decrees by state and federal agencies.
The San Diego Tribune published an article today about a former Beaumont Police Department officer who is facing criminal charges that he punched a handcuffed man in the back of his squad car. Opening statements were given by both sides yesterday in Riverside County Superior Court.
Trial opens in excessive force case
(excerpt)
During opening statements in the second assault trial of Christopher Chester, Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Daima Calhoun asked jurors to “use common sense” in considering whether what the former policeman did was justified.
“This is not about a police department policy on what constitutes” appropriate use of force, Calhoun told the panel. “It's sheerly about someone losing his temper and committing an illegal act.”
Defense attorney Michael Stone – who helped get one of the Los Angeles police officers charged in the 1991 Rodney King beating acquitted on state charges – answered the prosecution's allegation by describing his client's actions as “reasonable force to effect an arrest, overcome resistance and prevent escape.”
“Most of all,” Stone said, “the officer was defending himself.”
Chester is facing charges of felony assault with an intent to cause bodily harm and assault by a police officer, both with enhancements attached. This is the second attempt by both parties at trial with the first one ending in a mistrial.
Most people would simply call it the law enforcement agency from Hell.
Staffed by officers who were fired by other agencies for committing serious misconduct or even criminal offenses, the department came under intense scrutiny after those officers transferred their bad behavior to their new department. A department where even the current chief who promised to turn it all around is a convicted criminal.
Why police need scrutiny
The editorial addresses the issues of confidentiality in terms of accessing police personnel information particularly in the wake of the controversial Copley decision last summer by the state supreme court.
(excerpt)
Maywood's challenges are so pervasive that no single solution — certainly no single piece of legislation — can turn it around. But one bill could help prevent future Maywoods from happening by restoring the public's access to information about the people who patrol their streets. State Senate Bill 1019, by Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), is a response to the California Supreme Court decision last August that ended the ability of many cities to open officer employment and discipline records.
People in just about every city in this country are long past tired of asking their elected officials why a police officer that got into trouble in another city was brought to do the same in their city. Accounts circulate every single day of departments hiring officers who are registered sex offenders, departments hiring officers who committed home invasion robberies. Officers who flunked probation due to "bizarre" or "unprofessional" or even "unlawful" activity yet like bad colds turned up in other places, wearing different uniforms as if nothing happened and they had arrived with clean slates in their new positions.
And you know what? As far as the public is concerned, they don't have any histories at all. And the police officers they will work alongside won't know their backgrounds either.
The public has no clue that the officer who stopped them for a ticket, searched their house or person or shot their son may have brought a laundry list of misconduct or problems from some place else or in some cases more than one prior law enforcement agency. Instead, they are patted on the heads like little children and told not to worry about such things and if they can't stop worrying, well it's none of their business anyway. Even the agencies who hire these officers don't get the full stories on their backgrounds nor do the officers who must work with them, often in dangerous situations.
One officer involved with hiring in the Riverside Police Department said that it's like going on a treasure hunt to find out any problems that their prospective employee might have when deciding whether he or she makes the cut to work for them. The unfortunate thing too, is that there's no way to know whether the agency that employed the prospective employee is telling the hiring agency how great he or she is because it's true or because they'll do anything to get that person out of their own agency because of ongoing problems. Because it's getting harder and harder in the state of California to fire police officers for misconduct, law enforcement agencies may opt for this strategy to clean up their agencies, but what happens is that it just shifts the problems to an unsuspecting police department which may be inclined to do the same thing to another department down the line. And so the cycle continues, as public trust in the involved law enforcement agencies declines and deteriorates further.
There should be legislation to address that issue so that law enforcement agencies who hire laterals can make better informed decisions about whether this person is right for their department. The city of Riverside for example, has given out physical disability and stress retirements for several lateral officers within five or so years of hiring them, including former officer, Bill Rhetts who was hired from the Los Angeles Police Department in 1997 despite having been involved in two officer-involved shootings within six months of his departure from that agency. Another officer hired from the LAPD in 1999 who had worked in the scandal-plagued Rampart division lasted three years in the Riverside Police Department before taking either a physical disability or stress retirement, in the wake of three law suits filed against him within his first year there.
And the local governments that employ these officers also apparently have no idea what's going on, as shown by Maywood Councilman Sam Pena who claimed that until he read the Times investigative article, he had no idea that his city's law enforcement agency had more than a few "bad apples". The year is still young, but his words might yet prove to be the understatement of the year.
But when a scandal, like that currently hitting the city of Maywood and others threatening to break at similar small and medium "second chance" agencies across the country, happens and people again revisit the same issues, a big one being whether or not the personnel records of police officers should be shrouded even from those entrusted to provide oversight over these law enforcement agencies. It also addresses the issues of whether or not the public hearings of commissions in cities like Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco should be reinstated, at a critical time when legislation intended to address the Copley decision is making its rounds through both legislative houses in Sacramento.
It might not happen in April. It might not happen this year, but it will happen and the departments that fight these actions to loosen restrictions will have only themselves to blame for taking the opportunity to prove that they could handle the enormous responsibility of confidentiality laws and then flunking the curve.
It's likely that this current generation will see the laws regarding police personnel records relaxed in part because of Maywood Police Department and other agencies like it out there that haven't been uncovered yet but are just one scandal away from coming to light.
It won't be the public that will make this happen. It will be the law enforcement agencies themselves that will bring this to fruition as other Maywoods out there pop up, unable to stand the glare of public attention on them.
Meanwhile back to that train wreck known as Maywood Police Department.
Police Chief Richard J. Lyons made an announcement two days ago, that he will implement a series of reforms to clean up Maywood Police Department, according to an article published in today's Los Angeles Times.
Maywood police reforms promised
Of course, Lyons himself has been in trouble with the law just like many of the officers in his department. He was initially convicted by a jury of assaulting his girlfriend. That verdict was overturned by a judge due to actions taken by the defense attorney during jury selection but Lyons eventually was convicted of making verbal threats against the same woman. He had been fired by El Monte Police Department in relation to that incident, before being hired by Maywood.
And that is one of the major problems in the sad saga of Maywood Police Department, also known as the "second chance" agency for police officers who have been fired by other law enforcement agencies for committing serious misconduct including criminal offenses. Over one-third of its current sworn force is made up of officers with criminal histories or ones who have been terminated from other police departments.
It's pretty clear that Lyons had to come forward and say something in public, because his department was facing investigations by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, the State Attorney General's office and the FBI to determine whether its officers committed criminal conduct or engaged in patterns and practices which were dominated by racism, sexual harassment and excessive force incidents.
But now, with outside agencies breathing down Maywood's neck, now all of a sudden there are serious problems that need to be fixed.
Maywood Councilman Sam Pena had been quoted in the earlier Los Angeles Times article as saying that he didn't believe there was a serious problem in Maywood's police department and that every agency had a few "bad apples". But after he had read the article, he had second thoughts.
(excerpt)
"I was surprised, to say the least," Peña said. "The thing that's going through my mind is what was the police administration thinking when they allowed these people to go through. That's what I want to know. And that's what I'm going to be asking."
Mr. Pena, those questions should have been asked a long time ago, back when your constituents were complaining against allegations of misconduct which ranged from a coverup of an officer-involved shooting that cost the city over $2 million to settle to an officer impregnating a female police explorer. There is no excuse for needing to read a newspaper to find out exactly what's going on in your city's police department. In fact, the reason why the situation in Maywood has reached a crisis point is because the city council apparently wasn't paying attention to what was going on in front of their faces.
The problems facing Maywood, a small agency of about 37 sworn officers that polices a small, but densely populated city in Los Angeles County are certainly serious enough for an outside agency to come in, investigate and place the department into receivership. Another option will be for Maywood to contract its law enforcement services from the county's sheriff department.
Still, Lyons came out in public with reforms that would impact the areas of internal investigations, background checks and the use of saps by officers, a device banned in many law enforcement agencies. Background investigations of officers would be handed over to a private investigative agency, as would the handling of police complaints which no longer will be investigated internally.
(excerpt)
"The Maywood Police Department is committed to professionalism and has been fully cooperative with the Los Angeles County district attorney's office and the California state attorney general's office," Lyons said.
"The public should view the Maywood Police Department as a whole and note the positive and hard work performed by officers on a daily basis."
That will be much easier for the public to do if the department's leadership and the city government step up to the plate and fix the mess that this agency has turned into during periods of neglect and mismanagement. As for officers who are working hard to make a positive contribution, they should be the first to stand in line in hopes that serious reforms do take place, whether that process of pushing for them is implemented from inside or outside the department. Even with the latest press conference that took place only because of the outside probes and the embarrassment caused by being exposed in the local newspaper, it's more probable that it will be the federal and/or state agencies that will be applying the pressure. Federal and state consent decrees provide the pressure and often the tools to begin the implementation process for serious reforms.
Often that's the case, even as the cities and counties howl about "outside agitators" and the like that are only coming in as a last resort to address problems that the local governments had allowed to fester for decades.
That was the case in Riverside, Los Angeles, New Orleans and now Maywood, California which will probably be the latest department to join the growing fraternity of law enforcement agencies that are placed under consent decrees by state and federal agencies.
The San Diego Tribune published an article today about a former Beaumont Police Department officer who is facing criminal charges that he punched a handcuffed man in the back of his squad car. Opening statements were given by both sides yesterday in Riverside County Superior Court.
Trial opens in excessive force case
(excerpt)
During opening statements in the second assault trial of Christopher Chester, Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Daima Calhoun asked jurors to “use common sense” in considering whether what the former policeman did was justified.
“This is not about a police department policy on what constitutes” appropriate use of force, Calhoun told the panel. “It's sheerly about someone losing his temper and committing an illegal act.”
Defense attorney Michael Stone – who helped get one of the Los Angeles police officers charged in the 1991 Rodney King beating acquitted on state charges – answered the prosecution's allegation by describing his client's actions as “reasonable force to effect an arrest, overcome resistance and prevent escape.”
“Most of all,” Stone said, “the officer was defending himself.”
Chester is facing charges of felony assault with an intent to cause bodily harm and assault by a police officer, both with enhancements attached. This is the second attempt by both parties at trial with the first one ending in a mistrial.
Labels: business as usual, consent decrees and other adventures
posted by Five Before Midnight | 4:19 PM
3 Comments:
I notice you only provide portions of report you feel advantangious to your post. Have you ever been in an employed position to protect the citizens abd state? were you ever htere, do you really know ALL the facts or are you only using the facts you chose????
only a chicken would review his comments before allowing them to be seen by the general public AND yopur censorship is in violation of the 1st!
Dear Anonymous:
Hmmm. I notice that you don't spell very well but to say so would be horribly rude of me. I'll leave that behavior to you because you're much better at it and you hold onto it and your bitterness like a security blanket.
Only a chicken would post snarky comments like you have and not include his or her own name. So are you not yourself a chicken? If so, don't feel so bad. I've had enough of your kind fill my blog with their filth that not only would there be enough chickens here to fill a coop and thus keep you company, there's enough of their fecal matter to fill one as well. And I can see you're here contributing your share to the load. For not the first time I might add.
All you would need in your coop are name plates to separate you from one another but then that's difficult to do when most of the chickens here were too cowardly to post their filth without resorting to the use of cheesy monikers that would suit a five-year-old playing make believe with a plastic badge and water pistol.
Well, it's good for fertilizer anyway. But manure doesn't belong here, hence the moderated comments. I think you already know that and your whining and posturing while meant in a sadly pathetic way is a sad example of not only someone misinterpreting the First Amendment's application but pimping it to foster your own nasty behavior.
I doubt you are or have ever been employed in law enforcement because with your spelling and grammar skills you wouldn't have passed the probation period. And that's not intended to be negative, it's just reality. Law enforcement demands officers with good writing skills to write reports.
I doubt that you were ever employed in a position where you protected citizens and the state. Maybe it's just not the profession for you.
I doubt that you were at the scene of the shooting of Lee Deante Brown. I doubt you've even read any of the drafts of the report from the CPRC on this shooting or anything else. Maybe you should read them and see what you think, because it's not like you've contributed any facts either. Just more whining about the fact that someone took away what you apparently believed was your personal sand box. Boo Hoo.
There's plenty of places to do that on the internet and I'm sure you know where they are. This just isn't one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home