IG audit on GED stops
Now that the Los Angeles Times is done bringing out the worst of the story, what is the Inspector General of the Police Commission’s (IG) audit on gang stops really about, and what does it mean for your future?
The IG’s goal was to “assess the extent to which officers have a reasonable basis for the initial detention or contact with each person, as well as for each subsequent search or seizure conducted during a stop, and to evaluate officers’ articulation of that reasonable basis.” The focus was on GED. Metro will be in their next report.
Why GED? Because they do not answer radio calls, so they make significantly more investigative stops than patrol. The review was based on Body Worn Video (BWV) and Automated Field Data Reports (AFDR), which are required by state law.
They selected 91 stops involving 150 people out of a field of 8,246 stops involving 11,673 people. The selections required at least one black, white or Hispanic male to be involved.
About 85 percent of the stops appeared reasonable and legally justified, the IG summarized. That’s the good news. The bad news is, of course, that 15 percent of the stops did not appear reasonable and legally justified. Hey, this is LAPD, we expect 110 per- cent from our officers!
It was not quite as bad as it seems because only three of the stops appeared to be unreasonable, according to the IG. That would mean that the success rate, compared to “bad” stops, was really 97 percent.
There were three consensual stops that “concerned” the IG as to the actual voluntariness, and eight stops containing insufficient information. It seems to me that if officers are to receive the benefit of the doubt when it is not clear that they have done something wrong, we should go with the 97 percent.
Searches in the 91 stops did not come off as well. 41 percent of the time, there were no searches, defined by the IG as anything from a pat-down to a vehicle search. 23 percent of the searches appeared to be reasonable and 4 percent of the time the IG could not arrive at any conclusion. However, 32 percent of the time, the IG identified an issue.
The major problems came in three categories. First, reports documented that it was a consent search. The BWVs did not back this up. Second, the written justifications for searches provided by officers did not appear to meet the legal standard for searching or were missing. Third, when searches were based on probation, there was no attempt to determine if the suspect had search conditions as part of the probation.
In addition, the IG found that there were a small number of policy or procedural issues, ranging from stop data inaccuracy, lack of explanation of the reason for detention, or failure to provide a business card. And although the IG found that officers were generally polite and courteous, there was room for improvement.
Here’s a concise statement regarding the basis for stops and detentions as viewed by the IG. This is what you’re judged on in this and future audits. “The law and LAPD policy require that a detention, which is a temporary investigative stop during which the person who is the subject of the stop is not free to leave, must be supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person is connected to criminal activity that has taken place or is about to take place. Officers may also detain someone if they have knowledge that the person is subject to search conditions as a term of parole, probation, or other supervision. In those instances where an officer does not have a sufficient factual basis to form reasonable suspicion or probable cause, it is permissible to conduct a consensual encounter with the person. In such instances, however, the encounter must be conducted in such a way that a reasonable person would feel free to refuse to talk to the officer and to walk away or otherwise end the encounter.” [Emphasis mine]
And here is the IG’s view of what it takes to conduct a pat-down search. “Officers may not automatically conduct a pat-down or other search of a person simply because they have been detained, but they may do so if they have additional facts that support such an action. According to the Department’s materials, a pat-down must be based on “specific and articulable facts that cause an officer to reasonably suspect a detainee might be armed or dangerous.”
Full searches of a person or their property, on the other hand, must generally be justified by probable cause, a higher level of suspicion. Officers may also conduct a search if a person has search terms as part of their supervision status—for example, if the person is on parole or probation—or if they receive voluntary consent from a person to do so.” [Emphasis mine] It should be noted that any grounds for detention or pat-downs must be documented!
Finally, the IG view of searches based on search and seizure conditions. “The OIG notes, however, that while all people who are on parole or probation are subject to search as a condition of their release, this is not necessarily true of all those who are on probation. Per the law and LAPD policy, when a person is on probation, officers must specifically ascertain that they have search conditions—and under-stand the scope of those conditions—prior to conducting a search. This can be done in multiple ways, including by asking the person.” [Emphasis mine]
The IG ended the report with nine recommendations mostly dealing with additional training for officers, but also recommending audits. Stand by for audits! Study the above and remember that you are always on video.
Knowledge, Articulation and Accuracy are concepts that are needed for career survival.
Be legally careful out there.
