A Los Angeles Police Department disciplinary board has secretly decided not to punish the officer who fatally shot 13-year-old Devin Brown two years ago, rejecting an earlier ruling by the civilian Police Commission that the act violated department policy, sources confirmed Tuesday.
Members of an LAPD board of rights, meeting behind closed doors Monday, determined that Officer Steven Garcia was justified in shooting Brown as the youth allegedly tried to back a stolen car into the officer after a brief pursuit.
The shooting sparked outrage in South Los Angeles, with citizens and activists alleging that Garcia overreacted and used excessive force. Last year the city paid $1.5 million to settle a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Brown's family.
Monday's decision, reached by two high-ranking LAPD officials and a civilian representative, effectively dismisses the earlier finding by the Police Commission that the shooting was "out of policy" and that Garcia should be punished.
It also reflects a dramatic change in the way the LAPD metes out discipline. For decades, the LAPD had heard evidence publicly when serious misconduct was alleged. Last summer, however, the California Supreme Court ruled that police officer personnel documents were not public records. Responding to that ruling -- and over the objections of news organizations and civil libertarians -- the LAPD moved to close its disciplinary hearings.
As a result, the charges against Garcia were heard in secret, and the rationale for the board's decision is similarly being withheld.
The Police Commission acts as the civilian oversight body for the LAPD and has the authority to shape policy, but it cannot discipline officers. Its finding in the Brown case -- which ran contrary to the recommendation of Police Chief William J. Bratton -- was initially hailed by both African American leaders and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as a sign that the LAPD, with its long history of officer misconduct cases, now had firm civilian oversight.
John Mack, president of the Police Commission, said Tuesday that he felt as if he and his colleagues on the commission had been undermined.
"I'm very, very disappointed in that finding," said Mack, who was unaware of the ruling before being informed by a reporter. "Our commission felt the facts were clear. It was my expectation that the board of rights would see the facts as we saw them and take disciplinary action."
