Lapd

[erich]

LAPD and ACLU reach settlement on skid row searches
By Cara Mia DiMassa and Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
2:01 PM PST, December 18, 2008
Los Angeles police officers face significant restrictions on when they can search people under a agreement announced Thursday that settles a landmark homeless right case.

The agreement comes 18 months after a federal judge found that the LAPD was unconstitutionally searching homeless people in the skid row area as part of Chief William J. Bratton's crackdown on downtown crime.


While the LAPD has strongly disputed the judge's findings, officials have agreed to dozens of conditions under which officers would be prohibited from searching people they come across on the street.

Officers will no long be allowed to search people caught jaywalking, sleeping on the street or cited and released in the field for minor offenses. Officers are also prohibited from handcuffing subjects "unless there is reasonable suspicion that the person may harm the officers, other people or may flee or destroy evidence." Limits were also set on when officers can run warrant checks.

"This settlement will ensure important checks on the LAPD's aggressive tactics on skid row," said Peter Bibring, an ACLU of Southern California attorney. "The Constitution protects every Angeleno against unlawful stops and searches, from those living in Hollywood Hills to those sleeping on the streets of downtown. This is an important step in showing aggressive policing is not going to solve the problems of homelessness in the downtown."


The current LAPD captain for Central Division, Jodi Wakefield, said that she disagreed with the judge's assessment of her officers' conduct.

"We agree to disagree," she said. "But there's nothing wrong with us going back and making sure that our officers clearly understand the Constitution, and all the laws they have to abide by. I feel confident they do."

Paul M. Weber, President of the Los Angeles Police Protective League said the efforts of LAPD officers have improved the downtown area.

"The streets of Skid Row are much safer today, thanks to the dedication of the officers working in the Central Area," he said. "LAPD officers working on Skid Row have always been and will continue to be sensitive to the special needs and conditions of the people who live in the community."

[Berlioz]

This is dumb...I have the right to detain anyone in violation of any infraction, misd, felony...I have the right to perform a cursory frisk search on people that I have reason to believe to be dangerous, in possession of weapons or drugs (everyone in skid row)...and I have the right to verify a persons information in my computer...so, am I missing something? Lets not forget the fact that most of these skiddies are on parole anyway so just about any search is good to go anyway. ACLU needs to die.

[lewannab]

Amen, Berlioz. Unbelievable. The ACLU is a joke. Period.

[Five-0fromSoCal]

This is dumb...I have the right to detain anyone in violation of any infraction, misd, felony...I have the right to perform a cursory frisk search on people that I have reason to believe to be dangerous, in possession of weapons or drugs (everyone in skid row)...and I have the right to verify a persons information in my computer...so, am I missing something? Lets not forget the fact that most of these skiddies are on parole anyway so just about any search is good to go anyway. ACLU needs to die.

+1..... I don't understand either. So if you're in another part of the county, the law and case law applies differently. crazy. They should relocate everyone on skidrow next door to the house of the ACLU president.

[bigcitypolice06]

This is dumb...I have the right to detain anyone in violation of any infraction, misd, felony...I have the right to perform a cursory frisk search on people that I have reason to believe to be dangerous, in possession of weapons or drugs (everyone in skid row)...and I have the right to verify a persons information in my computer...so, am I missing something? Lets not forget the fact that most of these skiddies are on parole anyway so just about any search is good to go anyway. ACLU needs to die.

So what if i stop a transient in 77th or Van Nuys or Devonshire (do they have trainsients there?) Do I have to follow this? NO! The ACLU comes up with stupid things but even this one is hard to swallow. Well one more reason not to work Central, as if the staph infections and scabies don't already deter one from working there.

[jrsadowski]

Im not a police officer, however, Terry vs. Ohio???

[moparfan]

who needs a national police force when we have the aclu to watch everything we can and cannt do

[avalon42]

Playing the devil's advocate here...but it could be argued as an unequal application of the law due to the lower socioeconomic status of the homeless/transients.

What I would like to see snapshot statistics before and after this ruling.

[irish81]

I know there was a posting a few months back on hotels near the test site for LAPD but now I cant find them. Does anyone know a few places to stay that are fairly cheap?

[archercapt32]

Hi Irish pm sent!

[Kieth M.]

irish81 -

Here's the L.A. testing hotel discussion, from before....

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94044&highlight=otani

All the best,
Kieth M.

[DAL]

I have the right to perform a cursory frisk search on people that I have reason to believe to be dangerous, in possession of weapons or drugs (everyone in skid row)

That is not correct with respect to drugs. A cursory frisk (or pat down) is only for self protection, to guard against weapons.

[DAL]

Lets not forget the fact that most of these skiddies are on parole anyway so just about any search is good to go anyway. ACLU needs to die.

I believe that you have to kniow the person is on parole before conducting the search. You should ask first, in a leading manner, of course. E.g., "what are you on parole for"?

[bigcitypolice06]

I believe that you have to kniow the person is on parole before conducting the search. You should ask first, in a leading manner, of course. E.g., "what are you on parole for"?

This has been a source for much debate. I checked the legal sourcebook and ran it by the DA's office, and have yet to get a straight answer. I know for sure you can ask everyone in a vehicle on a traffic stop, however when jamming parolees there is alot of debate as to the questioning method that's used. I usually go with:
OFCR: "So what do time for?"
A-Hole: "robbery"
Ofcr: "How long ago you get out?"
A-Hole: "2 weeks"
Ofcr: "You in compliance with your parole stuff"
A-Hole: "Ya I check in every day"
Ofcr: " Ok hands on your head spread your legs"
Ofcr: "Why do you have a pipe...and dope...and a gun....and child porn on you?"
A-Hole: "Thats just how I roll you Know"
Ofcr: Ok get in the back of the car...

[Blizzination]

Bigcity...that cracked me up..thanks for making my morning..

that's just how I roll....God...so true.

[VChopefull]

This has been a source for much debate. I checked the legal sourcebook and ran it by the DA's office, and have yet to get a straight answer. I know for sure you can ask everyone in a vehicle on a traffic stop, however when jamming parolees there is alot of debate as to the questioning method that's used. I usually go with:
OFCR: "So what do time for?"
A-Hole: "robbery"
Ofcr: "How long ago you get out?"
A-Hole: "2 weeks"
Ofcr: "You in compliance with your parole stuff"
A-Hole: "Ya I check in every day"
Ofcr: " Ok hands on your head spread your legs"
Ofcr: "Why do you have a pipe...and dope...and a gun....and child porn on you?"
A-Hole: "Thats just how I roll you Know"
Ofcr: Ok get in the back of the car...


Hahahahahahahaha.....Not a LEO yet but a very humorus "back and forth" between Ofcr and suspect (AKA A-Hole).

[DAL]

This has been a source for much debate. I checked the legal sourcebook and ran it by the DA's office, and have yet to get a straight answer. I know for sure you can ask everyone in a vehicle on a traffic stop, however when jamming parolees there is alot of debate as to the questioning method that's used. I usually go with:
OFCR: "So what do time for?"
A-Hole: "robbery"
Ofcr: "How long ago you get out?"
A-Hole: "2 weeks"
Ofcr: "You in compliance with your parole stuff"
A-Hole: "Ya I check in every day"
Ofcr: " Ok hands on your head spread your legs"
Ofcr: "Why do you have a pipe...and dope...and a gun....and child porn on you?"
A-Hole: "Thats just how I roll you Know"
Ofcr: Ok get in the back of the car...

There are two parts here:
(1) Do you have to know that the person is on parole before searching?
(2) Can you ask him whether he is on parole?

The advice I gave is direct from the LA DA's Search and Seizure Seminar presented in October 2008.

Even if your questioning approach is dubious, your search is more likely to hold up than if you just assume the person is on parole.

[Berlioz]

I believe that you have to kniow the person is on parole before conducting the search. You should ask first, in a leading manner, of course. E.g., "what are you on parole for"?

Obviously. I wont usually go into a full on search before I know who Im dealing with. If they return to being on parole, its open game.

In regards to the pat-downs, like most of our job, its all in the articulation...people use/have drugs are also know to be dangerous and/or carry weapons...so if you are a known drug user or if i can articulate my belief that you are in possession of drugs, the you will be cuffed, searched, FI'd, ran, q&r's/Cited/Arrested. It stands up in court, too.....maybe not NOW, but it did, lol!

The article is wrong also. Talk to any officer whos worked Central before OCB was formed and they will tell you that the division has improved quite a bit.

[DAL]

In regards to the pat-downs, like most of our job, its all in the articulation...people use/have drugs are also know to be dangerous and/or carry weapons...so if you are a known drug user or if i can articulate my belief that you are in possession of drugs, the you will be cuffed, searched, FI'd, ran, q&r's/Cited/Arrested. It stands up in court, too.....maybe not NOW, but it did, lol!

This is a bit different than what you said initially:
"I have the right to perform a cursory frisk search on people that I have reason to believe to be dangerous, in possession of weapons or drugs (everyone in skid row)."

Legally, you cannot frisk someone because you have reason to believe he is carrying drugs. In addition, if you frisk someone for your own safety and discovery drugs, you will have to articulate why you had probable cause to believe that what you felt were drugs. I would not testify that my suspicion that he possessed drugs was the reason for the frisk.