Washed It!

The U.S. Department of Justice has warned the Los Angeles Police Department that its investigations into racial profiling by officers are inadequate and that some cops still tolerate the practice.

As evidence of the ongoing problem, Justice officials pointed to two LAPD officers who were unknowingly recorded during a conversation with a supervisor being dismissive of racial profiling complaints.

“So, what?” one said, when told that other officers had been accused of stopping a motorist because of his race. The second officer is heard twice saying that he “couldn’t do [his] job without racially profiling.”

The officers’ comments, Justice officials found, spoke to a “perception and attitude of some LAPD officers on the street” and suggested “a culture that is inimical to race-neutral policing.”

The Justice Department’s concerns, which were conveyed in a recent letter obtained by The Times, are a setback for the LAPD, which remains under federal oversight on the issue. In order to rid itself of the federal scrutiny — which police officials have increasingly come to resent — the LAPD must assuage the Justice Department’s concerns.

The harsh assessment has also fed into internal tensions as members of the Police Commission, the civilian panel that oversees the LAPD, grow impatient with the pace of department efforts to more aggressively address the politically and socially explosive issue that has long dogged the city’s police.

Police Chief Charlie Beck disputed the Justice Department findings, saying they were based on cases that predated strict investigative guidelines put into place last year. He also rejected the suggestion that the candid comments of the two officers caught on the recording reflected a pervasive problem.

“It is a huge leap to paint the entire department with that brush,” Beck said. “And it is just not true. It’s not that type of department. We have a tough history that we must overcome and that takes time, but … the vast, vast majority of Los Angeles police officers today police in the right ways for the right reasons.”

Nonetheless, accusations of racial profiling — “biased policing” in modern LAPD lingo — have continued to hamper the department as it has worked to leave behind a reputation for racism and excessive force.

Profiling complaints typically occur after a traffic or pedestrian stop, when the officer is accused of targeting a person solely because of his or her race, ethnicity, religious garb or some other form of outward appearance. About 250 such cases arise each year, but more damaging is the widely held belief, especially among black and Latino men, that the practice is commonplace.

In the letter to city and police officials, the Justice Department expressed “continuing concerns about the overall quality of … investigations of biased policing.” Federal officials criticized investigators for “going through the motions” and found they “simply take ordered statements from officers and then run down a checklist of required questions without following up on key points or asking fundamental questions one would expect.”

In one case the Justice Department reviewed, patrol officers passed a Latino man driving in the opposite direction and did a U-turn to pull him over for a broken brake light. After asking the driver if he was in a gang and checking to see if he had any outstanding warrants, the officers let him go with a warning.

“The investigating officer never asked the officers involved what prompted them to look behind them to actually observe a non-working brake light,” the Justice officials wrote. “The investigator accepted the officers’ single-word answers of ‘No’ to the question whether race was a factor in the stop.”

“They are criticizing us for the way we used to do things,” Beck said in an interview.

He said significant progress has been made, not only in the investigations but also with regard to officers’ attitudes. Still, he said he was concerned about the tape-recorded comments of the two officers, adding that a misconduct investigation has been opened. In that case, the officers were taped by a supervisor who neglected to turn off a recording device after interviewing two other officers accused of racial profiling.

The Justice Department did not respond to calls for comment.

Until last year, the LAPD was under a federal consent decree that the Justice Department imposed in 2001 after the Rampart corruption scandal. It required the Police Department to complete sweeping reforms on many issues and to submit to near-constant audits and monitoring.

The U.S. District Court judge who lifted the decree found that the department had completed most, but not all, of the required reforms. On racial profiling, the judge called on federal authorities to remain in an oversight role for a time to assess the quality of the LAPD’s investigations and the Police Commission’s ability to monitor the issue.

Justice officials sounded an alarm after a report in May from the inspector general, the commission’s watchdog, concluded that the LAPD generally was doing an adequate job. Justice officials criticized the inspector general’s office for “not asking more substantive and probing questions.”

In an effort to satisfy the Justice Department, Nicole Bershon, who took over as inspector general in May, is expected to release a detailed report at the end of the month that reviews 10 recent racial profiling investigations. The cases were handled by a special team of investigators the LAPD formed this year to look at complaints accusing police of searching or detaining a person because of race or ethnicity.

Police commissioners have grown frustrated with the department’s work on racial profiling. At a meeting earlier this month, the commission’s president, John Mack, and Commissioner Rob Saltzman questioned whether police officials were doing enough. They noted that no officer has been found guilty of racial profiling by an LAPD investigation for years, despite numerous complaints each year.

Police leaders have long argued that because racial profiling hinges on what an officer was thinking in the moment, it is all but impossible to determine if he or she racially profiled someone unless there is a confession. When the commanding officer of the Internal Affairs Division offered that explanation to the commission, Mack dismissed it.

“I’ve heard many times that we can’t get inside an officer’s head, but somehow, some way, we need to figure out a way to get to the facts,” Mack said. “I’m not talking about a witch hunt, but I am talking about reaching a point where we can say with confidence that these claims have been very fairly and very thoroughly investigated.”

joel.rubin@latimes.com

Justice Department warns LAPD to take a stronger stance against racial profiling

Nick Franco squinted across Morro Bay to the potential future of the California state parks system. The district superintendent of this coastal jewel, Franco ticked off money-making possibilities: Install gates and charge to get in the parking lot. Sell off the nearby county-run golf course. In the marina, bring in more concessions. Outsource to allow motorized recreation in the wetlands. And in the wild, undulating spine of sand dunes at Monta

The Buddha and bamboo shoots are gone.

In their place is an empty home — except for the metal detector — that until recently was the site of one of half a dozen marijuana dispensaries that opened up in the last year in tiny Sunset Beach.

The dispensary, West County Patient Collective Assn., packed up and left this summer, saying it had been strung along by the county in getting a conditional use permit to sell medicinal marijuana. The collective’s volunteers saw the case as one of selective discrimination, but residents and officials viewed the association as an example of unwelcome businesses taking advantage of a lack of laws governing marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated areas of Orange County.

John Griggs, who headed the collective, said he had believed it would be welcome in Sunset Beach, a coastal enclave adjacent to Huntington Beach.

“Because it’s unincorporated and the county had nothing on their books and it gave us a legal way to open up,” he said.

On Tuesday, the Orange County Board of Supervisors rejected a temporary moratorium on permits for marijuana collectives or cooperatives in unincorporated areas. The ban will be reconsidered in November, but not until after the state election, in which California voters will decide whether to legalize the nonmedical use and possession of marijuana.

Supervisor Janet Nguyen said residents of Midway City, a small unincorporated community surrounded by Westminster, have also noticed dispensaries opening up, some near schools.

Many of the county’s 34 cities have restricted such operations, leading collectives to look to the relatively small amount of unincorporated territory.

“We do face this issue in our small areas, and we don’t know about it until there are complaints,” she said at Tuesday’s board meeting.

The moratorium, billed as urgent, was intended to give the county time to assess what the consequences will be if Proposition 19 passes. Approval of the initiative could require the county to reassess what little regulation is currently in place.

Dispensaries aren’t explicitly allowed or forbidden under county code, but are required to get use permits because they are seen as having moderate to high potential for adverse effects on the surrounding community, according to a memorandum sent out by the county chief executive’s office in July.

Currently there are 11 non-permitted marijuana storefronts in unincorporated areas, according to the county. One dispensary is applying for a permit from the planning department.

Dispensaries in the county’s cities are subject to local laws, but those in unincorporated areas seem to have existed in regulation gray zones. The county does not issue general business licenses. There are certain types of businesses that the Sheriff’s Department licenses, including escort services and public baths, but marijuana collectives are not among them.

The department has been investigating marijuana dispensaries for two years and recently served a warrant at one in Sunset Beach. But deputies look only for violations of state health and safety laws not county regulations, said Lt. Adam Powell, who heads the department’s narcotics unit.

Supervisors John Moorlach and Shawn Nelson rejected the idea that the need for a moratorium was urgent since the county has never approved a dispensary permit.

Supervisor Patricia Bates said the moratorium would send a message to dispensaries not to open until the county figured out its regulation policy.

In Sunset Beach it’s not clear how many dispensaries are still in business.

At the location of the former West County collective, a man who was recently working on the building said another dispensary was opening up and at least two others in the area were still operating as of last week.

For some, it is an example of what could happen if regulation of dispensaries remains vague.

“We didn’t need a concentration of them,” said Greg Griffin, president of the Sunset Beach Community Assn. “I didn’t think we needed six dispensaries.”

raja.abdulrahim@latimes.com
Orange County pot dispensaries exist in gray zone

Shirley Sherrod, forced from her government post after becoming a target for unfounded complaints that she was a racist, rejected an offer Tuesday to return full-time to the Department of Agriculture.

At a joint news conference after meeting with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Sherrod, however, said she would work as a consultant with the agency on civil rights issues.

“I enjoyed my work at USDA,” said Sherrod in turning down the offer. “I just don’t think at this point I can stay full time with USDA.”

Sherrod was the Agriculture Department’s director of rural development in Georgia until she was forced to quit after a conservative blogger published edited portions of a speech in which she appeared to make remarks that could have been interpreted as racist.

Vilsack and others in the Obama administration condemned the comments which were later found to have been taken out of context. The NAACP also condemned Sherrod, a black woman.

When her remarks were published in context, both the Obama administration and the civil rights group apologized for their reaction and for Sherrod’s departure. On Tuesday, Sherrod told reporters she expected to file a lawsuit against the blogger.

Vilsack repeated his apology Tuesday and took full blame during the televised news conference.

“This was my responsibility and I will continue to take responsibility tor it as long as I live,” Vilsack said. “I know that I disappointed the president. I disappointed this administration. I disappointed the country. I disappointed Shirley. I have to live with that. I accept that responsibility.”

Vilsack said he hoped that the incident would be a spotlight on efforts to deal with civil rights issues. He also said the department has changed its internal procedures to avoid the type of rush to judgment that was involved in the Sherrod case.

“The secretary did push really, really hard for me to stay and work from the inside,” Sherrod said. But “look at what happened. I know he apologizes and I have accepted that. I know a new process is in place but I don’t want to be the one to test it.”
Agriculture official, ousted in racial controversy, rejects new job offer at USDA

In the 11 months since Mitrice Richardson stepped out of the Lost Hills/Malibu Sheriff’s Station into the early morning darkness and vanished hours later, the mystery of her whereabouts twisted around false sightings from the ocean to Las Vegas.

Was that her at the Abbey in West Hollywood in late September? Or was she the badly burned body in a dumpster behind a building in Santa Fe Springs in October? Did her father really see her on a sidewalk near a Motel 6 in Las Vegas in January? Did a friend come across her in June in a Las Vegas hotel bar?

In her absence, she became a fixture on cable TV talk shows, the focus of debate over the sheriff’s station’s seemingly thoughtless decision to release a young woman without a car near a rugged canyon.