CRITICS FALSELY CHARACTERIZE LAPD FIRINGS.

Byline: Jim Tatreau and George Liskow

THE discipline imposed on Los Angeles police officers has been the subject of much attention in recent weeks, particularly the termination of 54 officers in 1998.

The media have asserted that police union officials and some officers are demoralized by what have been described as oppressive policies implemented by the chief of police. The tenor of these inaccurate reports is that the chief has unrestricted authority to discipline as he sees fit, and that he has unilaterally instituted the harsh practices.

The public and the media must know and understand that the chief is subject to many guidelines and restraints, and that proposals to terminate an officer must be reviewed before and concurred on afterward by several levels of command within the Los Angeles Police Department. A high degree of protection of an accused officer's due process rights is inherent in the doctrine and procedures employed by members of the board of rights.

Currently, allegations of misconduct are first reviewed at three levels before they reach the chief of police. When an officer is accused of serious misconduct, his or her commanding officer must recommend that the officer appear before a board of rights. A higher level of management reviews this recommendation and if it agrees, the allegations are reviewed by Internal Affairs Division, which sends its recommendations to the chief.

Even then, the chief cannot terminate an officer outright but can only impose a lesser penalty or concur with the recommendation that the officer be sent to a board of rights. In the case of a lesser penalty, the officer may also request a board of rights.

An officer facing a board of rights hearing chooses four command officers from the ranks of captain or above at random, from which he selects two to hear his case. Three members of the community panel are randomly selected from whom the officer selects one, as established by Charter Amendment F, approved in 1992.

The accused officer is provided, at department expense, a representative to investigate and prepare a defense. Officers may also retain outside counsel for representation.

In the hearing, the burden is on the department to prove culpability by a preponderance of evidence. This is an administrative, not a criminal proceeding, and proof ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' is not required. The officer may present any relevant evidence in support of his or her defense, and is given considerable latitude in that regard. Boards of rights often extend over several days' time and often involve the testimony from department personnel, affected members of the community and the examination of relevant documents.

If guilt is found

If the board of rights finds the officer guilty, he or she may present character and other evidence in support of a plea in mitigation of the penalty. The board of rights makes a recommendation to the chief based on the evidence produced. Many boards of rights find officers not guilty of the charges. Members of boards of rights who sustain, or find, the accused officer guilty of the charges, may administer penalties ranging from a written reprimand to termination.

A crucial point is that a board must first recommend termination for the officer to be fired. The chief cannot increase the penalty recommended by the board of rights; he may only implement the recommendation or reduce the penalty. Clearly, the recent terminations were not the consequences of the chief's unfettered authority; they had the endorsement of department members who have thoroughly investigated the basis on which the terminations were made.

54 termination

Of the 54 terminations in 1998, only a handful of cases were for misconduct occurring during that year. The bulk of the cases arose in 1997. Most of the terminations were based on off-duty misconduct, including lewd conduct; improper relationship with a minor; domestic violence; use of weapons; hit-and-run traffic collisions; theft; smoking marijuana; bigamy; physical resistance of police officers; improperly attempting to influence a witness in an investigation; and operation of a pyramid scheme.

On-duty misconduct resulting in terminations included hit-and-run traffic accident; improperly accessing department computer system for personal benefit; sleeping on duty; creating a hostile environment for a subordinate; using excessive force and using unnecessary deadly force; accepting a gift for not issuing a traffic citation; accepting unearned employee benefits; and making false and misleading statements during an official investigation or to a board of rights.

The actions for which officers have been terminated are clearly unacceptable to the entire Police Department and to the community who support us. The vast majority of officers do not tolerate officers who break the law. Officers recognize that the discipline policies instituted by the chief are in support of all those officers who are doing their best to do the right thing.

Serious misconduct is embarrassing to the thousands of dedicated officers who serve the city. Without a strong departmental position concerning misconduct, the Police Department would be in jeopardy of losing the support and respect of the community it serves.

Some officers allege that the chief unduly influences command officers, pressuring them to terminate employees. On the contrary, command officers are sensitive to and aware that a board of rights is an independent process and that they are to be guided by their individual perception of culpable conduct. Certainly the community members are under no such influence from the chief.

A few officers who have been disciplined have asserted the chief does not care about field officers. In fact, the boards of rights that resulted in terminations demonstrate that the paramount criterion is respect and reverence for the law.

Officers who engage in excessive force, sexual harassment, discrimination, or officers who lie should expect to face a board of rights, and such acts surely merit termination. That being said, the chief, as the person responsible for department discipline, would be derelict in his duty if he did not set a high and uncompromising standard and provide insight, leadership and training to all department members regarding his expectations.