A Los Angeles Police Department captain who voted not to discipline Officer Steven Garcia this week in the shooting of 13-year-old Devin Brown had warned him in a previous disciplinary case that one more offense would probably get him fired.
Yet that history was ignored in the Board of Rights hearing on Brown's death because LAPD rules typically do not allow an officer's past misconduct to be considered.
The realization that Garcia had previously come so close to losing his job reopened an old debate, with critics suggesting that the LAPD does not always sufficiently consider the past conduct of officers in deciding whether to punish them.
Over the last few days the Brown decision has touched off sharp recriminations in Los Angeles politics as top officials bemoaned the spectacle of an internal police panel undercutting the work of the department's civilian leadership, a Police Commission appointed by the mayor.
Because the hearing was also conducted in secret after LAPD officials closed it in response to a recent court ruling, both Police Chief William J. Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for new laws that would keep such procedures open. The tumult Friday even compelled Garcia to waive his privacy rights and agree to release a transcript explaining the board's reasoning.
Under LAPD rules, prior discipline can be presented as evidence in a new case only if it is used to demonstrate a pattern of misconduct. If an officer is ultimately found guilty of an offense, past discipline may then be considered in determining punishment. As with similar rules in criminal court, restrictions on the admissibility of past misconduct are intended to protect against undue prejudice.
Andre Birotte Jr., the LAPD's civilian watchdog, said the department's rules about what constitutes admissible prior conduct are too restrictive.
Regardless of whether there's a pattern, Birotte said, offenses such as lying or very specific acts alleged more than once should be made known to those sitting in judgment.
"It's a tricky issue," Birotte said, however. "It should be determined on a case-by-case basis."
Jeffrey C. Eglash, who served as the LAPD's inspector general from 1999 through 2002, said "the department has historically taken an unnecessarily narrow view" of the use of prior evidence.
