It also now takes just one click to go from the department’s landing page to the reports. The most recent annual use-of-force report now covers the first half of 2014. The site now provides a 2013 officer discipline report for the fourth quarter.

The website also cites the decree requirement for the posting of the reports, which comes from the 2000 consent decree between the LAPD and the U.S. Department of Justice in the wake of the Rampart scandal in which a gang unit connected to the division was infected with corruption. The decree mandated:

“Under the terms of the agreement with the Justice Department, the LAPD was required to make available on its website reports on use of force and complaints to include “a summary of all discipline imposed during the period reported by type of misconduct, broken down by type of discipline, bureau and rank…”

The LAPD, like other law-enforcement bodies around the United States, has vowed to be more open with in its police procedures in the wake of last year’s spate of fatal police encounters with young men in several cities.

On Jan. 22, Cmdr. Andrew Smith, an LAPD spokesman, told the Los Angeles Times the department’s failure to post the reports was “not intentional, and the department would be posting the latest reports.”

Sheriffs

Ironically, the LAPD’s lax condition came to light in a Dec. 31, 2014 report on another law-enforcement agency. It was the County of Los Angeles Office of Inspector General’s “Recommendation to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for Public Data Disclosure.”

The report mainly pointed out the county sheriff’s office has been deficient in posting officer discipline action on its website.

But it also revealed the LAPD had not posted its quarterly summary of officer discipline since 2012 or its annual use of force report since 2010. Yet both data sets were supposed to be posted under the terms of the 2000 consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice that ended in May 2013.

The department had failed to post quarterly discipline reports since the 3rd quarter of 2012, seven months before the decree requiring the reports ended. It does not appear, though, that the department violated any oversight provisions.

According to the Inspector General’s report:

“In 2009 and 2010, the LAPD published on its website ‘Annual Use of Force Reports.’ Although it appears this practice was shortlived, these reports were detailed as to statistics on officer-involved shootings, animal shootings, unintentional discharge incidents, and other uses of lethal force or force resulting in significant injury.”

Further, the information was deemed difficult for a viewer to find:

“The Use of Force Annual Report and the Quarterly Discipline Reports were not easily accessible on the LAPD’s website. These reports were found under the subheadings of ‘Police Commission’ and ‘Special Assistant for Constitutional 11 Policing.’ A citizen unfamiliar with these terms and their meaning might find it difficult to find these reports.”

An email to Smith regarding the updated site and the lack of current reports on the website was not returned. And a person answering the department’s media line requested an email query, which was also not returned.

The reports are especially valuable in a state in which all law enforcement disciplinary records are uniquely private, said Peter Bibring, a lawyer with the ACLU of Southern California. “It’s only through these reports that the public has any idea what’s going on,” he said

He understood there can be a lag time as the disciplinary process for an officer runs its course, “but just the number of instances of force should come fairly promptly.”

Body cameras and transparency

Last December, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti promised every LAPD officer soon would be wearing a body camera.

“The trust between a community and its police department can be eroded in a single moment,” Garcetti said during a press conference to announce the initiative. “Trust is built on transparency.”

But LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said any video coming from the body cameras would not be released under the state’s public records law, claiming the investigative records exemption.

“I think people misunderstand transparency as having everybody and all the public have access to everything,” Beck told the Times. “And it isn’t so much that as having the ability for oversight by multiple entities outside of the Police Department. I think that’s the meaning of transparency.”

In the past, Beck has been more welcoming of a transparent application of policing, although his endorsement of such came with an interpretation of the state’s public records law.

Upon his appointment in 2009, he told a gathering of LA Times editors and reporters that part of being a police officer is the understanding that “you give up some right to anonymity that most other people enjoy. Unfortunately, state law doesn’t agree with me on that.”

In a recent message posted on the LAPD site, Beck asserted “trust is built on the truth and truth is displayed through transparency.”

By Wayne Lusvardi

You read the headline right.  California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom is threatening those who “threaten” to “boycott” any entity of government in California that wants to use eminent domain to seize “underwater” mortgages.  Huh?

Newsom is threatening to call in the U.S. Department of Justice against any banks, Wall Street investment firms, bond rating agencies or others who may consider “boycotting” any county or joint powers authority that wants to use eminent domain to acquire mortgages that exceed the market value of homes.

According to Reuters, Newsom sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking the investigation and prosecution of any attempts by Wall Street investors or government agencies to “boycott” local California governments seeking to use eminent domain to seize mortgages.

The Lt. Governor’s website had a summary of the letter as follows:

09-10-2012 

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom Calls Upon Attorney General Eric Holder to Review Threats of Retaliatory Actions by Mortgage Industry.

September 10, 2012

Today Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom called on Attorney General Eric Holder and members of the Antitrust Division of the Attorney General’s Office to review the actions of some members of the mortgage industry, as well as federal agencies, who have coercively urged local governments to reject consideration of any proposal that would exercise the powers constitutionally granted local governments to use eminent domain to help stem the mortgage crisis.

“Communities have been ravaged by the housing crisis and now members financial sector, who has had long enough to fix the problem, are threatening to redline communities in California that are looking for unique solutions that may save thousands of families their homes. I am asking the Attorney General to investigate and protect homeowners and their communities that simply want to find their way out of this mortgage crisis.”

The full letter can be viewed by clicking here.

On its face, this letter seems premature. No court has thus far even validated that seizing mortgages is a legitimate use of the “public purpose” provision of the eminent domain law.  Nor has a court upheld the use of eminent domain by local governments to “cherry pick” only performing loans out of a lender’s loan portfolio and leave those loans that are in arrears or in default to the lender.  Neither has there been any legal ruling on the legitimacy of homeowners “applying” for eminent domain, as recently proposed in San Bernardino County.

And it is totally unclear how any actions that banks, Wall Street investment firms or bond rating agencies take in reaction to any use of eminent domain to seize mortgages is an “antitrust” violation.

“The Washington, DC special interest groups needs to back off,” said Newsom. “We owe it to homeowners everywhere to see if the solutions being discussed in San Bernardino will work.”

Vocal opponents of the proposal include the Association of Mortgage Investors, a lobbying group in Washington, D.C., and the Inland Valley Association of Realtors.

California is now becoming a “bully” state.  Voters should take note before the November elections.