Last month, the Los Angeles School Police Department completed its internal investigation into an officer’s use of force during a violent confrontation with teenagers and adults in Pacific Palisades last September. But current state privacy laws prohibit public disclosure of the results of that investigation, angering community members hoping for closure and police oversight. Requests by the Palisadian-Post for the result of the investigation have been repeatedly denied by the Los Angeles Unified School District, whose lawyers cite state statutes that bar disclosure. “I’m outraged that they would not tell us the outcome of the investigation,” said Janet Turner, a Palisades Community Council member. “I thought that we were promised full and open disclosure. How else are we supposed to have a system of checks and balances if it’s not public record?” Turner co-wrote a resolution which was passed unanimously by the council in December that asked LAUSD’s police chief to consider reassigning Officer John Taylor out of the Palisades given community concerns, pending the department’s investigation. But a 2006 California Supreme Court decision has significantly restricted public access to the outcome. In Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, the court further tightened already restrictive public access to police records. Police misconduct hearings that were earlier made public became closed. And officers’ disciplinary records became confidential. The current statute will leave several questions unanswered: What accusations against Taylor were confirmed by police? Was he disciplined? And was corrective action taken? “After seven months of investigation, there is nothing but silence now,” said Bruce Ishimatsu, an attorney and a parent of two students at Palisades Charter High School. “How can we trust the integrity of the process or its results if we are kept in the dark?” Community concerns began when Taylor used pepper spray to arrest two “disobedient” eighth-graders from Paul Revere Charter Middle School near the CVS/Pharmacy’s Swarthmore Avenue loading dock on September 19. A crowd of student and adult bystanders, incensed by the officer’s use of force, were also sprayed at a distance by the officer. A history of excessive-force complaints against the officer further stoked community concerns, culminating in demands for his reassignment. In 2002, a superior officer in the LAUSD police department blocked Taylor’s promotion, citing “a series of excessive-force incidents.” Last week, a civil trial began in federal court alleging that Taylor beat a 15-year-old Crenshaw High student with a baton over her knees. According to LAUSD records in November, the district had spent more than $152,000 in legal expenses to defend Taylor in two known lawsuits. As reported in the Post, Taylor was temporarily assigned in December to a computer training position. This week, LAUSD rejected a records request that would determine the officer’s current assignment, again citing officer privacy statutes. But parents and students say the department assigned him back to his regular position as a patrol officer, where he monitors school safety at public schools in the Palisades and the Westside. School Board President Marlene Canter told the Post on Tuesday that “the board took the incident seriously” and consequently reviewed the department’s use-of-force policy. Board members changed that policy to require that when officers use pepper spray against students that they dispatch medical attention immediately, she said. The board also ordered a study of the department’s large backlog of outstanding internal investigations. As recently as 2004, an officer recommended for dismissal after an investigation could not be fired because the investigation took longer than district law allowed. That study is due within the next two months but will not be a public record. Canter said that when she receives a report of the department’s action on Taylor she will do her “best to share” what she is allowed to share. But the current state law is expected to largely proscribe disclosing the department’s disciplinary actions. Other privacy laws have shielded the Los Angeles School Police Department from criticism and change. A recent multi-million-dollar external audit of LAUSD by Evergreen Solutions recommended sweeping changes for LAUSD but had few suggestions for the police department because it was denied access to district audits of that department. School Board member David Tokofsky said that the police department has traditionally trained officers with a ‘unique sensitivity to students and school issues,’ but management has deteriorated. “In the last few years, there has been a decline in the oversight and the quantity of new recruits,” Tokofsky told the Post. “Broadly speaking, there was an overexuberance to become a police force like the LAPD without the infrastructure and accountability.” Tokofsky believes, however, that these problems can be remedied by the new LAUSD Superintendent, David Brewer, who has promised reform. Meanwhile last week, the LAPD began an investigation into an alleged rape by LAUSD Officer Ian King. According to a district press release, no students were involved and the officer has been placed on paid leave. A former, high-ranking LAUSD police official said that two women filed complaints against King for sexual harassment or misconduct. The officer was reportedly reassigned to downtown schools from University High in 2005 after a female student complained that he asked for a sexual favor. The former official told the Post that an investigation of King lapsed, and he returned to the department to work after an “industrial injury.” LAUSD Chief Operating Officer Dan Isaacs, who oversees the department, said he could not comment on an ongoing investigation. A pending bill in Sacramento, SB 1019, written by State Senator Gloria Romero, could restore public access to police disciplinary records. Proponents of the bill say that it is needed to promote public trust of police departments and provide accountability. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and LAPD Police Chief William J. Bratton have publicly supported the bill, which is expected to be voted on this year. Police officers’ associations, which run a powerful lobby in Sacramento, largely oppose the bill. They argue that it would subject officers to increased risk of retribution, lost credibility, increased civil liability and general embarrassment. State Senator Sheila Kuehl, who represents the Palisades, told the Post this week that she would likely support the bill. State Assemblymember Julia Brownley said on Wednesday she has not read the final bill, but she “weighs on the side of government transparency.” ———– To contact Staff Writer Max Taves, e-mail reporter@palipost.com or call (310) 454-1321 ext. 28.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
