DECREE REFORM LAGGING JUDGE CRITICIZES LAPD OVER REPORT.

Byline: James Nash Staff Writer

The Los Angeles Police Department has fallen far short of 3-year-old federal requirements for reforming its practices, fueling concerns that it could be saddled with onerous rules for years at costs approaching $50 million annually.

The federal judge overseeing the LAPD's compliance with the Rampart consent decree underscored the problems May 19, faulting the LAPD for failing to comply with requirements on dealing with citizen complaints and on developing a computer system to monitor officers.

Judge Gary Feess' rebuke came two days after the company monitoring how well the LAPD is following the consent decree's rules found the department out of compliance on 21 of the 45 items tested in the first three months of this year.

The reports raised doubts that the LAPD would meet a June 15 deadline to achieve substantial compliance on the decree's 152 provisions, which would allow the decree to be lifted in two years if police continue to follow the rules during that time.

``Lack of compliance is going to create financial problems and major problems in other areas,'' said Councilman Dennis Zine, a retired police sergeant and former police union official. ``There's going to be a lot of questions if we're found to not be in compliance.''

Zine said the city will be saddled with millions of dollars in costs if the consent decree is extended beyond 2006. The decree is estimated to cost $30 million to $50 million a year.

The monitor's previous report, which covered the last three months of 2003 and tested different items, found the LAPD out of compliance on 25 of 58 provisions.

The 80-page decree spells out a variety of reforms - from separation of officers at shooting scenes to tracking of citizen complaints against police - designed to prevent police abuses such as those committed by officers in the Rampart Division in the late 1990s.

Feess and the company tracking the LAPD's compliance record, Kroll Associates, have cited the LAPD for various technical violations and two more substantial ones: failing to properly track and follow up on citizen complaints against officers, and delays in developing a comprehensive computer system that would identify problem behaviors among police.

Kroll Associates President Michael Cherkasky, who is serving as the independent monitor of the LAPD, said the problem areas are substantial.

``The judge expressed his deep concern in broad issues,'' Cherkasky said. ``They were not picky items. They are important items for the best practices of the Los Angeles Police Department.''

LAPD officials have said they hoped to meet most of the order's provisions by June 15 of this year to begin a two-year process of getting the decree lifted.

But in recent comments, LAPD leaders have said the decree could be lifted in 2006 even if the department is out of compliance on many items this year. The LAPD could impress Feess with its good-faith efforts to reform its practices, police officials said. Or Feess could remove most of the decree's provisions while maintaining oversight on some items, such as the TEAMS II officer data-tracking system.

City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who was police chief when the consent decree went into effect, said he was troubled by the latest data.

``June 15 is around the corner,'' Parks said. ``We've been told repeatedly in (the council's public safety committee) that they're coming into compliance. It's not a good sign that a month before June 15 we're being told that the judge isn't happy.

``Those verbal self-congratulations that go on are not going to impress the judge,'' Parks said.

LAPD officials maintain that they will satisfy federal requirements in the dozens of areas where they have been faulted so far. Those include the development of a $32 million TEAMS II system, as well as the department's oversight of investigations into officer-involved shootings.

Progress reports from the independent monitor overseeing the consent decree have repeatedly noted the LAPD's failure to comply on TEAMS II.

``We still think we'll be in good shape by July 2005 and that will give us a year to demonstrate to the monitor and the judge that we're doing what we need to do,'' said Deputy Chief David Doan, who is in charge of TEAMS II.

LAPD brass say many of the areas where they've been cited as out of compliance are minor. In more substantial areas, such as investigations into incidents where officers use force to subdue suspects, police say they're fast closing in on the federal requirements.

``We obviously haven't achieved perfection yet,'' said Gerald Chaleff, a former criminal defense attorney and Police Commission president who now serves as the commanding officer of the LAPD's consent decree bureau.

``It's my professional opinion that the LAPD will achieve substantial compliance with the terms and intent of the consent decree by June 15, 2006.''

Feess or another federal judge will have to decide based on a variety of factors whether the LAPD has achieved substantial compliance, and the term itself is open to interpretation.

Attorney Stephen Yagman, who is a party to the consent decree and has handled many lawsuits against the LAPD, said the department will not meet any definition of substantial compliance in June 2006.

``The operative phrase is not demonstrating that they've made substantial progress,'' Yagman said. ``The operative phrase is they need to be in substantial compliance for two consecutive years beginning June 15. That's not going to happen.''

Many rank-and-file police officers chafe at requirements for exhaustive record-keeping and multi-layered internal investigations. The decree also has spawned ``sting'' operations to determine whether officers are following procedures, even if they aren't accused of any wrongdoing.

One high-ranking officer said many police are exasperated.

``We have been hammered time and time again by both the monitor and inside auditors,'' the officer said.

``We've fixed most of the stuff but I think the 95 percent compliance rate is ridiculous. I think a lot people have wondered what the mileage is for Kroll. Is there an incentive to find us in compliance or is there more incentive to nitpick us to death to continue the contract? How much is it going cost the city if the contract gets extended?''

Cherkasky said his company has no vested interest in prolonging the consent decree since the LAPD is one client among many public and private agencies. Feess, who has no financial stake in the matter, ultimately will decide whether to lift the decree in 2006, Cherkasky said.

Even if the decree goes away, many of the additional costs of enforcing it will remain because the LAPD has beefed up its internal affairs and auditing functions to ensure that officer misconduct is identified and punished, police say.

Chief William Bratton has cautioned against expecting most of the 300 police personnel assigned to the consent decree to return to patrol after the decree is lifted. Bratton was out of town this week and not available for comment.

A spokeswoman for the mayor said Hahn and Bratton are working closely on creating a new Police Department to ensure there is no discrimination on any person stopped by officers.

``Mayor Hahn is committed to police reform and will continue to work with Chief Bratton to meet the 2006 deadline,'' spokeswoman Elizabeth Kaltman said.

Staff Writer Jason Kandel contributed to this report.

James Nash, [phone]

james.nash(at)dailynews.com

ABOUT THE DECREE

The U.S. Department of Justice and city of Los Angeles entered into a consent decree on June 15, 2001, requiring the Los Angeles Police Department to undertake substantial reforms to prevent police abuses such as the ones that led to the Rampart scandal.

The 90-page consent decree spells out hundreds of measures, from changing how the LAPD investigates use-of-force incidents against suspects to better tracking of citizen complaints against officers.

June 15, 2004, will mark the three-year anniversary of the decree. On that day, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess is expected to rule whether the LAPD has achieved ``substantial compliance'' with the provisions.

Feess is relying on regular reports by Kroll Associates, a New York-based consultant that is monitoring the LAPD's compliance on 152 provisions of the consent decree. In its last quarterly report, Kroll Associates found the LAPD out of compliance on 21 of 45 items tested during the first three months of the year.

If ``substantial compliance'' is found, and the LAPD can maintain compliance through June 15, 2006, the consent decree will be lifted.

- James Nash

CAPTION(S):

box

Box:

ABOUT THE DECREE (see text)