DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS involving police officers accused of misconduct must be open to the media and the public, and they were for more than two decades in Los Angeles, until late last year.
On Monday, a Los Angeles Police Department board of rights, after a secret hearing and without public explanation, determined that Officer Steven Garcia was justified in shooting and killing 13-year-old Devin Brown in 2005 as Brown slowly backed a car toward Garcia.
The board's decision is particularly disturbing because the Police Commission, after a careful review, found that the shooting was not within LAPD policy. In fact, the city last year came to the same conclusion and paid $1.5 million to settle a civil suit brought by the boy's family.
It seems inexplicable that the board of rights, composed of two high-level police officers and one civilian, found that the fatal shooting of a teenage boy under these circumstances was justified. After a short chase, Garcia fired 10 shots at Brown, seven of which hit him. The Police Commission found that Brown was going only about 2 mph, and thus Garcia was able to step out of the way, was not in danger and not justified in using deadly force.
Perhaps there is a legitimate basis for the board's conclusion that Garcia did nothing wrong, but the public will never know. The Police Commission recently reversed a long-standing policy of openness and ordered the closure of police disciplinary hearings. Representatives of the Los Angeles Times who tried to attend the board of rights proceeding were turned away.
Such secrecy undermines the accountability of the LAPD. Without being able to observe disciplinary hearings or know the reasons for the panel's conclusions, there is no way to evaluate whether the disciplinary system is working. Closed proceedings and secret decisions fuel the impression that the board of rights protects officers from warranted discipline and does not serve the interests of the city.
Officers who use deadly force do not have a privacy interest in being free from scrutiny. This is not information about an officer's personal life. This is about how a public employee is performing on the job in the exercise of an enormously important responsibility: the use of deadly force.
