Civilians Show Leniency on Police Boards of Rights

Civilians who serve on police disciplinary review boards tend to advocate more lenient punishments for officers guilty of misconduct than police officials serving on the same panels, according to a Los Angeles Police Department report released Tuesday.

The findings run counter to expectations several years ago that civilian board members would judge officers more harshly for misconduct, particularly in matters of excessive force, racism and other contacts with the public.

Having civilians participate in the Police Department’s Board of Rights disciplinary panels was a key recommendation of the 1991 Christopher Commission, which proposed departmental reforms after the beating of Rodney G. King. In 1995, voters approved the idea, amending the City Charter to change the composition of the boards from three command officers to two command officers and a civilian member.

At that time, the conventional wisdom among Police Department insiders and reform advocates was that civilians would come down harder on misconduct.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Cmdr. James S. McMurray, who studied all the disciplinary hearings since 1995--the year that civilians participated on the boards.

Instead of being more critical of officer misconduct, civilian members have offered minority opinions in 25 cases--all but one of which were more favorable to the officer accused of wrongdoing, McMurray told police commissioners at their weekly meeting.

In 16 hearings, the civilian recommended a lesser penalty than the sworn members. In 11 cases, the civilian members found the accused officer guilty of fewer charges than the sworn officers on the boards, according to the study.

The study also found that in the 10 cases in which a command officer offered a minority opinion, it was either to find the accused officer guilty of more charges or punish the officer more severely.

For the most part, the civilian and sworn members saw eye to eye on disciplinary matters. Out of 460 hearings from 1996 to 1998, there were only 35 minority opinions. According to a review of the minority opinions, the civilians argued for leniency in a variety of cases, including:

* A civilian member of a panel said an officer who gestured at a citizen with his middle finger should be suspended one day, instead of the three days given by the sworn majority.

* One civilian argued against firing an officer who, while off duty, was drunk at a fast-food restaurant and got into a dispute with another patron. The officer cursed at the patron and drew his firearm.

* Another civilian member believed it was excessive to terminate an officer who was found guilty of exposing himself and masturbating in public.

* A civilian unsuccessfully recommended a 129-day suspension instead of termination for an officer who solicited four Dodger tickets in exchange for not processing a traffic citation.

The one instance in which a civilian member wanted to be harsher than the sworn members involved an officer accused of being discourteous and threatening to a citizen. The sworn officers found the officer not guilty on all counts.

“The civilian member indicated that it was clear the officer had threatened to arrest the [citizen] unless he provided certain information,” the study explained. “The sworn majority viewed this as a ruse, and indicated that it would most appropriately be addressed as a tactical training matter.”

On Tuesday, McMurray told the commission that there were “one or two” civilian board members who department officials are concerned about because of their propensity toward leniency.

Although there was speculation early on that civilians would be tougher on misconduct violations, in recent years many department officials started noticing that the reverse was true. In fact, officials from the police union, who were among the most vocal in opposing the addition of civilian board members, have become strong supporters of the civilian review.

In the last year, union members unsuccessfully tried to persuade two charter reform commissions to change board composition so that two civilians and one sworn officer were on the panels.

Dave Hepburn, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, charged that under Chief Bernard C. Parks, command officers feel pressure to deal harshly with officers so they do not appear to be soft on discipline. Civilians do not feel such pressure, he said.

McMurray said command officers may be more severe in their punishment because they have a more comprehensive view of misconduct, and see such behavior as reflecting on the department as a whole. He said they have institutional knowledge on how such conduct has been punished in the past and they use discipline as a management tool. He added that civilians are more “narrowly focused” on the individual officer accused of misconduct.