Statement Presented to the
Independent Commission Investigating the Los Angeles Police Department
May 29, 1991
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
speak before this Commission. So that there is
no doubt about my own point of view, I want
to make it clear that I am here to speak in
support of the Los Angeles Police Department,
and in support of the Chief of Police. I feel
qualified to do so by reason of the following
facts.
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political
Science from UCLA, and I am a graduate of
the UCLA School of Law. I have been a
practicing attorney for over 24 years. I have
worked in the office of the City Administrative
Officer of the City of Los Angeles for three
years, and as an aide to a member of the Los
Angeles City Council for two years. While in
private practice, I have worked as a referee in
the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court for six
years. But most important, I have been a
Reserve Police Officer for the City of Los
Angeles for the last seven years. I have seen
police work as a public administrator, as a
prosecutor, as defense counsel, as a judicial
officer, and as a Reserve Police Officer.
I have seen the workings of the Los
Angeles Police Department going back to 1961.
I was in City Hall during the "turbulent sixties."
I saw then all of the same things that we are
witnessing now. I saw apparently peaceful
citizens being escorted out of the Mayor's
office, who became violent and unruly the
moment television camera lights flipped on.
Those persons, who had blocked the entrance
to the Mayor's office, were being escorted out
by Los Angeles Police Officers. But the
moment the TV lights came on, I saw people
drop to the floor and scream "police brutality."
Regrettably, that was the only part of the
demonstration that made it to the evening news.
Nothing much has changed since then in
terms of the type of criticism being heard about
the Los Angeles Police Department. I feel
particularly well qualified to make that
observation, because of my service as a Reserve
1
police officer. I have been a Line Reserve
Police Officer for about seven years. To do so,
I have gone through the same Los Angeles
Police Academy training as has any regular Los
Angeles police officer. Rather than take off
one day a week to play golf, I take off one day
a week to work alongside regular police
officers, doing the same work that they do.
Let me tell you something about the Police
Reserve Corps. Reserves come from all walks
of life. In my Academy class, there were 3
attorneys, 1 Certified Public Accountant, and
one individual who holds a Ph.D. in Economics
from Yale. We also have doctors, dentists, and
a myriad of other business and professional
people working as Reserves in regular police
assignments. These Reserves are not singled
out for any sort of special assignment because
of their status as Reserves. When Reserves
work, we work regular duty assignments,
selected at random to work with random
partners.
In the City of Los Angeles, unlike certain
other cities, Reserves are not paid, although we
do receive a $15.00 per month expense
reimbursement. Some cities pay Reserves for
their work but Los Angeles does not. Some
cities pay Reserves for working extra shifts, but
Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay
Reserves for working overtime shifts, but Los
Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for
court appearances, but Los Ange\es does not.
You may wonder why would anyone want to
be a Los Angeles Police Reserve Officer. At
least for me, it is the belief that the Los
Angeles Police Department is truly the best. I
know from having observed law enforcement as
a resident of the City of Los Angeles all of my
life, and having worked in and around City Hall
for many years, that our Police Department is
the best there is. And that is why I have
chosen to make service as a Los Angeles
Reserve police officer my form of community
service. Just as each of you are serving without
compensation, it is my pleasure to work without
compensation to help my community, by
working as a Reserve.
Let me focus the reserve program onto your
work in evaluating the Los Angeles Police
Department. I· perceive your objective as
evaluating both the policies and practices of the
LAPD, with an emphasis on racism and force.
Here is how I believe Reserves see those things.
There are approximately 250 Reserve Police
Officers in the City of Los Angeles who work
regular field assignments. There are an
additional 600 or so who work assignments
other than field duty. But looking only at the
Reserve Officers who work field assignments,
that translates into about 1000 shifts per month.
Think about the qualifications of those
officers that I described for you earlier. Think
about the fact that we have doctors, lawyers,
dentists, surgeons, and business and
professional people of all types working regular
street patrol as police officers. No one could
believe that a professional such as myself, or
any other Reserve Police Officer, would long
remain in a hazardous situation without pay
were occurrences such as the Rodney King
beating frequently seen.
From the foregoing, I would want you to
draw the conclusion that the Rodney King
matter is, as described by the Chief of Police,
truly an aberration. For my own part, I am
happy to say that I can truthfully report that I
have never seen any act of violence that I would
have any problem telling you about. Force is a
part of police work, excessive force is not. And
excessive force is strictly prohibited by the
Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department,
and by all of the supervisors of the Los Angeles
Police Department, up to and including the
Chief of Police.
I am certain that you will learn from
persons far more qualified than me about the
Los Angeles Police Department policy
regarding the use of deadly force. That policy
is taught at length to officers in the Academy,
and repeated at least once a month during roll
call training at every geographic division. That
policy, including the Department's reverence for
human life, is repeated time and time again for
officers young and old.
On the other hand, since police officers are
2
recruited from the human race, it is likely that
on occasion, something will go wrong. And
when that something does go wrong, the
Department maintains a viable complaint
system, which the Police Commission does
oversee, for enforcing discipline within the
Department. Again, I know you will learn from
persons more qualified than I f ust how that
system works. But I am aware that it is
Department policy to accept and investigate all
complaints of alleged misconduct by employees
received from any source, whether of excessive
force or otherwise. I am told that this is not the
case in every police department. I am also
aware that all such complaints are investigated
by a supervisor. And I know that many of
those complaints result in discipline. Some of
that discipline is viewed as rather harsh by the
Department employees. On occasion it is, but
that is necessary to maintain strict adherence to
the Department's rules and regulations.
I believe that the discipline actually
administered in the Police Department is more
harsh than that which is administered in private
industry. Some flip remark, perhaps made in
the privacy of a locker room, can get an officer
days off, without pay. The press recently
carried a story of an officer who was suspended
for 22 days following an investigation of
excessive force. To put such a suspension in
perspective, 22 days is the number of days a
police officer is paid in a month. So the 22-
day suspension, which I heard described on
television as a three-week suspension, was really
a one-month suspension, without pay.
That suspension resulted from a complaint,
made to a desk officer, about an officer who
was unknown to the complainant. The
complaining party had no idea who the officer
was that had used excessive force on him. But
a supervisor was assigned to investigate that
complaint, who identified the officer, found that
excessive force was used, and a one-month
suspension resulted. That is hardly the work of
a Department that does not care, or a Chief of
Police who is not concerned about discipline.
The Chief of Police is truly a thoughtful and
caring individual, who places the highest value
on a reverence for human life, and who
dispenses swift and sure punishment when
excessive force threatens that human life.
Even the existence of this complaint system
does not satisfy everyone. And- the press is
having a field day in reporting those criticisms,
perhaps because Chief Gates and the Los
Angeles Police Department, are such easy
targets. Chief Gates is not an elected official,
with a vast constituency of supporters and a
huge campaign war chest. But for the most
part, the critics do no more than criticize both
the Department and the Chief. Without
offering alternatives, the criticism means
nothing. In an imperfect world, we are
fortunate to have the best police department in
it. No other large city comes close. In
Chicago, for example, the "Los Angeles Times"
reported on May 20, 1991 about a raid on a
gambling casino which was being guarded by
off-duty police officers. The same article
quotes a Chicago attorney as saying, "These
cops thought the ·sign on their squad said 'We
serve and collect.'" That does not happen in
Los Angeles.
As the general manager of the Police
Department, but not the head of the
Department, the Chief of Police must walk a
delicate line in his dealings with the press,
because he has no real constituency. Perhaps
that accounts for the rather slanted reporting
which appeared in a "Times" analysis of
complaints filed with the Los Angeles Police
Department. The "Los Angeles Times"
conducted an in depth study, which I am certain
you have all read. The headline on the story
which I read reported that "Racial Disparity Is
Seen in Complaints to LAPD." I think reading
just that headline would have suggested some
sort of invidious discrimination. But the article
actually reported that "Blacks who filed
excessive force complaints against Los Angeles
police officers were more likely -- by a narrow
margin -- to have their complaints upheld by
the department than Anglos or Latinos." That
is hardly the work of a racist police department.
Later in the same article, the "Times"
reports that "Unless there was physical evidence
or an independent witness to the alleged police
abuse, the department took the word of accused
officers over the word of civilian complainants."
What else could the department do? I don't
have any problem with that, and I hope that
this Commission com posed of mostly lawyers
and judicial officers will have no problem with
that. No one is better qualified than lawyers
and judges to understand the meaning of "due
process of law." And no one is better qualified
to realize that at least some evidence is
3
required even where the burden of proof is only
by a preponderance of the evidence. How
could the Police Department act in favor of a
claimant under the circumstances described by
the "Times," namely, where there is no physical
evidence and no independent witness? If the
Department did, in fact, act upon such
complaints, it would be only a matter of months
before we had no police officers left.
In the rush to judgment over the Los
Angeles Police Department, I hope this
Commission will act in a far more professional
way than has the Los Angeles Police
Commission. It has been obvious to me from
reading the press accounts of the crusade by
Commissioner Lomax against the Chief of
Police that she is indeed a lady with a mission.
I never understood that mission, until I read a
description of the relationship between
Commissioner Lomax and Mayor Bradley by
Councilman Alatorre. He described
Commissioner Lomax as "kind of like his
adopted daughter." Given that relationship, it
is easy to understand why it is so hard to
convince Commissioner Lomax to be objective
about the Chief of Police or the Police
Department. If indeed Commissioner Lomax is
like the Mayor's daughter, then perhaps she is
not impartial enough to serve on such an
important body. No doubt if the Mayor
appointed one of his real daughters to the
Police Commission, cries of nepotism would
ring out from all quarters. I am certain that
this Commission will be far less inclined to
react without a factual basis for doing so than
was the Police Commission.
The recent court decision involving the
lawsuit filed by the Chief of Police, and its
settlement by the Los Angeles City Council,
does not, as claimed by the Commission, usurp
their powers at all. That decision tioes no more
than restore due process of law to the Police
Department. The court did not take away any
of the powers of the Police Commission under
the City Charter. Rather, the court ruled that
the Police Commission must act as required by
the Charter provisions dealing with the
administration of discipline within the Police
Department, and as required under the
Government Code. When the Police
Commission does not do so, then they act
arbitrarily and beyond the scope of their
authority. The courts are always available to
control administrative abuses. That is nothing
new. The City Council recognized the extent to
which the Police Commission had exceeded its
authority, and therefore recommended a
settlement of the lawsuit.
This Commission should see that for what
it was, and should not react to those who claim
that returning the Chief of Police to his office,
following the Commission's attempt to remove
him, signals a need for a reform in city
government, or the City Charter, which would
alter the tenure of the Chief of Police. The
reform is due only among the incumbent
members of the Police Commission. That body
should accept its responsibility under the
Charter to act constructively in making sound,
well reasoned management decisions in
fulfilling its role as head of the Police
Department.
In closing, let me point out that what we
are seeing today in Los Angeles is not new.
After the Watts riot, many sought to blame the
Los Angeles Police Department for the riot.
But nearly a year _before the Watts riot, former
Police Chief Parker spoke prophetically of the
role of police in society. In a speech delivered
to the International Association of Chiefs of
Police in Louisville, Kentucky in October, 1964,
Chief Parker spoke as follows:
"Because the police are in the forefront of
every violent conflict, they have been unjustly
and critically attacked by those whose illegal
manifestations have been interfered with.
When violence has occurred, there is the
inevitable attempt to blame the police, and
national organizations are brought into play as
local police forces are singled out for national
attack. The police are at a great disadvantage."
To partially shift that disadvantage, 800
citizens in the City of Los Angeles work as
Reserve Police Officers, and over 12,000 do so
throughout the State of California. They do so
because I am certain they believe, as Edmund
Burke said, that "Evil triumphs when good men
do nothing." I can assure you on behalf of
myself, and all other Reserves, that if anything
like the Rodney" King affair were the rule,
rather than the exception, none of us would risk
our lives, our reputations, or our fortunes to
protect and to serve.
4