7Y?Amji ~ MARIA SILVA Commission Executive Assistant I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LO. ANGELES POLICE COMM~ JION BOARD OF RICHARD M. TEFANK POLICE COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICOLE C. BERSHON JOHNW. MACK INSPECTOR GENERAL PRESIDENT ALAN J. SKOBIN EXECUTIVE OFFICE VICE PRES IDENT PoliCE ADMINISTRATION B UILDING ANTON IO R VI LLARA IGOSA 100WEST F IRST STREET, S UITE 134 RICHARD OROOYAN MAYOR L osANGELEs, CA90012-4 1 12 ROBERT M. SALTZMAN DEBRA WONG YANG (213) 236-1400 PHONE (213)236-1410FAX MARIA SILVA (213) 236-1440 TOO COMM ISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I September 27, 2010 BPC #10-0367 The Honorable Public Safety Committee City of Los Angeles c/o City Clerk's Office City Hall, Room 395 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attention John White: RE: REPORT ON THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF IDSTICE At the regular meeting ofthe Board ofPolice Commissioners held Tuesday, September 14, 2010, the Board APPROVED the Department's report relative to the above matter. This matter is being forwarded to you for approval. Respectfully, BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS 7Y?aMJi ~ MARIA SILVA Commission Executive Assistant I Attachment c: Chief of Police AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER www.LAPDOnline.org www.joinLAPD.com INTR )EPARTMENTAL CORRESPOND 'CE September 7, 20 I 0 (;['0 0 9 2010 1.14 '-' · --~ CF # 08-1943 POLICE CO!v1f\IIISSION CB # 10-0009 TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. That the Board APPROVE this report on the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, and TRANSMIT this report to the City Council' s Public Safety Committee in response to a motion introduced by Councilman Bernard Parks. DISCUSSION The City Council motioned for the Police Commission to respond regarding the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (CCF AJ) recommendations on reforming the state of California's criminal justice system. The CCFAJs report focused on the prevention of wrongful convictions and executions. The City Council requested that the study include information applicable to the Department; specifically if the Department is in compliance with CCF AJs recommendations. The attached report completed by the Department is in response to the recommendations and proposals contained in CCFAJs report dated June 30, 2008. If you have any questions, please contact Gerald L. Chaleff, Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing at (213) 486-8730. Respectfully, BOARD Of! CHARLIE BECK POLICE COMif)SSI~NE~ . Chief of Police . Approved~~ li;J.tJ. Secretary ""11 /1 .-. , n /J Attachments / VLbf..~W IJ,U.{/VC-' CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BACKGROUND The Califo1nia Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice was created by Senate Resolution 44, adopted on August 27, 2004, to study and review the administration of criminal justice in California. The goals of the Commission were to determine the extent to which the process had failed in the past, resulting in wrongful convictions of innocent persons, and to examine potential safeguards and improvements to the criminal justice system to further ensure the application and administration of criminal justice in California would be just, fair and accurate. The Commission was chaired by John Van De Kamp and consisted of law enforcement officials, public defenders, academics and members of the public. Chief William Bratton, the Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department, was a member, and was represented by Gerald Chaleff at the Commission hearings and discussions. The Commission's membership is attached as Exhibit A. The Commission issued interim reports on specific subject matters and then a final report on June 30, 2008, when it ceased its operations. The Commission ultimately issued recommendations concerning the following issues: • Eyewitness Identification • False Confessions • Informant Testimony • Problems with Scientific Evidence • Professional Responsibility and Accountability of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers • Remedies • Death Penalty In 2006, the California legislature adopted legislation based on the Commission's recommendations relating to eyewitness identification and interrogations of suspects for homicides and violent felonies. This legislation, however, was vetoed by the Governor. In 2007, the legislature again adopted legislation based on the Commission's recommendations pertaining to eyewitness identification, interrogations and the testimony of jailhouse informants. These were also vetoed by the Governor. To date, none of the Commission's recommendations have been enacted, although some have been introduced in either the Senate or Assembly. Others have been the basis of discussion and debate, but have not been enacted into law. The Commission's recommendations are attached as exhibit B to this report. Each recommendation detailed the responsibilities of the legislature, law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The recommendations pertaining to 1 eyewitness identification, false confessions, jailhouse informant testimony, scientific evidence and professional responsibility are relevant to law enforcement. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Los Angeles City Council has requested a report on the Commission's recommendations and proposals. The following is the Los Angeles Police Department's response to that request. EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION The recommendations pertaining to eyewitness identification included that the legislature provide funding for programs to train police in the use of procedures recommended by the Commission. The Commission also recommended that legislation be enacted to require the Attorney General to convene a task force, in conjunction with POST, local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and defense attorneys, to develop guidelines for policies, procedures and training in relation to eyewitness identification, consistent with the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission further recommended that judges standardize jury instructions to acquaint juries with factors that may contribute to unreliable identifications, and that training be provided to judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Commission's recommendations for law enforcement agencies, regarding obtaining eyewitness identifications were: • A minimum of six photos should be presented in a lineup • The fillers should resemble the description of the suspect given at the time of the initial interview • Photo spreads and lineups should be presented to only one witness at a time, or, where not practicable, witnesses should be separated so they are not aware of the responses of other witnesses • Double-blind identifications procedures should be utilized whenever practicable (double-blind is a procedure where the officer conducting the procedure does not know who the suspect is) • When double-blind procedures are utilized, the use of sequential presentation of photos and lineup participants is preferred, so a witness presented with one person at a time o Photos should be presented in random order o Witness should be instructed to say yes, no or unsure as to each photo or person o Sequential procedures should not be used when double-blind administration is not available • All witnesses should be instructed that the suspect may or may not be in the photo spread or lineup • At the conclusion of a lineup, photo presentation or show-up, a witness who made an identification should describe his or her level of certainty and the statement should be recorded or otherwise documented and preserved. 2 ·• Witness should not be given feedback confirming the accuracy ofthe identification • Live lineup procedures and photo displays should be preserved on video tape, audio tape when video not practicable • A single show-up should not be used if there is probable cause to arrest the subject. A description ofthe suspect should be documented prior to the show up transporting the witness to the location of the suspect, and in the case of multiple witnesses, all witnesses should be separated. • Training programs should be provided and required to train law enforcement in the use of the recommended procedures. Current Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) procedures require: • A minimum of six photos • The fillers resemble the description of the suspect • Presented to one witness at a time and witness are separated • All witnesses are instructed that the suspect may or may not be in the photo spread or lineup • The investigator shall have the witness write appropriate comments on the photo and sign the bottom of the form • Witnesses should not be told ifthey picked the right or wrong photo. • Witness should be told not to tell other witnesses that they have identified anyone • Photo displayed shall be retained in the Investigator's Case Envelope • All live lineups are photographed and conducted by Robbery-Homicide Division (RHD) • Allli ve lineup photographs and reports are maintained by RHD and copies are given to the divisional detectives The LAPD does not require a double-blind procedure or the use of sequential presentation of the photographs, and does not require the witness to state the level of certainty ofthe accuracy of the identification. In 2007, the LAPD was preparing to implement the double~ blind procedure in a few areas to determine if the procedure should be adopted. The trial was to compare results in these areas with control areas for comparison. The District Attorney's office stated objected to this, and