28 ‘Problem Officers’ Are Under Psychological Review, Gates Says

Twenty-eight of 44 “problem officers” noted in the Christopher Commission report are being evaluated by Los Angeles Police Department psychological counselors, according to a memo written by Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

The Christopher Commission, in its report last summer on LAPD policies and procedures, found that each of the 44 officers had accumulated six or more allegations of excessive force and/or improper tactics since 1987.

In a memo to the Police Commission released Tuesday, Gates said two other officers were removed from the deparment after internal Board of Rights hearings into allegations of misconduct against them. In addition, one officer resigned rather than face possible discipline and another resigned for personal reasons.

Eleven of the 44 officers are being removed from field duty pending re-evaluation and 22 are being directed to attend remedial training. Almost all of the officers will be counseled by their commanding officers, Gates said.

Neither the Christopher Commission nor the Police Department has divulged the names of the 44 officers. Gates said in his memo that “the need to maintain the confidentiality of the officers involved in this review cannot be overemphasized.”

Gates also said not all of the officers should be considered problems. “Clearly this label may be totally unfair in individual cases and could be career-damaging to some very worthy and dedicated employees,” he said.

For example, one officer was cited by the commission because seven personnel complaints of excessive force or improper tactics had been lodged against him, even though no allegations were sustained, Gates said.

“Although it may be possible that this officer warrants closer attention, little, if anything, in his work history establishes him as a ‘problem officer,’ ” Gates said.

Police Commission President Stanley K. Sheinbaum said his organization is now asking the Police Department to explain why nothing was done about the 44 officers before the King case. “We want to know why the public in general had to wait so long to learn about these problems,” he said.