ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & MCAULIFFE
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Distribution
FROM: Ronald o. Kaye TIAL
DATE: May 15, 1991
RE: Interview with Jack White
I. INTRODUCTION
On Tuesday, May 14, 1991, I attended an interview of
Mr. Jack White, Chief of the District Attorney's Investigation
Section. Mr. White has 27 years of experience on the Los Angeles
Police Department ("LAPD"), and was the Commander in charge of
the Police Commission's staff from 1975 to 1985. In general, I
observed the interview and did not take an affirmative role in
asking questions to Mr. White, but on occasion I encouraged and
helped steer Mr. White in a direction which would further our
goals. Mr. White has a very clear and thoughtful perspective on
structural problems affecting the LAPD, and it may be time well
taken to interview him further on these matters.
The focus of the interview was on:
1. The complaint process;
2. The adjudication of disciplinary actions;
3. The Rodney King "aberration."
Nevertheless, Mr. White emphasized that the structure of the LAPD
and its interaction with the Police Commission are critical to
all of these issues. I have taken extensive notes on the other
related issues, but have focused this memorandum on the
structural issues relevant to our chapters of the report.
II. ISSUES OF STRUCTURE
Mr. White feels that the LAPD acts independently from
the control of the citizenry, and therefore, suffers from a lack
of political accountability. Theoretically, the Police
Commission should be the entity which instills a sense of
external morality upon the LAPD. In reality, however, the LAPD
maintains moral standards which are purely internal and has
little influence from external forces. Mr. White emphasized that
violence (i.e., beating with batons) is not viewed by the LAPD as
something which requires disciplinary action. Although the
Rodney King incident goes way beyond what Mr. White considers
reasonable violence, "some thumping" is a matter of course for
the LAPD. Activities such as theft and bribery, on the other
hand, violate the LAPD's internal moral code. Thus, Mr. White
emphasized that you cannot allow the LAPD to establish its own
moral code, for the department needs external input.
Mr. White believes that this external sense of morality
must be instilled by a civilian force. This force should be the
Police Commission. Nevertheless, in its current state, the
Police Commission is seen as a "joke" by the LAPD. The inability
of the Police Commission to place Chief Gates on 60-day mandatory
leave reveals the ineffectiveness of the Police Commission. The
ability of the City Council to override the Police Commission
supports the well-known sentiment in the LAPD that the only true
- 2 -
power in Los Angeles stems from the City Council and the Mayor's
Office, and the LAPD (i.e., Chief) can disregard the Commission
almost entirely.
Although theoretically the Police Commission should
have significant control over the practices of the LAPD, as a
practical matter, the Commission is politically powerless. For
example, the Commission cannot fire the Chief without a
substantial showing of cause. To fire the Chief, the Commission
must prove that the Chief was either discourteous, dishonest,
neglected his duty, or failed to follow orders of the Commission.
The political reality, in the opinion of Mr. White, is that the
Commission cannot fire the Chief. Mr. White feels that the only
way in which the LAPD can achieve some sense of civilian control,
thereby being sensitive to the public's external morality, is to
restructure the Police Commission and the Chief of Police through
amendments to the City Charter.
The first step in changing the LAPD's moral code would
be to eliminate the Chief of Police's civil service protection.
The Police Chief should serve at the pleasure of either the City
Council, the Mayor, or the Police Commission. Next, the Chief
should be accountable for everything that happens in the LAPD.
Otherwise, the Chief maintains his "free wheeling" status, and
retains a sense of autonomy and impunity. Preferably, Mr. White
believes that the Commission should have the utmost authority
with regard to the LAPD, and consequently, should oversee all the
Police Chief's duties and decisions. Mr. White did express some
reservation in this structural change, due to the fact that the
- 3 -
Commissioners are vulnerable to the political whims of the Mayor.
A group of five Commissioners, however, may be able to counteract
any type of underhanded efforts by the Mayor to control the •
Commission's decisions as to the LAPD's and the Chief's
activities.
The next step to~ard lessening the violent practices of
the LAPD, according to Mr. White, is to have the Commission
actually run the LAPD. The Commission should be a civilian
entity which represents the Los Angeles community in its ethnic
and political make-up, it should appoint and be able to fire the
Chief, and it should sit on the promotional board. The Chief
should make recommendations about who should be promoted, but the
true promotion of officers to higher ranks should come from a
civilian authority. Thus, there should be no police officers on
the Commission. The existence of police officers on the
Commission may undermine the independence of the Commission's
decision-making, due to internal politics and competition between
officers.
Mr. White believes that the Commission should remain as
a five-person body, and should retain the staff which now serves
its functions. This staff consists of 60 available officers, and
6 full-time staff members with a commander in charge. In
addition, the Commission should remain a part-time entity, for
with sufficient authority, the Commission will be able to
implement its decisions even with the limited amount of time it
spends in session.
- 4 -