Los Angeles Officers Suspended After Boy Is Wrongly Labeled a Gang Member

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/lapd-gang-database.html

Version 0 of 1.

More than a dozen Los Angeles police officers were suspended or reassigned after a Southern California woman reported that her son had been incorrectly labeled a gang member, unleashing a broader inquiry into whether officers were falsifying records, according to the authorities.

The Los Angeles Police Department opened an investigation early last year, when a mother in the San Fernando Valley approached a local police station to tell officers about a letter she had received saying that her son, a minor, had been identified as a gang member. She told a supervisor that he had been mislabeled, the Police Department said in a statement on Tuesday.

Such letters are required by state law, when an individual is slated, to be uploaded to CalGang, a state database that law enforcement officials say helps them fight gang activity, but that critics say encourages racial profiling and criminalizing normal social interactions.

When the supervisor reviewed body camera footage and car recordings, they did not match the documentation completed by an officer, according to the department. Over the following months, the investigation grew to encompass more than a dozen officers in the elite metro division who were suspected of misrepresenting information in field interview cards, the Police Department said.

In a statement, Chief Michel R. Moore emphasized the importance of public trust. “An officer’s integrity must be absolute,” he said. “There is no place in the department for any individual who would purposely falsify information on a department report.”

But the issues with incorrectly labeling people gang members extend far beyond falsifying field notes, according to Sean Garcia-Leys, a lawyer at the Urban Peace Institute. He said he had had dozens of clients over the past two years who had been wrongly added to CalGang.

“My first reaction really was, I’m pleased that the L.A.P.D. is finally seriously investigating these kinds of complaints,” Mr. Garcia-Leys said. The larger issue, he added, is that “police are being asked to guess if they are gang members based on a brief interaction.”

Because it’s highly unusual for a gang member to self-identify, investigators often consider details such as sports paraphernalia and tattoos to determine a gang affiliation, he said. In one case, Mr. Garcia-Leys said that the police had instructed his client to insult a local gang on camera. When he refused, officers identified him as associating with a gang member, he said. (It was only when the man filed a lawsuit that he was removed from the database, Mr. Garcia-Leys said.)

Melanie Ochoa, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, recalled a case in which a man in his 30s with no previous criminal history gave someone a ride a few blocks. “They put him in for associating with gang members and being in a gang area even though it was a major intersection,” she said.

Ms. Ochoa said the recent case in the San Fernando Valley underscored that increased regulations alone could not keep California residents from being wrongly identified as gang members. “No matter how good the standards for what’s required to put someone in the database, law enforcement agencies will fabricate information to get people in there if they want them in there,” she said.

Being labeled a gang member — and added to CalGang — has the potential to color every future interaction that person has with law enforcement, said Katharine Tinto, director of the Criminal Justice Clinic at University of California, Irvine School of Law. That person may be pulled over more frequently, face more serious charges if involved in a crime or be prioritized for deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, she said.

Several news media outlets suggested that the Los Angeles Police Department officers were encouraged to mark people as gang members during traffic stops in order to meet quotas. Josh Rubenstein, the department’s public information director, disputed those reports.

“There is no incentive to falsify a card,” he said, adding, “We have no idea what the motive was behind this.”

Reinforcing just how seriously the department takes such activity, he said, all involved officers have been assigned to inactive duty or removed from the field.

The investigation is expected to conclude within a year, Mr. Rubenstein said, adding that the consequences would depend on its results.

“Falsifying records is a fireable offense,” he said.