“No More Gotcha” Policy Is Rejected by Board of Rights
It was a centerpiece in Chief Bratton’s attempt to get police officers out of their cars and back into enforcing the law after being pounded by Chief Park’s disciplinary system.
“I have never seen a department eat its own like LAPD does,” Bratton told the members at the League Delegates Conference shortly after he arrived.
His solution was to forge a new policy that the League has strived to help enforce. Not only did he repeatedly state the policy, he published it in the March 2004 issue of The Beat. “We cannot let the corrupt actions of a few ruin the reputation of more than 9,000 honest, hard-working cops. But let me make it equally clear that the game of ‘gotcha’ in this Department is coming to an end. If you are in the right, we will back you up — the benefit of the doubt goes to you. If you are wrong, we will retrain you. If you are corrupt, we will jail you,” Bratton wrote.
Supposedly, it was the Department standard in dealing with discipline. It made sense. It was fair. And, most importantly, it worked. Officers did begin to get out of their cars and do more police work. Arrests climbed and crime dropped. But Bratton is gone.
Recently, a League attorney attempted to introduce the above writing in The Beat as evidence of Department policy in a Board of Rights. This has been done in the past in numerous Boards and Administrative Appeals.
This time it was different. Internal Affairs objected. “It’s from a former regime,” the advocate stated.
“Do you have a document that says gotcha is back?” asked the League attorney. “Do you have any evidence that this policy has been changed?”
The Internal Affairs advocate did not, but his argument was effective with the Board. They denied introduction of the evidence. Perhaps they had inside information that gotcha is back.
I didn’t know that we divided Department policy into regimes. For instance, there are many special orders with Chief Park’s signature on them that are still in effect. Continuity flows from one Chief of Police (COP) to the next. Normally, when a COP wants to change the policy, it will be put in writing. A new special order, notice or writing of some kind is issued formally,changing the former policy and stating the new policy. After all, the officers need to know. Dividing the rules by regime can be confusing!
It makes a difference when we argue your case, too. When we believe the Department is being unfair, we currently argue that they’re violating the policy delineated by Chief Bratton. Now, apparently, we have to argue that there should be a policy like that delineated by Chief Bratton if officers are to be treated fairly.
There has been an increase in the conflict between accused officers’ representatives and the Department regarding discovery. As mentioned in previous columns, the Department’s position is that if the Chief didn’t see the document, the officer doesn’t get it. This has caused a lot of litigation, and more is coming.
Whatever the legal outcome, the League can’t understand this need for secrecy. What is the Department ashamed of? It would seem that an honest investigation and a well-considered disciplinary disposition can be put on the table for the officer to see. If there is competent evidence and the decision is well-considered, there isn’t a darn thing the officer can do except submit to the discipline. The League and the City save legal expenses, and the officer can see that he or she is not the victim of a jam job.
On the other hand, if the investigation is shoddy or shady, or the disciplinary decision is prejudiced, illogical or slanted, the Department should be ashamed. The question then becomes the ethics of barring the officer’s representative from discovering this. The Department should hear warning bells because the bottom line is that hiding the evidence fosters suspicion and distrust. The transparency touted by Chief Bratton to the community about the operation of LAPD apparently stops at the officer level. Or maybe transparency, too, is from another regime and no longer is recognized. Is this another change of policy that remains unwritten?
The problem of refusal to provide discovery has become so pervasive across both the Boards of Rights and Administrative Appeal hearings that the League is considering filing a declaratory relief lawsuit to force the Department to operate more openly on the disciplinary front. Along with this, we are filing several grievances and unfair labor practice actions. The issue is relatively simple. Why can’t the officer be allowed to see the investigation and evidence developed by that investigation when attempting to defend him or herself?
If the Department expects the officers to aggressively enforce the law, the officers need to feel that they will be supported by the Chief of Police when the inevitable complaints roll in. Officers can live under the Bratton policy. But does the Bratton policy still live?
Be legally careful out there.
