Take a look at this link, and let me know what you think.  The limitations of the appellate court’s power (and their interpretation of “how much” the police may have lied) seem to be the only factors that kept this from coming back to haunt the arresting officers and their case.

As I have said time and again, it is important when dealing with a police client to remember that there are legal, moral, and yes — cultural — issues in play.  In light of this decision, it will be intriguing to see what happens in the next few big cases that bring so-called testilying into focus.

In a system unique to Los Angeles, the Chief is not the ultimate authority on whether an officer remains employed after alleged misconduct.  Instead, an internal board comprised of two high-ranking managers and one community member preside over a quasi-trial called a board of rights.  This board alone determines whether Officer Jones committed any misconduct, and what the penalty should be.  The Chief’s only option is to reduce the prescribed penalty.

Arguments abound about whether this administrative body is the correct forum for such a critical decision.  The Board of Rights does not observe traditional evidentiary rules (for instance heresay is allowed), and they do not have any formal training in employment or labor law.  Police unions, police managers, police officers, public interest groups, the ACLU —  each have weighed in on the process pro or con.

What is for certain is that the Board of Rights is one of many internal police phenomena about which members of the bar are often unaware or under-educated.  A relatively small “defense bar” has emerged to represent officers at the board, and the niche has produced local experts.  If you have questions or ideas about this process, please weigh in with a comment…

I would like to note, however, that in evaluating any use of police force, it is the law and the rules that matter.  By the “rules” I mean, of course, the police department’s written procedures for using force.  Different agencies are free to have policies and procedures regarding when and how their officers may use force.  Most attorneys are surprised to learn how varied these policies can be. 

In the criminal arena, I am confident the District Attorney’s office has been reviewing the video and will look hard at any possible prosecution(s).  On the civil side, there will be no shortage of plaintiff’s counsel interested in whether or not these officers’ actions violated the standard.  Both of these inquests will be thorough in the extreme.

In the legal community, we should stay above the three rings, and remind ourselves and our colleagues that the officers’ actions as measured against the twin metrics of the law and internal policy, not the hype or anger in the community, that will determine the end result of any legal matters.

I present you this link to the AP story.  Simply put, officers can no longer search a vehicle simply because the driver has been arrested.  Take it from me, this is a fundamental paradigm shift in street police work.  Now, the officer must be able to articulate that the crime involved may indicate there is evidence in the car (think drug possession) or that the suspect can still access potential weapons in the vehicle (almost impossible to imagine, since the in-custody suspect is generally secured away from their vehicle).

Yet another case that proves why this is such an interesting and dynamic area of the law!

Simply put, I had to advise them that they had a solid case, and the employee was deserving of a filing.  I also had to expand on the fact that I have seen cases not filed for all sorts of reasons one might not believe:

• Bad day
• Long day
• DA doesn’t get along with the detective
• Detective doesn’t get along with the DA
• Docket issues
• My all-time favorite, “Something doesn’t feel right.”

In the end we were able to collaborate and help bring out the important cosmetic features to the crime, and de-emphasize some of the blemishes.  I am confident a filing is forthcoming.  Yet another room in the criminal justice hallway that holds as many mysteries and nuances as it does rules and regulations.

Police departments and modern policing are complicated in the extreme. Police work, criminal law, psychology, sociology, tragedy, human nature – these form the framework of today’s police agencies, and the backdrop for police practices.

My involvement in police practices began 14 years ago when I graduated from UCLA and signed up as a new police recruit. The journey that followed has been an intriguing one. I have served as a patrol officer, homicide detective, sexual assault investigator, counterterrorism officer, and sergeant of police. Oh, and along the way I went back to school and became an attorney.

Over this fascinating decade, and especially my time as a member of the bar, it has become increasingly clear to me that a chasm of misunderstanding and suspicion lies between attorneys and police professionals. Ironically, this is most visible in the handling of police witnesses by prosecutors and defense counsel.

To help bridge this gap, I began lecturing and teaching. Now in its sixth iteration, my curriculum prepares future advocates for their interaction with police officers and detectives. It helps them understand the complex – and often closely guarded – issues that surround police agencies.

With this blog, I hope to feature some of the multitude issues, myths, cases, major events, successes, and tragedies that are always shaping police practices.