April 5, 2018
Women's City Club

Video is here

Photos are here

There has been a spate of local and national police beatings and abuse allegations that give rise to public concerns. Now that LWV of Los Angeles County has concurred with LWV of Los Angeles’s Community Relationships Police Position, LWV-PA is able to advocate on these issues. Our April League Day, which was co-sponsored with the LA League, focused on some of the policing issues currently being debated:

• Undemocratic Policing and Lack of Transparency—police policies adopted in secret; courts and legislatures that do not function as envisioned under state and federal constitutions
• Unconstitutional Policing—unwarranted stops, racial/ethnic profiling, searches conducted without cause or warrants, and excessive use of force
• Twenty-First Century Policing—surveillance technology, third party and governmental data collection practices that raise individual privacy concerns, as well as national security concerns

The LWV-PA Social Justice and LWVLA Criminal Justice Committees convened a panel of experts who offered different perspectives on current policing issues.

Barry Friedman, a law professor and founder of the New York University Law School Policing Project, who participated via Zoom from the East Coast. He has worked with numerous jurisdictions nationally on policing issues with the goal of ensuring democratic and constitutional policing. One of those jurisdictions is the City Los Angeles.

Max Huntsman, the Inspector General of the Los Angeles County’s Sheriff Department. The Inspector works alongside the Sheriff Department’s Civilian Oversight Commission. The Commission’s recommendations are advisory.

Matt Johnson, one of five Los Angeles City’s Board of Police Commissioners. Under the Los Angeles Charter, the Board is the head of the Police Department, responsible for setting overall policy, while the Chief of Police manages the daily operations of the Department and implements the Board’s policies or policy direction and goals. In addition, the Board determines when a use of force is excessive. Thereafter, the Chief determines what, if any, punishment is appropriate.

Pasadena is grappling with several policing concerns, including choosing a new police chief and the possible reformation of its current policy manual—especially as it relates to use of force—which was developed without community input. The importance and immediacy of the subject matter were reflected by the large number in attendance, including the Pasadena mayor and a councilmember, as well as a member of the Altadena Town Council, two high ranking Pasadena police officials, and one Sierra Madre officer.

Professor Friedman’s book Unwarranted: Policing without Permission, served as the basis for the discussion. Friedman opined that there are generally two approaches to policing. The first is to stop, frisk, and gather information and thus suppress crime. The second is to refrain from engaging in illegal and offensive activities, especially those that alienate community members and undermine trust between the pubic and officers sworn to protect and serve.

Friedman observed that Americans pay too much attention to correcting the ramifications of police misdeeds and not enough attention to up front protections. He argues for community involvement during both the up-front rule making process and the back-end accountability phase.

The panel agreed that up-front community input—while uncomfortable and sometimes inconvenient for department professionals—is appropriate in developing policies, identifying staff training, and deciding whether to acquire equipment. It was suggested that these three components should be considered in conjunction with one another. For example, the adoption of a de-escalation policy is likely to result in the need to purchase alternative equipment, such as the purchase of tasers and beanbag shot guns. Thereafter, staff needs to be trained on de-escalation tactics and equipment. It was roundly acknowledged that officers need to develop additional skills with persons who are mentally ill or homeless.

The future of the use of body-worn cameras was also discussed. Such cameras are typically aimed at the public, not police officers. Camera companies are now experimenting with the use of facial recognition software in conjunction with camera usage.

The presentations resulted in a greater appreciation for the models currently being employed to provide more community input into policing.

League members who wish to keep current on this important topic, please contact Kris Ockershauser, LWV-PA Social Justice Committee.

—Michelle White, LWV-PA Co-chair, Social Justice Committee