Gary Ingemunson
August, 2008
Deadly Video Games
In the space of a week, three incidents occurred that illustrate the ways in which the video age will impact your job as a police officer. The first is the unknown video that pops up long after you have written your report and after you have testified in court. The second is the video that you know exists and you have access to, but did not review. The third is the video that you know exists and you do not have access to because the Gotcha Gurus are withholding it and hoping for the big score: false and misleading statements.
According to The Los Angeles Times, a “grocery store worker” was arrested for possession of cocaine after a foot pursuit into a carport by officers. I think it is safe to say that this was a grocery store worker like Rodney King was a “motorist.” Setting aside LA Times-speak, the story quotes a public defender accusing the officers of blatantly lying and planting evidence. It seems that a video turned up, which the public defender kept from the prosecution. The public defender was awaiting his Clarence Darrow moment. After the officers had testified, he produced the video. It was apparently inconsistent enough with the officers’ reports and testimony that the judge dismissed the case and the officers were ordered home by the Department, pending an investigation. Chief Bratton announced on television that “breaking the law to enforce the law would not be tolerated.”
Tim Sands, League President, cautioned everyone to withhold judgment until the investigation was complete. The video is of poor quality, grainy, and 13 seconds of the video is missing. The officers involved were hardworking and well respected by their supervisors. In the meantime, the JCID section of the District Attorney’s Office will be reviewing the evidence to see if criminal charges should be filed against the officers.
However it turns out, and I am hoping for the best, the point is: Your career and even your freedom can depend on accurate and complete reports. Assume that your every move is on videotape and write accordingly.
The second incident involved a videotape that was available, but not reviewed. The officer involved was also hard charging, well respected and a former Officer of the Year. It didn’t matter.
Everyone is aware that there is a video camera taping the hallways of Central station. The officer and his partners had five bodies in custody from different arrests. One of the arrestees was constantly chipping and uncooperative, finally requiring the officer to take action, resulting in the suspect going down to the floor in the hallway. The suspect claimed excessive force. Several hours later, after the suspects were booked, the officer submitted to an interview on the complaint and assisted in completing the arrest report. It was routine and thought to be no big deal. Although aware of the hallway camera, neither he nor the complaint interview sergeant thought of reviewing the video before pen was put to paper. The officers were on overtime and everyone was tired and wanted to get home.
Later, the video was pulled and viewed. Guess what? The interview and arrest report were inconsistent with the video. The result was an ordered Board of Rights. One captain recommended termination, the other captain and the civilian recommended 65 days of suspension. There was no reason that what was shown in the video could not have been in the report and explained in the interview if the officer had taken the time to review the video to ensure that his report was accurate. The officer almost lost his job and has authorized me to tell this story to help warn other officers to exercise their right to be accurate and look at the video before they find themselves in front of a Board of Rights.
All of the stations have video, and the new stations have video everywhere but the bathrooms (and maybe there, too). Any incident that occurs under the eye of the camera should be reviewed before any interview or report is written. Furthermore, any supervisor who is interested in the welfare of his or her troops should insist that officers pull and review any video – and view it themselves – before an inaccurate report hits the system. Inconsistent videos and reports are a formula for career disaster and City liability. Protect the officer and the taxpayer; make sure your reports are accurate.
The third incident would warm the heart of any Gotcha Guru. The details cannot be discussed because it is a personnel complaint in progress, but in general terms, the ethics sting team attempted a sting that didn’t work. However, apparently the officers were observed taking part in what appeared to be an unauthorized Code 7. So the officers were summoned into an interview for allegations that included unauthorized Code 7 and a false log. (The log didn’t show the unauthorized Code 7.) Being a sting, there was videotape and audiotape (the UC was wired). The League provided an attorney to the officers through the Enhanced Legal Program.
Going back to the time when the ethics team was formed, the League was told that their purpose was to find and fire dirty cops — Rafael Perez types. The League was in full support of those goals. We like dirty cops even less than the Department does. So how did we get to a point where an IAD team is doing interviews over unauthorized Code 7? Good question.
Worse yet, why are they trying to elevate an unauthorized Code 7 to a false report? Does that look better on the recap? Maybe that is why there was so much resistance when the attorney asked to see the videotape prior to the interview. Heck, maybe there was a chance that this unauthorized Code 7 could be raised to a termination! Maybe the statement would be inconsistent with the video and the officer could be charged with false and misleading statements! Wouldn’t that make all the trouble of going through a sting worthwhile?
Our attorney insisted on the video and climbed the chain of command asking why it wouldn’t be provided; after all, the Chief of Police had told 150 delegates at the 2007 Delegates Conference that the age of gotcha was over. It was specifically stated that officers would be able to watch videos before interviews and writing reports to help them be accurate. No more ambush interviews.
Finally, the interviews were postponed so inquiries could be made up the chain of command. The interviews were then rescheduled. Our attorney was told that officers would be allowed to watch the video this time, but the investigators would be seeking a special order that would allow them to not show the video in the future. How about the audio? Not a chance, our attorney was told. The IAD team felt sharing that was their prerogative. Gotcha! The officers were ordered to proceed with the interview or be charged with insubordination.
This raises a couple of interesting questions, the first of which is trying to decide if the Chief was lying to the delegates in 2007, or whether he just doesn’t have control over his subordinates. I choose to believe the latter. I think the Chief is sincere in his attempt to end the era of gotcha. He just has this culture problem with some Internal Affairs investigators (or more likely, their supervisors). There are too many independent contractors in PSB sections doing it their way, regardless of what the Chief thinks.
A second question that arises is the legality of surreptitiously tape recording administrative investigations. This is probably a violation of 632 P.C. The Chief is on television telling us that “breaking the law to enforce the law will not be tolerated.” How about breaking the law to enforce administrative rules? Is that tolerated?
If the issue is simply unauthorized Code 7, what is wrong with bringing an officer in, showing him a video and audio of him eating and asking if he has an explanation. Either he does, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, apply the appropriate penalty for breaking the rules. An employee can respect that.
The practice of hiding the video and audio, coupled with attempting to elevate an unauthorized Code 7 into a false report, only convinces the officer that Internal Affairs is populated by recap-mad head hunters. That is not good for the officers, or the Department.
What is good for the Department is a reputation among the troops that Internal Affairs investigators are going to conduct a fair, aboveboard inquiry into allegations of misconduct. Many IA investigators do just that. They tell the officer why they are there; what the area of inquiry will be; allow the officer to properly prepare by providing relevant reports, tapes, or videos; and then sit down and ask the hard questions, giving the officer the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story and provide an explanation if there is one. These IA investigators promote Department goals by leaving the accused officer with the feeling that, whatever the outcome, the process was just.
I just finished the quarterly reports for the League’s Enhanced Legal Plan. Once again, as it has every quarter since the program began, the percentage of officers in the plan has increased. As of June 30, 79.24% of the officers in the Los Angeles Police Department feel that it is necessary to dip into their pockets to provide themselves with legal protection against LAPD management’s disciplinary system. Somebody up there should hear warning bells.
Be legally careful out there.