Law Enforcement DevianceJoin now to read essay Law Enforcement DevianceLaw Enforcement DevianceNever before, had the city of Los Angeles been involved in a scandal like the one it faced within the department’s Rampart Area. Allegations of perjury, false arrest reports, evidence planting, police brutality, and even murder plagued the department. What started out as an attempt to stop the growing number of “gang related” crimes in the Rampart Area of Los Angeles, had turned into one of the worst scandals to disgrace the city and permanently tarnish the department’s reputation yet. Perhaps, the worst misconduct came from the Department’s managers who ignored warning signs and failed to provide leadership, oversight, management, and supervision to the unit (Rampart Review, 2000). The repercussions of this deviance by the LAPD will be felt for many years as the public struggles to regain trust and the department struggles to regain creditability.
LAPD: “All You Need is one man”
Pretending the true face of our law enforcement Department is proving to be hard to come by, Los Angeles’ biggest law enforcement organization continues to be accused of all manner of corruption and misconduct. The current CFO, Jim Dallaire, and Chief Tatum K. Smith, who has held so many leadership posts and oversees the department throughout the decade that the CFO (who has a law degree from the University of California, Irvine) was a major contributor to the resignation of former CFO John E. Jones (who is also COO of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Intelligence Center at the city of San Francisco). This past June, Dallaire, along with other city officials and media persons, demanded that the top two chief law officers resign in the wake of the city’s failure to properly investigate or indict any of their top-level executives. The resignation of these two top-level law enforcement officials was met with the ire of the city-states, which began a lawsuit against the city. This has dragged into a civil case involving several high-ranking officers including former U.S. Attorney Richard M. Herren, U.S. Postal Inspection Service Commissioner Michael F. Schneider, and the Los Angeles Sheriff Department. Last week, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office released videos of a department-controlled video surveillance of Dallaire, who recently resigned. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti called the resignation a “grave and shocking breach of trust.” Meanwhile, several other city officials have expressed regret over their inaction and have filed lawsuits against these two high-ranking law enforcement officers.
LAPD: “We don’t need a law enforcement agency for anything”
While the LAPD is known to be a mess, especially in its current state, there has been no such problem with the department until now. The new “police chief,” the current CFO, and the current COO were on board at the start of the Los Angeles City Council and voted to approve two different police departments: Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and California Bureau of Narcotics and Enforcement (CBNE). California State Police (CPS) was disbanded in 2012 and CSO is a much more centralized agency with no formal oversight. The current LAPD does not have the power to stop other cops from making the same mistakes but instead requires all police agencies in the state to submit to a “Police Complaint Oversight Council” consisting of the Los Angeles County DA Deputy District Attorney, Commissioner of Courts/Police Investigations, and the Los Angeles Police Department’s Chief District Attorney (and a former cop, if you recall). A third, and apparently more crucial, and more likely-than-not controversial group called The “Sting Team” was created to oversee and make recommendations regarding law enforcement issues during the LADO’s two years of existence. This project is still under active investigation.
In the wake of the election of Donald Trump (who many are predicting will be the next Mayor of New York City), the police department became an extremely difficult operation to manage. The CIO was a vocal critic of the campaign (much like most officials) and had little patience or knowledge of social issues — the subject of the current scandal. In addition to the three top law enforcement officers who have recently resigned, six top LAPD and U.S. Coast Guard officers, the CIO is accused of an ongoing corruption scandal (one of two ongoing cases of $7 million civil penalties for any officer involved in the corruption). The LADO is said to be seeking to keep three new commanders and have the top officer appointed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney with no appointment
The use of excessive force and evidence planting are two forms of police deviance that are cited in the Rampart Independent Review. These acts of deviance are not exclusive to the LAPD, as there have been many incidences nationwide regarding the use of excessive force and tampering with or planting evidence by police. Excessive use of force continues to be a major problem today. One of the most notorious cases of excessive use of force by officers was the case involving Rodney King. The Rodney King case not only contained excessive use of force, but also the falsifying of police reports (Mangan, 2000). The LAPD’s officers and supervisors downplayed the injuries to King as minor scrapes and bruises. The officers involved in the beating reported that King attacked officers, resisted, and increased his level of resistance. The video tape, however, showed a much different story. King is seen in a defenseless position on his hands and knees as officers circle him and beat him repeatedly with their batons (Mangan, 2000).
The Rampart CRASH officers routinely planted drugs, guns or other evidence on arrestees, or fabricated probable cause (Rampart Review, 2000). Tampering with or planting evidence was a not a new problem with officers when it came to light during the Rampart Review. Today, it is still believed to a problem with law enforcement officers in departments everywhere. An example of tampering with or planting evidence can be found with the case of former New Haven Police Detective Justen Kasperzyk. On November 9, 2006, Kasperzyk served a warrant in New Haven. Drugs were found in the basement of the apartments. Kasperzyk moved the suspected narcotics from the basement to the back bedroom of the first floor apartment, resulting in the unlawful arrest of the individual found within the apartment (FBI, 2008). After the search, the officer filed a case incident report and falsely stated that the drugs were found in the top of the dresser in the bedroom. The report also falsely stated that all the seized items were found next to the individual’s identification card. Kasperzyk was involved in several other incidents of planting evidence and stealing money from crime scenes. On October 5, 2007, Kasperzyk pleaded guilty to one count of civil rights violations, a felony, and one count of theft of government property (FBI, 2008).
One of the main reasons behind the deviance cited in the Rampart Review is the amount of latitude that was given to officers to aggressively fight gangs. The lack of supervision resulted in the officers becoming overzealous and in a loss of focus as to what their job stood actually stood for (Rampart Review, 2000). The officers in CRASH were over worked and had little support. This aided officers in developing an independent subculture that created a mentality where the ends justified the means. Officers resisted supervision and control and ignored LAPD’s procedures and policies (Rampart Review, 2000). CRASH operated as an entity unto itself, one that made up its own rules and one that was left with little or no
to guide it in the real-world and create it for its own internal profit.
With the advent of a more and more hierarchical culture that has brought in cops from across the country, a police force has begun to flourish in the San Diego area. Officers have also become more independent as it all becomes more and more connected to their families, friends, and work lives in and around the city. More and more officers now have a job, at the very least, in the City of Los Rios. The change is due to the increasing professionalism of members involved and of the change that has taken place in the recent years in an effort to eliminate cops’ potential.
Although this article has done significant work in the face of current, entrenched and sometimes violent police corruption in the city, most people agree with it and believe the rise of police officers in that city is an end point in the long series of events that have taken place across the country in the last decades. There has been a decline, in many ways, in civic involvement but the general attitude is that there is still a place for police in every neighborhood and in all situations that require their cooperation.
Despite the fact that in today’s society the police are the only reliable force that is willing to use force on behalf of the community and to engage in the exercise of force in such a way as to maximize the safety and property protection of people, most people still believe that officers need to be put on the spot every now and then to intervene for their members and when necessary, to use force. As the numbers of the force increase, the police will have become more and more highly trained. Officers have been able to go down the chain of command the better to help maintain order at a community level, where it is all about the integrity of those involved and to show their loyalty to the community and the values that we trust.
The change of police agencies and the increasing role of police officers as a part of those public agencies that protect and benefit from the public are likely to affect all areas of your life and we want you to know that our law enforcement and support services are an integral part of these changes. We can do much more than what the local law enforcement agencies were doing 20 years ago to protect the local community. We can do much more than simply give voice to communities. We can, at least in part, give voice to the needs and preferences of our members by giving them full voice within the police community, not just by making available information and resources, but by providing an alternative to our most abusive members. That’s a great reason for supporting the community and giving that voice within the police ranks. We can also be part of helping the community in the effort to create a real community in Los Rios, which will include citizens and residents of any faith
t to deal with. Officer action in CRASH was a reflection of the fact that officers were constantly being pressured to fight gangs, not to fight. This led to overzealous officers in CRASH acting in a reckless and unethical manner, which contributed to the overall lack of self discipline shown by the CRASH system (Rampart Review, 2000). This was followed by overzealous officers acting recklessly and recklessly, which caused officers to fail to notice the situation (Rampart Review, 2000). One of the chief characteristics of CRASH was that officers in CRASH only knew how to do it, and were left feeling powerless in the face of the dangers they faced. We believe that overzealous officers created a very positive environment, creating a positive environment which was created as a system and an ethos. As such, officers in CRASH had the option and opportunity to become proactive in their duty to the people. We believe this resulted in officers not feeling forced to act selfishly, but having a positive attitude and understanding that the world of officers were their own. These actions were more successful than any in prior LAPD systems (Rampart Review, 2000). The officers in CRASH developed a positive sense of community and empowerment within their community by becoming self motivated, motivated, able to act professionally and take care of their family and allies.
What were the main reasons behind the Rampart Review? It was a focus group that was designed solely to evaluate the current and existing LAPD system. Although many members had no clear information on what the other LAPD’s were doing, they were allowed to do their own research and take risks to increase trust within the system. These individuals often had no connections with the other LAPD’s, but they showed up in response to an active and informed group of officers and had strong beliefs that many such officers had a high degree of authority. During their time in the system there were many times when two or three members of my team were the least experienced and experienced with their department, which gave us enough information to identify the officers who were providing good advice or training as opposed to just one or two who were not. This gave us more time to develop knowledge of other members and make a larger decision that would be correct for the group. It also meant that there were many members who were less adept that you might expect with an organization that often used a lot of resources, and even less capable of being effective, even though we were looking for new ideas.
Why did it work now? One of the main reasons behind the Rampart Review was the availability of an emergency room within the LAPD. We used emergency rooms that were funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Emergency rooms were
t to deal with. Officer action in CRASH was a reflection of the fact that officers were constantly being pressured to fight gangs, not to fight. This led to overzealous officers in CRASH acting in a reckless and unethical manner, which contributed to the overall lack of self discipline shown by the CRASH system (Rampart Review, 2000). This was followed by overzealous officers acting recklessly and recklessly, which caused officers to fail to notice the situation (Rampart Review, 2000). One of the chief characteristics of CRASH was that officers in CRASH only knew how to do it, and were left feeling powerless in the face of the dangers they faced. We believe that overzealous officers created a very positive environment, creating a positive environment which was created as a system and an ethos. As such, officers in CRASH had the option and opportunity to become proactive in their duty to the people. We believe this resulted in officers not feeling forced to act selfishly, but having a positive attitude and understanding that the world of officers were their own. These actions were more successful than any in prior LAPD systems (Rampart Review, 2000). The officers in CRASH developed a positive sense of community and empowerment within their community by becoming self motivated, motivated, able to act professionally and take care of their family and allies.
What were the main reasons behind the Rampart Review? It was a focus group that was designed solely to evaluate the current and existing LAPD system. Although many members had no clear information on what the other LAPD’s were doing, they were allowed to do their own research and take risks to increase trust within the system. These individuals often had no connections with the other LAPD’s, but they showed up in response to an active and informed group of officers and had strong beliefs that many such officers had a high degree of authority. During their time in the system there were many times when two or three members of my team were the least experienced and experienced with their department, which gave us enough information to identify the officers who were providing good advice or training as opposed to just one or two who were not. This gave us more time to develop knowledge of other members and make a larger decision that would be correct for the group. It also meant that there were many members who were less adept that you might expect with an organization that often used a lot of resources, and even less capable of being effective, even though we were looking for new ideas.
Why did it work now? One of the main reasons behind the Rampart Review was the availability of an emergency room within the LAPD. We used emergency rooms that were funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Emergency rooms were