Thursday, April 17, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta

Sex Trafficked Boys Overlooked as Victims….Trials for Sheriff’s Department Members Indicted for Hiding Federal Informant Schedules for May…..Pulitzers…and More

April 15th, 2014 by Celeste Fremon


SEXUALLY TRAFFICKED BOYS ARE SEEN AS VICTIMS LESS OFTEN

It is heartening that kids who are involved in sex trafficking are now being seen—for the most part anyway—as victims to be protected and helped, rather than lawbreakers subject to arrest.

Unfortunately, this understanding that kids are the victims in the equation does not apply equally to both genders, writes Yu Sun Chin in his reports for the Juvenile Justice Exchange.

According to Chin, although boys represent over 50 percent of the kids commercially trafficked for sex in the U.S., they are still too often seen as perpetrators not victims by law enforcement.

Here’s a clip:

For years, the sex trade was ‘their’ problem, a heinous part of culture in poorer nations. But attention here to sex trafficking has slowly increased in recent years with the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and other federal state laws.

Still, males remain a largely invisible population within the dialogue on sex trafficking. According to a 2008 study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, in fact, boys comprised about 50 percent of sexually exploited children in a sample study done in New York, with most being domestic victims.

However, the percentage of male victims may be higher due to the underreported and subversive nature of the crime, said Summer Ghias, program specialist for the Chicago-based International Organization for Adolescents.

“We’re conditioned as a community to identify female victims more readily,” she said, “because that has been the more prominent focus of the anti-trafficking movement.”

Despite these high percentages of commercially sexually exploited boys, a 2013 study by ECPAT-USA indicates that boys and young men are rarely identified as people arrested for prostitution or rescued as human trafficking victims, and are arrested more for petty crimes such as shoplifting.

Experts say that the law enforcement’s attitudes toward male victims are still weighed down by gender biases in trafficking discourse, which pins females as victims and males as perpetrators. Therefore, male victims in custody often fall through the cracks of services that could be offered to help them because they are not properly assessed for sexual exploitation.


THOSE INDICTED FOR THE HIDING OF FEDERAL INFORMANT ANTHONY BROWN WILL BEGIN TRIAL IN MAY SAYS JUDGE

In a hearing on Monday afternoon, Federal Judge Percy Anderson ordered that trials begin in mid-May for LA Sheriff’s Department defendants charged for their alleged part in the hiding of FBI informant Anthony Brown.

At the same hearing, Anderson agreed to grant a motion to sever the trial of Deputy James Sexton from that of the six other defendants (lieutenants Greg Thompson and Stephen Leavins, plus two sergeants, Scott Craig and Maricella Long., and deputies Gerard Smith, Mickey Manzo.)

As expected, Anderson denied a list of other motions brought by attorneys representing Sexton and several of the others, including motions to dismiss charges. (WLA reported on some of the motions filed by defendants here and here.)

As the cases speed toward trial, the main question that hangs in the air is whether the U.S. Attorneys Office will eventually indict any of the higher-ups who are said to have ordered the hiding of Brown, or if only those allegedly following those orders (including whistleblower Sexton, who will now be tried separately from the other six) will be threatened with prison terms and felony records.


KPCC INTERVIEWS PAUL TANAKA

KPCC’s Frank Stoltze interviews Paul Tanaka as part of Stoltze’s continuing series on the LASD Sheriff’s candidates for KPCC.

Here’s a clip:

Early on, Tanaka had little interest in being a cop. It’s hard to imagine now, but the buttoned-down Tanaka once wore a ponytail. “A lot of people had long hair back in the 1970s,” he explains.

He also adhered to the cultural rules in his strict Japanese-American household in Gardena, earning a black belt in Aikito and respecting his parent’s wishes.

“In an Asian family, you’re going to be a doctor or an attorney or a CPA,” says Tanaka, sporting a dark suit and tie on a recent afternoon at his campaign headquarters in Torrance.

He was an “A” student, studying accounting at Loyola Marymount University and holding down two jobs — one as a janitor, one making sports trophies — when his life changed. He spent a day on patrol with a sheriff’s deputy as part of a class and fell in love with policing.

It took years for Tanaka’s father to fully accept his eldest son’s decision. The young man had to adjust too:”One of the more traumatizing things was I had to do was cut my hair.”

Early in his career, Tanaka says he faced racial epithets in a mostly white department. He ignored most, chalking it up to ignorance. Over the years, the certified public accountant gained a reputation as detail-oriented — a commander who knew more about your job than you did.

Tanaka grew close to Baca, who eventually appointed him undersheriff. Tanaka became the heir apparent. The jail violence scandal that surfaced three years ago changed all of that.

Did he know about deputy abuse of inmates when he ran the jails from 2005-07? Tanaka claimed ignorance to the Citizens Commission on Jail Violence.

“It was never brought to my attention,” he said in his testimony.

What about violent deputy cliques inside Men’s Central Jail?

“That was never, ever mentioned as a problem,” he said.


CANDIDATES FOR LA COUNTY SHERIFF CONTINUE TO UP THE ANTE WITH EACH OTHER IN DEBATE MONDAY

All seven candidates for the office of LA County Sheriff squared off again on Monday night. KNBC 4 reports on some fiery moments.

Last Monday night’s mistaken fatal shooting by sheriff’s deputies of aspiring television producer, 30-year-old John Winkler, during a hostage stand-off, could not help but provide an emotional backdrop for the debate, some of those present reported.


THE PULITZER PRIZES EVOLVE

Much is rightly being made over the fact that one of this year’s Pulitzer Prizes for journalism was awarded jointly to the Guardian US and the Washington Post for their coverage of the Edward Snowden/NSA revelations.

It is also notable, however, that the Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting went—not to any conventional news outlet—but to reporter Chris Hamby who writes for the Center for Public Integrity, an independent, non-profit news site that is one of many throughout the U.S. (WitnessLA included) that have filled in the gaps left as traditional news organizations cut back their coverage, often leaving vital issues underreported.

Both prizes are cheering signs.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While we’re on the subject of Pulitzers, I happen to heartily approve of the Pulitzer judges’ choice of Donna Tartt’s deliciously Dickensian novel The Goldfinch as the winner for the prize in Fiction.


And, speaking of literary prizes, here are the winners of the Los Angeles Times Book Prizes, announced this past Friday night.

(I was on the judging panel for the Current Interest Prize and my fellow judges and I are very proud of our winner—Sheri Fink for Five Days at Memorial: Life and Death in a Storm-Ravaged Hospital—as well as all five of our finalists.)

Posted in 2014 election, American artists, American voices, FBI, Future of Journalism, juvenile justice, LA County Jail, LASD, Paul Tanaka, U.S. Attorney, writers and writing | 8 Comments »

LA Sheriff’s Debaters Finally Start to Draw Blood…. & More

April 9th, 2014 by Celeste Fremon


If we are to judge by the last two debates featuring the men who hope to become the next LA County sheriff,
there is not a whole lot of difference between the candidates when it comes to…..well…just about anything.

They are all for a civilian oversight body to monitor the department, even if they differ on what legal powers that body should have. (And Pat Gomez would eliminate the newly-created but power-lite position of Inspector General altogether.) They think term limits for the office of sheriff would be swell. (They’d go for three terms.) They adore community policing. No, they don’t want to do ICE’s job for it. They’re longing for accountability, transparency, and to restore the public trust. They believe in educating people when they’re in jail. They would all rehire Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald, the Baca hire from the CDCR who is presently overseeing the department’s custody division.

And so on.

For a while, at the Tuesday night debate hosted by Loyola Marymount University, it was more of the same, despite the very capable efforts of the debate moderator, LMU prof Fernando Guerra.

Yes, some of the candidates brought up variations on the theme that showed they’d thought deeply on this or that topic, and were not merely a Johnny Come Lately.

There was also a little bit personal sniping. For instance, as it did on Sunday, the matter of who might or might not have ankle tattoos came up briefly. And Jim Hellmold attempted to set himself apart from the pack by repeatedly noting that he was the youngest of the candidates and implying that everyone else was…well…old.

Bob Olmsted had a bracing moment when the panel members were asked if there were deputy cliques or gangs within the organization.

“Absolutely we’ve got cliques,” he said, “and I’ve got some pictures.” With that Olmsted whipped out a couple of photos for the cameras filming the event, one showing a young Tanaka throwing a “C” for Carson sign while posed with a bunch of other then young department members. The second a photo of a drawing of a skull backed by a so called deadman’s hand, which is reportedly the tattoo design sported by members of one of the newer deputy gangs, the Jump Out Boyz.

But, mostly the sheriff hopefuls gave the impression that, when it came to the broad strokes of policy, there was more accord than difference.

Finally Guerra managed to break through the wall of sameness when he asked all six of the candidates to name what they saw as the number one scandal of all the department’s many problems.

(Only six were present as Lou Vince was absent)

Even then, for a minute it looked as though the group would homogenize this question too, when four in a row named the prime scandal as inmate abuse in the jails—although some gave edgier answers than others. (Tanaka and Hellmold both were reluctant to admit to any real corruption in the organization.)

Jim McDonnell said it was hard to choose, that there were so many scandals, and he talked of “the abuse of authority that’s been sanctioned up to the highest levels of the organization…”

Bob Olmsted too named abuse in the jails, but then he went further and said that the worst part of the whole thing was that the department hid what it was doing when the FBI began investigating, which resulted in indictments. “Three of the four supervisors out of the 20 who were indicted were from our criminal investigative unit. They were the ones who were supposed to be investigating, but they needed to be investigated and we were indicted.”

But it was Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers who finally drew his metaphorical stiletto and began slashing.

“Well,” he said drolly without so much as a telltale glance at his neighbor, who happened to be Paul Tanaka, “I think smuggling bullet proof vests to Cambodia was a pretty big deal.”

Then barely pausing for breath he continued. “But in terms of the single most defining moment of corruption and mismanagement, I’m going to have to go with the Anthony Brown case where at the highest level of our organization ordered deputies sergeants and lieutenants to hide an informant from the FBI, to pretend that he was released from our custody…. And to change his name and move him from facility to facility to the FBI couldn’t find him. I think it’s reprehensible that we have deputies, sergeants and lieutenants who were following orders from the highest levels of the organization…

“I’m told that the previous occupant of my office was giving the direction to hide this inmate from the FBI.
Those people [who were ordered to do the hiding] are indicted for federal crimes and they’re facing trial starting this May. And those people who gave them the orders, who gave them the directions… are walking around free.

“That to me is the defining moment of corruption and mismanagement of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.”

Boo-yaa!

And while we’re on the topic of dutiful order-followers in a paramilitary organization facing having their lives wrecked, not to mention real prison time, while those who actually gave the orders are thus far facing exactly zero consequences….oh, FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, are you listening…? You do plan to go higher with your indictments, right? Right????


AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE TOPIC OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, THERE’S THE MATTER OF 80 OF THE LAPD’S SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS BEING DISMANTLED AND THE FAILURE OF DEPARTMENT BRASS TO INVESTIGATE

This is not a heartening story.

The LA Times Joel Rubin has the rest of the details. Here’s a clip:

Los Angeles police officers tampered with voice recording equipment in dozens of patrol cars in an effort to avoid being monitored while on duty, according to records and interviews.

An inspection by Los Angeles Police Department investigators found about half of the estimated 80 cars in one South L.A. patrol division were missing antennas, which help capture what officers say in the field. The antennas in at least 10 more cars in nearby divisions had also been removed.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and other top officials learned of the problem last summer but chose not to investigate which officers were responsible. Rather, the officials issued warnings against continued meddling and put checks in place to account for antennas at the start and end of each patrol shift.

Members of the Police Commission, which oversees the department, were not briefed about the problem until months later. In interviews with The Times, some commissioners said they were alarmed by the officers’ attempts to conceal what occurred in the field, as well as the failure of department officials to come forward when the problem first came to light.


ONE TIME BACA’S BIGTIME HOLLYWOOD PAL, BRIEFLY TURNED TANAKA PAL, IS NOW SHERIFF’S CANDIDATE JAMES HELLMOLD’S VERY, VERY HELPFUL PAL

The New York Post has the story. (And why aren’t local LA outlets reporting on this? Just curious.)

Here’s a clip:

Hollywood producer and financier Ryan Kavanaugh is pushing to make some changes to LA law enforcement after ruffling the feathers of former LA Sheriff Lee Baca.

The Relativity CEO was accused last year of improperly landing a helicopter on a Sheriff’s Department helipad while visiting Paul Tanaka — a former undersheriff who was planning to run for Baca’s office, and whom Kavanaugh was assumed to be backing. (The LA district attorney dropped any criminal investigation over the chopper flap.)

But last week, Kavanaugh instead threw a fund-raiser for rival LA County Sheriff candidate James Hellmold. The event was hosted at Kavanaugh’s hanger at the Santa Monica airport, where guests including Ron Burkle and Leonardo DiCaprio chatted with Hellmold and his wife.

Posted in 2014 election, Board of Supervisors, FBI, LA County Jail, LAPD, LASD, U.S. Attorney | 47 Comments »

LAPD Wilshire Station Shooting, Debunking the “Superpredator,” Breaking the Cycle of Repeat Victimization…and More

April 8th, 2014 by Taylor Walker

GUNMAN OPENED FIRE IN LAPD WILSHIRE STATION, INJURED AN OFFICER

An LAPD officer was wounded in a shooting Monday night at the Wilshire station.

An unnamed gunman walked through the front doors and shot at two desk officers in the lobby. The officers returned fire and took down the gunman. One officer was shot seven times according to Chief Charlie Beck, but was saved by his vest and only sustained a shoulder wound. The gunman is in critical condition.

We’ll let you know as we know more. Our best wishes are with the officer and his family.

Jason Kandel, Andrew Blankstein and Beverly White have the story for NBC4. Here’s a clip:

A Los Angeles officer was shot and wounded by a gunman who walked into a police station lobby with “a complaint” and opened fire, officials said.

The officer, a seven-year veteran of the LAPD, was shot seven times – three times in the vest and four times in his extremities, officials said. He was taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

“He is in great spirits,” LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said outside the hospital. “Remarkable young man. Very, very lucky.”

The gunman was taken to the hospital in critical condition, Kato said.

The violence broke out at 8:30 p.m. at the LAPD’s West Traffic Division, which is housed in the Wilshire Division, in the Mid-City area of LA.


HISTORY OF THE “SUPERPREDATOR” OF THE 90′S

In the early 90′s a wave of teen violence prompted some criminologists and political scientists to forecast the emergence of a new breed of children—”superpredators”—impulsive kids without compassion who would commit innumerable violent crimes.

Their fear-mongering was perpetuated by many news sources and politicians, and prompted a string of reactionary and harmful juvenile justice laws across the country.

But instead of a horde of “superpredator” children, Department of Justice data showed that the teenage violent crime rate actually dropped a whopping two-thirds from 1994 to 2011.

As part of the RetroReport documentary series, the NY times has a video (above) and story by Clyde Haberman about the rise and fall of the “superpredator” mania and its repercussions. Here’s how it opens:

As the police and prosecutors in Brooklyn tell it, Kahton Anderson boarded a bus on March 20, a .357 revolver at his side. For whatever reason — some gang grudge, apparently — he pulled out the gun and fired at his intended target. Only his aim was rotten. The bullet struck and killed a passenger who was minding his own business several rows ahead: Angel Rojas, a working stiff holding down two jobs to feed his family of four.

Not surprisingly, the shooter was charged with second-degree murder. Not insignificantly, prosecutors said he would be tried as an adult. Kahton is all of 14.

That very young people sometimes commit dreadful crimes is no revelation. Nor is the fact that gang members are to blame for a disproportionate amount of youth violence in American cities. But it is worth noting that in Kahton’s situation, no one in authority or in the news media invoked a certain word from the past with galvanic potential. That word is “superpredator.”

Had this Brooklyn killing taken place 20 years ago, odds are that some people would have seized on it as more evidence that America was being overwhelmed by waves of “superpredators,” feral youths devoid of impulse control or remorse.

Their numbers were predicted as ready to explode cataclysmically. Social scientists like James A. Fox, a criminologist, warned of “a blood bath of violence” that could soon wash over the land. That fear, verging on panic, is the subject of this week’s segment of Retro Report, a series of video documentaries that examine major news stories from years ago and explore what has happened since.

What happened with the superpredator jeremiads is that they proved to be nonsense. They were based on a notion that there would be hordes upon hordes of depraved teenagers resorting to unspeakable brutality, not tethered by conscience. No one in the mid-1990s promoted this theory with greater zeal, or with broader acceptance, than John J. DiIulio Jr., then a political scientist at Princeton. Chaos was upon us, Mr. DiIulio proclaimed back then in scholarly articles and television interviews. The demographics, he said, were inexorable. Politicians from both major parties, though more so on the right, picked up the cry. Many news organizations pounced on these sensational predictions and ran with them like a punt returner finding daylight.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypse. Instead of exploding, violence by children sharply declined. Murders committed by those ages 10 to 17 fell by roughly two-thirds from 1994 to 2011, according to statistics kept by the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Mugged by reality, a chastened Mr. DiIulio has offered a mea culpa. “Demography,” he says, “is not fate.” The trouble with his superpredator forecast, he told Retro Report, is that “once it was out there, there was no reeling it in.”


REDUCING REPEAT VICTIMIZATION IN CALIFORNIA

Many Californians who experience repeat victimizations do not take advantage of trauma services according to a new report by Heather Warnken of Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute of Law and Social Policy at UC Berkeley (and commissioned by Californians for Safety and Justice). Prolonged and repeated victimization can have long-term, serious psychological consequences.

The report calls for things like increased access to trauma services in spaces that are not justice-system affiliated, and building trust between communities and law enforcement with officer training.

Here are the report’s key findings and recommendations:

The report led to the following key findings:

Many repeat victims do not access trauma services.

Repeat victims who utilized services often accessed them much later – often for reasons other than the original crime.

The failure or inability of a survivor to report a crime to law enforcement can jeopardize their ability to access services.

The collateral consequences to survivors grow without effective services and stability.

The report recommends:

Increasing state support for a diversity of trauma-recovery services, including more options in communities and at venues unaffiliated with the justice system;

Building trust with law enforcement through training and other methods to address the perceived “empathy divide;”

Allowing for multi-disciplinary, trauma-informed first-response teams; and

Promoting resource and referral counseling, and access to job-support, transitional housing and other longer-term resources necessary for stabilization.

KPPC’s Rina Palta has more on the report.


THE PROBLEM WITH PUNISHING INDIVIDUALS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE FAILURES

Criminal justice errors are not uncommon: prosecutorial misconduct and coerced false confessions land innocent people behind bars, and preventable deaths and injuries can and do occur in jails and prisons.

Stephen Handelman, executive editor of the Crime Report, says that targeting and punishing the rogue prosecutor or the jail guard who neglected the medical needs of an inmate does not actually do anything to fix the system that allowed the error.

By using a system-based approach to prevent misdeeds—like medical field uses—real and lasting reform can occur. Here’s how it opens:

Who should be blamed when an innocent person goes to prison? Or when an inmate with un-addressed mental health problems commits suicide?

If you just looked at newspaper headlines, or listened to angry legislators or advocacy groups, the answers seem simple.

There’s usually some “bad apple” —an overzealous prosecutor or careless jail guard—to pin the blame on.

But the problem with simple answers is that they can be misleading.

Especially when catastrophic mistakes such as a lifetime spent in prison for a crime that you didn’t commit— or even comparatively minor injustices, such as an innocent suspect who pleads guilty for lack of a good attorney—seem to recur throughout our criminal justice system.

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, by the end of 2013, 1,272 individuals were freed from prison after being found innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

Some believe this represents only a small percentage of those wrongfully behind bars today, since this figure is the result of painstaking work by the still-small “innocence movement” and relates mostly to serious criminal charges, such as murder.

Are they right? To what extent are our overloaded and resource-strained courts, prisons and jails evidence of flaws in the administration of justice rather than crime rates?

It’s entirely possible that system errors and oversights are “destroying tens of thousands of lives every year,” suggests Dr. Lucian Leape of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Dr. Leape admits he’s no criminal justice expert, but he’s worth listening to.

A few decades earlier, Dr. Leape discovered that mistakes in surgical and hospital care, which inadvertently killed thousands of patients annually, were preventable by addressing systemic flaws rather than by focusing on the actions of individual doctors or nurses.

For instance, putting two different types of medicines in packages that look almost identical could cause a hurried, stressed surgeon to reach for the wrong package, with disastrous results for a patient.

“We make mistakes because we’re human,” says Leape. “But punishing errors won’t work, especially when they’re unintended. You’ve got to quit trying to change (people) and change the system.”

The work of Leape and others led to the creation of the National Patient Safety Foundation, which established a template for detecting and correcting the often-overlooked errors in procedure or lapses in judgment that produce fatal results.

Leape’s estimate of the impact of criminal justice system errors is based on his own experience of the similarly complex and occasionally dysfunctional U.S. medical system. But we don’t have to accept his judgment alone.

Last weekend, some of the nation’s leading criminal justice players and scholars came to much the same conclusion during a two-day conference organized by the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

“If you limit yourself to going after the bad cop, the drunken sleepy lawyer, the corrupt judge, (you’re not affecting) the conditions that created them,” the conference was told by James Doyle, a Boston attorney who, as a recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ) fellow, helped spearhead a “systems approach” to correcting mistakes in justice.

Read on.


A QUICK RUNDOWN OF THE SHERIFF CANDIDATE DEBATE ON SUNDAY NIGHT

Sunday night, Los Angeles Sheriff candidates (minus Bob Olmsted) squared off in the latest debate. Sheriff hopefuls discussed deputy cliques and “bad behavior.”

The LA Times’ Cindy Chang has more on the debate. Here’s a clip:

Seeking to distance himself from the problems that led his former boss to resign, a candidate for Los Angeles County sheriff offered to roll up his pants and prove he does not have a tattoo.

Patrick Gomez’ offer at a debate in Pasadena on Sunday was followed by a challenge from the moderator to the other candidates — not necessarily to show skin but to say whether they had ever been members of a Sheriff’s Department clique.

Under former Sheriff Lee Baca, deputies allegedly formed cliques with names like “Grim Reaper” and “Regulators,” using tattoos to cement membership bonds. One clique, the “Jump Out Boys,” allegedly modified its tattoos to celebrate the shootings of suspects.

At Sunday’s debate, retired undersheriff Paul Tanaka admitted to having a tattoo from the Lynwood Vikings clique. When deputies first started acquiring ink in the 1980s, the tattoos were just that — tattoos, he said.

“Yes, I do have a tattoo. No, I never was part of a gang,” Tanaka said. “It did not become sinister until years later. If I knew then what I know now, I would have gotten a different tattoo.”

Todd Rogers, an assistant sheriff, said he was invited to join a clique and refused.

Deputies who were not members were “treated like second-class citizens,” said Rogers, who joined the department 29 years ago. “Anybody who denies it is living in fantasyland, and I don’t mean the one at Disneyland.”

The next debate will be tonight (Tuesday) at Loyola Marymount University. (More info here.)

Posted in criminal justice, juvenile justice, LAPD, LASD, psychology, Trauma, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Opposing Factions in LASD Deputy Union Mud Wrestle for Power with Big $$$ at Stake

April 2nd, 2014 by Celeste Fremon


ALADS—THE LASD DEPUTY UNION—IS IN THE MIDST OF A HUGE TUG OF WAR WITH THE FATE OF $2.5 MILLION IN CAMPAIGN PAC MONEY AT STAKE

Two factions on the board of directors of the large, wealthy and powerful LASD Deputies union—ALADS (Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs )—are at war with each other for control of the union.

One of the things at issue in the tug of war for control of the 7200 member organization, is oversight of the reportedly more than $2.5 million in campaign PAC money that could be parcelled out with significant effect to a candidate or candidates in the upcoming races for LA County Supervisor and for Sheriff.

Most watching the melee believe that it is the selection of the sheriff of Los Angeles County that that could be materially affected by who comes out on top.

It is after all the board of the directors that has the last word on where the treasure chest of PAC money goes.

In other words, this little internecine struggle is potentially a very high stakes game.

In one of the skirmishes last week, one faction claiming to represent the union filed suit against two members of the opposing faction for alleged “abuse of fiduciary responsibility” and for the “misappropriation” of $100,000 of ALADS funds.

The two who were being sued, responded by having one of their attorneys send a letter on ALADS letterhead to the Bureau of Labor and Compliance of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, maintaining that their faction had legal control of the organization, and that it was the lawsuit-weilding group that had illegally grabbed union funds to hire its lawyers.

Are you confused yet?

Okay, let’s back up a bit.


THE BACK STORY—-OR AT LEAST SOME OF IT

You may remember that when we last visited the bizarre warren of high drama and bad behavior that the ALADS board has become, the two factions were just beginning to wrestle for power.

One faction is led by the current board president Armando Macias— who, as it happens, is reportedly not legally able to serve as board president, according the ALADs bylaws.

It seems that Macias did not attend enough of certain meetings that he was required to attend to hold office, so was removed from his position as president by the other group last month. But he declined to make a graceful exit, and instead has hired a lawyer—or possibly several lawyers—to support his legitimacy.

He is joined in his quest by legally elected Vice President Bruce Nance—plus two others.

The second faction—namely the one opposing Macias—appears to be led by the former board president, Floyd Hayhurst, who is also legally hampered since he has retired and thus is no longer a county employee. This means, although he may serve on the board, he may not vote. Hayhurst is reported to be voting anyway.

In other words, neither of these factions seems to have a firm grip on the legal high ground.

Nevertheless, most of the rest of the seven-member ALADS board has lined up behind one or the other of the combatants— Macias or Hayhurst—-with much bitter squabbling and legal postering the result.

To add to the mix, Hayhurst (the former ALADS Prez) appears to be angling to be appointed by the board as executive director of the organization, a powerful position which, at the moment, is vacant—-and which also might conceivably give him access to the sought after ALADS PAC money.

Hayhurst is reported to be a longtime supporter of former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, who is running for sheriff, and who has been actively angling for union PAC money for a long time (as we wrote about here)

It is not clear whom Macias supports (rumors abound on that matter), although VP Bruce Nance has declared himself to be opposed to Tanaka’s candidacy.

It’s important to note that, although last month, the union’s political committee chose not endorse or to give any money to candidates for sheriff until after the primary (as we reported here), the board of directors has the power to override that decision.


LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST UNION PREZ & VICE PREZ FOR ALLEGEDLY SNATCHING $100K IN UNION FUNDS TO HIRE LAWYER (OR LAWYERS)

To bring you up to date, according to the lawsuit, (which you’ll find attached below), ousted board president Macias, and board VP Nance, requested, but originally were blocked from acquiring, $100,000 in board funds to pay the attorney that they have hired to get Macias reinstated as president, which frankly sounds like a losing battle.

The two insist that they have the authorization to request and receive the funds as they are acting in the board’s interest. Since approximately 50 percent of the voting board (Hayhurst’s group) seems to think otherwise, this seems like a questionable legal position.

Of course, it’s no more questionable than Hayhurst and Company filing a lawsuit against Macias and Nance, and claiming they are doing so in behalf of all of ALADS (and reportedly using ALADS funds to pay their lawyers).

Not to be outdone, when Macias and Nance could not get anyone to write them a $100,000 check out of the union’s general fund, despite much reported hectoring and pestering, they managed to snatch the $100K out of the union’s campaign fund—namely the very same PAC money that one or more sheriff’s candidates would like to get their personal mitts on.

As we mentioned before, the matter of a sheriff’s candidate receiving some of the campaign bucks is thought to be the point of this power struggle.

(For more on the lawsuit, I recommend that you read the complaint itself, starting about midway on Page 3 to the top of Page 12.)

Here’s the complaint: ALADS Lawsuit 4-27-2014

And for more of the Macias/Nance perspective, read the letter from Macias’ attorney Steve Ipsen (a former LA prosecutor who now presents himself as “general counsel” for ALADS), which you may find here: Dept. of Labor Letter

Did I mention that each of these factions now has competing ALADS websites?

Here’s the Macias & Co. website.

And here’s the Hayhurst group’s site.

Members of the ALADS rank and file with whom we spoke seemed generally dismayed with all the squabbling. “With these clowns fighting, we all lose,” said one LASD deputy.

Law enforcement experts outside the organization suggest that the ALADS struggle is yet another symptom of the problems in the sheriff’s department that continue to emerge.

“To be honest, I think it’s one more thing shows the depth of dysfunction,” said one non-LASD law enforcement source. “It’s sad because it hurts all the good deputies who are just trying to do their jobs.”

Posted in 2014 election, LASD, Paul Tanaka, unions | 51 Comments »

State Sen. Leland Yee Arrested in Federal Corruption Sting, Sheriff Campaign Fundraising Update…and More

March 27th, 2014 by Taylor Walker

CALIFORNIA SEN. LELAND YEE INDICTED ON CORRUPTION CHARGES

State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) was arrested Wednesday morning as part of an FBI corruption sting operation, along with “Shrimp Boy,” head of an international crime ring, and 24 others. Yee, who is was running for California Sec. of State, has, among other things, been accused of discussing gun trafficking (with an undercover FBI agent) in exchange for campaign donations.

We at WLA are saddened by this news, as Yee has authored a number of important juvenile justice and foster care bills (some of which we have pointed to here and here).

The LA Times’ Scott Gold, Joe Mozingo and Maura Dolan have the story. Here are some clips:

An affidavit filed in federal court in San Francisco by FBI Special Agent Emmanuel V. Pascua said there was probable cause to believe that Yee had conducted wire fraud and had engaged in a conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and illegally import firearms.

Yee, 65, was taken into custody in San Francisco on Wednesday and was seen being loaded into an unmarked law enforcement vehicle under an umbrella, his wrists handcuffed behind his back. He was set to be released on $500,000 bond after surrendering his passport.

The affidavit paints a portrait of Yee that is by turns seedy and bumbling, and one deeply at odds with the high-minded image he had long cultivated. Yee, a candidate for secretary of state, is accused of being willing to take varied and numerous steps to solicit campaign donations and sidestep legal donation limits.

For instance, he is accused of seeking an official state Senate proclamation in the spring of 2013 praising the Ghee Kung Tong Freemason lodge in San Francisco. Yee sought the proclamation, according to the court complaint, in exchange for a $6,800 donation to one of his campaigns — a donation that was paid by an undercover FBI agent.

The organized crime figure known as Shrimp Boy, whose name is Raymond Chow, identifies himself as the “dragon head” of that Freemason organization on his Facebook page. The indictment says that Chow, 54, whose criminal history includes racketeering and robbery, has a position of “supreme authority” in the Triad, an international organized crime group.

Yee is also accused of brokering an introduction between a prospective campaign donor and state legislators who had influence over medical marijuana legislation. It allegedly came in exchange for cash campaign donations that far exceeded legal limits — and were paid by the FBI.

The affidavit says that in August 2013, a prominent California political consultant who had been working to raise money for Yee’s campaigns told a prospective donor — an undercover federal agent — that Yee “had a contact who deals in arms trafficking.”

In exchange for campaign contributions, according to the affidavit, Yee would “facilitate a meeting with the arms dealer” so that the donor could buy a large number of weapons. The firearms would be imported through a port in Newark, N.J. At one meeting, the affidavit said, Yee and the prospective donor discussed “details of the specific types of weapons.”

All told, 26 people were identified as having violated federal statutes in the complaint. It was unclear how many were in custody. They were accused of participating in a free-ranging criminal ring that dabbled in a spectrum of activity, from illegal marijuana “grows” to a scheme to transport stolen liquor to China.

Read the rest of this strange and disappointing tale.

The San Jose Mercury’s Aaron Kinney looks from a different angle at Yee’s background and political history in light of Wednesday’s indictments. Here’s how it opens:

He was the first Asian-American speaker pro tempore of the California Assembly and a source of pride to many in the Bay Area’s thriving Chinese community. After rising to the highest ranks of the state Senate, he had a good shot at becoming California’s next secretary of state.

But Sen. Leland Yee’s political life effectively ended Wednesday when he was allegedly caught in a sordid web of murderous gangsters, gun runners and narcotics traffickers. And the breadth of the federal charges against him left his colleagues in the Legislature almost speechless.

“He’s been a leader on human services, foster care and juvenile justice issues,” said Jim Beall, D-San Jose. “For me, to see this happen to someone with that record, I just can’t understand it. I can’t comprehend it at all.”

The Democratic Party establishment, however, never really trusted the enigmatic Yee. That much became clear when Yee failed to gain a single endorsement from a top Democrat during his unsuccessful 2011 campaign for San Francisco mayor.

Born in China, Yee came to San Francisco when he was 3. He studied at UC Berkeley and received a doctorate in child psychology from the University of Hawaii. He began his political career in 1988 on the board of the San Francisco Unified School District.

In 1996, the child psychologist was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, where he began pushing for open government with his Sunshine Ordinance and established his independence from Mayor Willie Brown. He carried that reputation for bucking the party line to the Assembly in 2002, but his opponents claimed and his colleagues whispered that his true allegiances were to special interests and pay-to-play politics.

Mike Nevin, a former San Mateo County supervisor who ran against Yee for state Senate in 2006, echoed a common refrain in 2011 when he told the Bay Area News Group that Yee was an opportunist with no substance.

“He’s a personable enough guy,” said Nevin, who died in 2012. “There’s just no ‘there’ there.”


TANAKA TAKES THE LEAD IN LA SHERIFF RACE FUNDRAISING, NEARLY DOUBLING CLOSEST COMPETITOR

Former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka has raised about $648,000 in sheriff campaign funds, almost double that of candidate with the next highest total, according to the latest fundraising records.

The candidates with the second and third highest numbers are Assistant Sheriff James Hellmold, who has raised $330,676, and Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell with $307,000. (It should be noted that both Hellmold and McDonnell—along with Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers—entered the race when former Sheriff Lee Baca announced his retirement January, months after the other four candidates began raising campaign money.)

The LA Times’ Robert Faturechi has an informative rundown on the fundraising numbers. Here’s a clip:

While Tanaka is leading the field, many of the race’s higher-profile candidates only entered the race in January and have had less time to raise money. During the most recent period, Tanaka came in third in fundraising.

During that period, which started in January when the current field of candidates was set, Assistant Sheriff Jim Hellmold led the field, bringing in over $330,676 in total contributions. His records show he has more than $205,000 in cash on hand, with less than $11,200 in outstanding debt.

Hellmold was one of the two internal candidates former Sheriff Lee Baca tapped to replace him.

Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell came in second during the most recent period, raising more than $307,000. He’s got over $132,500 in cash left, but roughly $277,000 in outstanding debt.

His donor list included high-profile backers such as current and former district attorneys Jackie Lacey and Steve Cooley.

Tanaka raised just over $266,885 during this period, which ended in mid-March. He has more than $186,440 in cash on hand, but also more than $91,000 in debt.

Records show he accepted contributions from several sheriff’s officials who left the department under a cloud, including a captain blamed for problems with jail abuse, a charity director ousted because of her ties with pot dispensaries and a captain who prosecutors said funneled secret information to an alleged Compton drug trafficker.

Read on for Todd Rogers, Bob Olmsted, Lou Vince, and Patrick Gomez’s numbers.


OP-ED: JURISDICTIONS SHOULD EVALUATE JUVENILE PROBATION DEPTS. AND COURT SERVICES TO BETTER SERVE KIDS

In an op-ed for the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, John Tuell says that juvenile probation and court departments across the nation don’t collect enough data to make sure that the services they provide are effective, and that system-involved kids are getting the help they need. Tuell, the Executive Director for the Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice, suggests jurisdictions should follow the lead of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (part of Greater New Orleans) where a system-wide probation evaluation resulted in a lowered recidivism rate, access to evidence-based treatment, and 16% fewer kids in lock-up.

Here’s a clip from Tuell’s op-ed:

Do current policies and procedures support effective practice? In many departments it is unclear what outcomes probation officers are seeking — or even that client outcomes should be the focus of their activities. Without this focus, probation officers often turn their attention to meeting contact frequency and paperwork requirements, which often has little if any impact on adolescent behavior.

Traditional interactions between probation officers and young people are frequently brief and focus too heavily on monitoring compliance and court-imposed conditions rather than developing rapport and supporting an intrinsic motivation to improve behavior. This is truly a missed opportunity, as current research suggests the relationship established between probation officers and youth is of the utmost importance in securing positive outcomes.

Are standardized and validated risk and needs assessments used to guide decision-making and planning? Even where such assessments are routinely used, case plans and targeted treatment interventions are often not developed in accordance with the results. Research indicates that too often when forming treatment plans, priority is given to court mandated interventions rather than what is indicated by assessments. Despite the best intentions of probation officers, the failure to use the assessment findings to inform structured professional judgment undermines the ability to ameliorate the risks for re-offending. This often translates to decreased community safety and a deeper penetration of the youth into the costly deeper-end alternatives of the juvenile justice system.

Do programs reflect an evidence-base of efficacy? Often, programs are adopted without sufficient consideration of empirical research regarding effectiveness of the program with the specific population being referred. The National Academy of Sciences, in a recent and comprehensive report, urges that “Programs for delinquents, whether evidence-based or not, should be subjected to rigorous evaluation to determine whether or not they are helpful, not just assumed to be so.” Data collection, management and analysis efforts are underutilized in routine oversight of program and department activities. The evaluation process frequently focuses only on outputs and not outcomes and is not effectively incorporated into policy and program reviews.

Our collective failure to consider these key aspects have resulted in less than ideal outcomes for youth involved with probation and court service interventions.

Posted in FBI, juvenile justice, LASD, Paul Tanaka | 8 Comments »

Holder & Duncan Shocked at Pre-School Discipline #’s….Child Abuse Deaths Up….Looking at Sheriff Candidate Bob Olmsted….and More

March 24th, 2014 by Celeste Fremon



ERIC HOLDER & ARNE DUNCAN SHOCKED AT SUSPENSION OF PRESCHOOLERS

This past Friday the Civil Rights division of the US Department of Education released a report detailing the disturbing number of suspensions and other forms of discipline in American schools. The statistics on preschool suspensions, in particular, were so high that they succeeded in shocking the US Attorney General and the Secretary of Education.

The Center for Public Integrity’s Susan Ferris has the story. Here’s a clip:

Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan expressed shock at data released Thursday showing that thousands of preschool kids were suspended nationwide during the 2011-2012 school year. The suspensions fell heavily on black children, who represented 18 percent of preschool enrollment yet 48 percent of all suspensions.

“I was stunned—I was stunned—that we were suspending and expelling four-year-olds,” Duncan said at a Washington D.C. elementary school, where he and Holder discussed findings of the latest Civil Rights Data Collection by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The survey showed that nearly 5,000 preschool students were suspended in the 2011-12 academic year.

“This preschool suspension issue is mind-boggling,” Duncan said. “And we need to as a nation find a way to remedy that tomorrow.”

Duncan said training is needed at schools that suspend large numbers of kids at all grade levels to demonstrate a “better way” of handling problem behavior. “We know there is a correlation between out-of-school suspensions and ultimately locking people up,” Duncan said. “And folks don’t like it when we talk about it. But for far too many children and communities the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ is real.”

Here’s the report.


SAME DATA FINDS AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESCHOOLERS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE SUSPENDED

Jesse Holland of the Associated Press looks deeper into the racial disparities in school suspensions found in the recently-released Dept. of Education report, including suspensions in the nation’s preschools, where African American preschoolers account for a stunning 48 percent of suspensions.

Here’s a clip:

Advocates long have said get-tough suspension and arrest policies in schools have contributed to a “school-to-prison” pipeline that snags minority students, but much of the emphasis has been on middle school and high school policies. This was the first time the department reported data on preschool discipline.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration issued guidance encouraging schools to abandon what it described as overly zealous discipline policies that send students to court instead of the principal’s office. But even before the announcement, school districts have been adjusting policies that disproportionately affect minority students.

Overall, the data show that black students of all ages are suspended and expelled at a rate that’s three times higher than that of white children. Even as boys receive more than two-thirds of suspensions, black girls are suspended at higher rates than girls of any other race or most boys.


ALARMING SPIKES IN CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT IN VARIOUS STATES

The Wall Street Journal reports about the frightening rise in child abuse deaths that is getting lawmakers to pay attention. Since the WSJ is hidden behind a pay wall, The Crime Report summarizes the story. Here’s a clip:

Seventy-eight children died in Florida last year as a result of abuse or neglect—36 of whom had prior involvement with the state Department of Children and Families, says the Wall Street Journal. The string of deaths triggered public outcry, plunged the state’s child-welfare system into crisis and led to the resignation of the agency’s secretary. Now, the Florida legislature has made overhauling the system one of its top priorities in the session that began this month. Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican seeking re-election this year, has called for nearly $40 million in additional funding. Other states and localities are embroiled in similar controversies. In Massachusetts, the September disappearance of a 5-year-old boy, who is feared dead, went unnoticed by the state’s child-welfare agency for three months, prompting the governor to order an independent review. In California, the brutal death of an 8-year-old boy allegedly abused by his caregivers led Los Angeles County supervisors to create a commission on child protection that is due to issue recommendations next month…..


KPCC’S FRANK STOLTZE PROFILES BOB OLMSTED

KPCC’s Frank Stoltze has a new profile of retired LA County Sheriff’s Department commander Bob Olmsted. That makes three candidates that Stoltze has interviewed and profiled. (He’s also done stories on candidates Jim McDonnell and James Hellmold.)

The profiles aren’t long but they’re smart, featuring those who express pros and cons on each man.

You can find the podcast here, and here’s a clip from the written version of the Olmsted story:

Whistleblowing cops usually end up as pariahs. Bob Olmsted is no different.

“I’ve got a problem with a guy who runs to the FBI,” says retired Sheriff’s Lieutenant Craig Ditsch. “We have some very good people who have been indicted.”

A federal grand jury has indicted 20 current or former sheriff’s officials on civil rights and corruption charges – in part because of Olmsted. Most of the charges relate to excessive use of force against jail inmates, or efforts to cover it up.

Now, Olmsted is using his whistleblower past to distinguish himself among the seven candidates hoping to succeed former Sheriff Lee Baca as head of one of the nation’s largest law enforcement agencies.

Olmsted once oversaw Men’s Central Jail as a commander, and went to his superior seeking to remove a problem captain. When Olmsted didn’t get the help, he went higher.

“I told my chief, ‘I’m going over your head,’” Olmsted recounts. He sounds like a worried parent when he describes the corrosive effect of bad deputies.

“Who is protecting these young guys, the good guys?” he asks. “Nobody.”

In 2011, when Baca and his former undersheriff, Paul Tanaka (now a candidate for sheriff), refused to help, according to Olmsted, he went to the FBI. Olmsted had just retired from the department.

Last summer, before Baca abruptly resigned and a slew of other candidates jumped into the race, Olmsted announced his run for sheriff. It was a bold move by a political novice against a powerful incumbent.

“It was my duty to run,” Olmsted says.

[SNIP]

While many current and former deputies loathe the idea of a whistleblower becoming sheriff, retired Commander Joaquin Herran is a proud supporter of Olmsted.

“He had the guts to go do the right thing for the right reason,” Herran says. “Other people did not.”


AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE TOPIC, HERE’S WHAT THE DAILY NEWS SAYS ABOUT THE LASD SHERIFF CANDIDATES AND THE RACE

The Daily News’ Christina Villacourte interviews experts about what the voters need to look for as they contemplate whom to choose as LA County’s new sheriff, and talks briefly to the candidate themselves.

Here’s a clip:

[Laurie] Levenson, the criminal law professor, said the new sheriff must meet stringent criteria.

“I think integrity is key,” she said. “It should be somebody who’s experienced in law enforcement, and who has the confidence of law enforcement personnel.”

“He should be a good manager, politically savvy, and with a great deal of courage to take on the different issues that confront the county — from homeland security to modern approaches toward law enforcement, even inmate rehabilitation and penal reform,” she added.

If a candidate were to win the majority of votes on June 3, the county Board of Supervisors could remove interim Sheriff John Scott, and appoint the sheriff-elect to lead the department immediately. If no candidate exceeds 50 percent, the top two would face a runoff election on Nov. 4 and the winner would be sworn in Dec. 1.

If voters choose poorly, the consequences can be costly — literally.

“County taxpayers paid about $40 million last year in settlements and jury verdicts for illegal behavior on the part of the Sheriff’s Department,” American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Peter Eliasberg said.


Pre-art photo of preschool kids from PreschoolMatters.org

Posted in 2014 election, DCFS, Education, Foster Care, LASD, School to Prison Pipeline, Youth at Risk, Zero Tolerance and School Discipline | 34 Comments »

Sheriff’s Candidates Wax Progressive at Debate….Tanaka’s a No-Show….Eric Previn Wants 2 be Supe…& More

March 21st, 2014 by Celeste Fremon

SHERIFF’S CANDIDATES GET NOTABLY PROGRESSIVE AND PAUL TANAKA PULLS A LAST MINUTE NO-SHOW AT THE 2ND BIG PUBLIC DEBATE

Mercado La Paloma in South LA was jammed Thursday night as five of the seven candidates running for LA County Sheriff took their seats for the second public debate, and answered questions on such topics as alternative sentencing, building new jails, immigration enforcement, data gathering on stop & frisk, and more—all topics to which the five men gave consistently progressive-leaning answers that featured more agreement than difference.

For instance, the candidates were asked if they were in favor of solving the jail overcrowding problem by building new jails?

By and large they are not. They’d rather manage the jail population by finding appropriate therapeutic housing for the mentally ill who routinely turn up in the jails, and most favored some kind of alternate sentencing and pretrial release.

Bob Olmsted wants to create a special court for the mentally ill.

“We need to free the bed space for those who really need to be locked up,” he said.

“We need community based mental health clinics,” agreed Jim McDonnell.

Jim Hellmold and Lou Vince said no to any kind of jail expansion. “Once we do that, those beds are always going to be filled,” said Vince.

“Community based alternatives can reduce recidivism by ten or twenty percent,” said Todd Rogers and then proceeded to expand enthusiastically on the topic.

The candidates also favored a more appropriate, family-friendly environment for women who are locked up.

“Right now our women are housed in facilities that are intended for men in complete lockdown,” said Hellmold.

All the candidates were roundly in favor of a robust citizen oversight body for the LASD

And so it went on topic after topic. While there were degrees of difference, there was more often agreement that leaned in a distinctly reformist direction.

“They were more progressive in many cases than the majority of the board of supervisors,” said So Cal ACLU legal director, Peter Eliasberg, after the questioning was over. (The ACLU was one of the event’s sponsors.) “For example, there was a real unanimity in the suggestion that LA is incarcerating way too many people. Whereas what appears to be the board’s response, which is to build more jail beds, that’s clearly not what these candidates want to be doing.”


WHILE 5 CANDIDATES OPINED, 2 CANDIDATES WERE MISSING

Two candidates in the field, however, were not available for comment.

Pat Gomez had another event he felt he had to attend so wasn’t able to take part in the debate, but according to Eliasberg, Gomez notified the debate staff a week or two in advance.

Paul Tanaka, in contrast, cancelled “because of a conflict” at exactly 12:37 pm on the day of the event, said Eliasberg.



AND IN RELATED NEWS: AD HOC WATCHDOG ERIC PREVIN RUNS FOR SUPERVISOR

Eric Previn, our favorite ad hoc LA County watchdog, would now like to join the ranks of those he has previously enjoyed hectoring mightily on regular basis.

Hillel Aron (whom we’re happy to note will now be writing full time for the LA Weekly) has the story. Here’s a clip:

Eric Preven isn’t like other gadflies, those full-time roustabouts who skulk the halls of L.A. government making public comment after comment until every bureaucrat is ready to put a gun to his or her head. Preven is different; he’s… well, he’s cleaner. And more normal looking. And: Preven digs up good dirt.

Inspired by something weird that was done to Preven’s mom’s beloved labrador a few years ago (by L.A. County Animal Control), he’s acquired a compulsion to appear each Tuesday to castigate the five powerful members of the County Board of Supervisors, who oversee government programs affecting 10 million people*, control a budget of about $25 billion – and enjoy power and authority virtually unrivaled in California.

They meet Preven with a bitter indifference or, more often, open disdain. But now, the biggest thorn in the Supervisors’ sides is running to replace Zev Yaroslavsky, so he can join the bunch he taunts with surprisingly well-informed criticisms and news scoops.

Here’s Previn in high theatrical form.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILLS & BUDGET PRIORITIES TO WATCH in 2014

Californians for Safety and Justice, a non-profit that gives voice to crime victims and brings them together with community leaders, policymakers, law enforcement and more, has created a wish list of 2014 bills and budget priorities to keep an eye on.

Here is a representative sampling of the items on their list:

BILLS

AB 1919 (V.M. Perez) – Increase the Use of Risk Assessments: Research shows that we reduce repeat offenses when people in the justice system are matched with programming and supervision determined by an individual risk and needs assessment. This bill will encourage counties to use a validated risk and needs assessment for people in their local justice system.

AB 2612 (Dababneh) – Increase Access to Drug Treatment Programs: Nearly two-thirds of all jail inmates suffer from a substance abuse disorder, and, if unaddressed, such disorders drive criminal behavior. With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, California has an opportunity to increase the use of federal Medi-Cal dollars to fund drug treatment programs as an effective alternative to warehousing people in jails. This bill would address existing barriers to increased placement in residential programs.

SB 466 (DeSaulnier) – Creating the California Institute for Criminal Justice Policy: This bill would create a nonpartisan, independent institute to conduct timely research on criminal justice and public safety issues. Its primary responsibility will be creating a Master Plan for California Public Safety based on research and evidence-based practices in the field, and the Institute will also analyze any criminal justice bill to determine its effectiveness, cost-benefit and suitability within the Master Plan.

BUDGET PRIORITIES

Help Crime Victims Recover, Avoid Repeat Victimization by Expanding Trauma Recovery: Victims often experience long-term effects, including trauma and mental health conditions. Left unaddressed, these conditions can impact victims’ ability to recover and may lead to financial problems, mental health issues, substance abuse, depression and further victimization. The existing system can be confusing to access and often only offers short-term support. The Trauma Recovery Center model takes a holistic approach to healing the person in a welcoming and safe environment that provides long-term support.

Improve the Outcomes for Women and Families via Alternative Custody Programs: Research has shown that women in the justice system who maintain a relationship with their children are less likely to reoffend, and their children are less likely to suffer trauma and to be incarcerated as adults. By implementing programs that allow women who have committed nonviolent, non-serious to serve their time in alternative custody programs, we can reduce crime and population pressures on prisons and jails.

Ensure Structured Reentry to Reduce Recidivism by Expanding Split Sentences: The first few weeks an individual is released from prison or jail is a crucial time. Structured reentry, through the use of reentry services and supervision, can reduce the likelihood of reoffending and increase public safety. Under Public Safety Realignment, some people are serving their entire sentence in jail and have no support or supervision upon release. By making split sentences the default (unless a judge rules otherwise out of the interest of public safety), we can ensure individuals have a more effective reintegration into the community.

Reduce Jail Pressures, Costs by Incentivizing the Use of Pretrial Programs: Using jail space to house low-risk people awaiting trial is expensive and paid for public safety. For low-risk people not yet convicted of a crime, evidence-based pretrial programs can increase court appearances, reduce recidivism and save valuable public safety dollars.

Click here for the rest..


TREATING PREGNANT WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS

Dr. Corazon Navarro has been treating pregnant state prison inmates since 1987. She is the OB/GYN at the California Institute for Women in Chino.

In KPCC’s First Person project, Navarro tells about her work and what she loves about it.


Posted in 2014 election, immigration, LA County Board of Supervisors, LASD, pretrial detention/release, prison, prison policy, Realignment, Sentencing | 22 Comments »

LA County Sheriff’s Deputies Union Will Not Endorse a Candidate Until After the Primary

March 17th, 2014 by Celeste Fremon


We have learned from multiple sources inside the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
, the powerful union that represents LASD’s deputies, that they will not be endorsing any candidate for the sheriff’s race until after the primary election in June.

The importance of an endorsement by the deputies’ union—which is commonly known as ALADS—goes well beyond the vote of confidence that an endorsement conveys. In most cases, it also means that the chosen candidate also receives a sizable campaign donation.

And how large a donation are we talking about?

According to sources close to the endorsement process, a candidate for public office—especially a candidate for the office of Los Angeles County Sheriff—could potentially receive between $1 million to $2.5 million for his or her campaign coffers.

In other words, ALADS could plunk down a pile of cash big enough to be a game changer.

The endorsement process for the office of sheriff began on February 19 at a special ALADS forum where six out of the seven candidates for the LASD’s top job gave their pitches and fielded questions.

After the forum, the deputies had just under two weeks to cast their ballots for the candidate they thought the union ought to support.

In order to trigger an automatic endorsement, one candidate has to get at least 50 percent of the rank-and-file’s vote.

For some years it was thought that undersheriff Paul Tanaka was nearly a lock for the ALADS endorsement, along with a healthy chunk of their campaign money. [Here is WLA's coverage on the issue of Tanaka an the union money.]

But when on March 10, the ALADS Political Endorsement Committee tabulated the the 890 votes cast by union members, no single candidate received the needed 50 percent.

(Only about 12 percent of the more than 7200 deputy membership usually votes.)

Some committee members were surprised to find that department outsider Long Beach police chief Jim McDonnell took first place in the straw poll, especially considering that Paul Tanaka had produced such a large and enthusiastic group of supporters at the candidates’ forum, and seemed to be lobbying the hardest for the campaign money.

The details of the vote count was as follows:

Jim McDonnell – 203
Paul Tanaka – 184
Bob Olmsted – 168
Todd Rogers – 163
Jim Hellmold – 144
Pat Gomez – 26
Lou Vince – 2

Even without a majority, the endorsement committee could conceivably have voted to give an endorsement anyway—to whomever they deemed the best choice, (subject to approval of the ALADS board of directors). But the committee members decided not to do so.


POWER STRUGGLE AT THE UNION

Meanwhile, in related news, a power struggle among the union’s board members has resulted in ALADS’ board president being replaced four times in the past week or so. (It may be five times by the time you read this. We’re losing count.)

This game of musical chairs among union executives was first reported by the LA Times last week, after the union issued an announcement stating that the board had removed ALADS president, Armando Macias, because Macias had not attended the requisite number of a certain kind of union meetings, as required in the ALADS’ by-laws.

But then Macias, who had replaced, former ALADS president, Floyd Hayhurst, evidently arrived at a meeting mid-week and declared that he was indeed the legal president and proceeded to run the meeting.

On Friday, however, the Macias-ousting part of the board issued another statement announcing that yet another board member, Don Steck, was taking over as the interim president.

Then on Sunday the Macias supporters among the seven-person board released a new statement saying that Macias was the legal president, and would remain in office.

That spin of the merry-go-round is very unlikely to be the last, sources tell us.

We only mention the matter because there has reportedly been some speculation among ALADS members that one or the other of these factions might be hoping to steer a large portion of the ALADS campaign endorsement money to the candidate of their choice, despite last week’s decision by the union’s Political Endorsement Committee. When it comes to endorsements, the board makes the final decision.

Posted in LASD, Paul Tanaka, unions | 47 Comments »

At First Public Sheriff’s Debate Candidates Come Out Swinging

March 14th, 2014 by Celeste Fremon


At Wednesday night’s debate between those in the race for the office of LA county sheriff, an event put on by the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council,
the six candidates who showed up began taking swings at each other right from the beginning.

Those present at this first public debate* prior to the June 3 primary were retired LASD lieutenant Pat Gomez, former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, Long Beach Chief of Police Jim McDonnell, LAPD detective Lou Vince, assistant sheriff Jim Hellmold, and former LASD commander Bob Olmsted.

(Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers was absent, due to a prior commitment to be interviewed by Warren Olney for Which Way LA?)

The questions that the council volleyed at the six men were largely thoughtful, but they were also general. Nobody directly challenged any of the candidates in their areas of vulnerability.

The candidates themselves, however, attempted to fill in that gap.

For example, when asked about what he would do to fix the corruption in the department, Bob Olmsted—the retired custody commander who was up first—fired off the night’s most frequently quoted soundbite.

“The fish rots from the head down,” he said, as the local news cameras rolled.

Then he ticked off a list of the LASD’s highest profile recent scandals including the fact that 20 department members have been indicted in the wake of an ongoing FBI probe into violence and corruption in the LASD. “None of this occurred in a vacuum,” he said. “It occurred with the knowledge and the acceptance of people on the department…..I will not tolerate dishonesty, civil rights issues, malfeasance…”

For anyone conversant with the various players on the candidates’ panel, this was a slam first and foremost against Paul Tanaka, (whom the Citizen’s Committed on Jail Violence had criticized harshly in its 2012 report) but also against the two assistant sheriffs, Jim Hellmold and the absent Todd Rogers.

In that same vein, Olmsted talked about a “continuous catastrophic failure of leadership and internal corruption” that “cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles over 100 million [in lawsuits} in the last three years."

Hellmold, who sat next to Olmsted and so was next in line to answer, countered immediately. "He was in charge when all of this occurred, so he already has tolerated malfeasance,” Hellmold said with a nod Olmsted's direction, characterizing his neighbor on the panel as "an ineffective leader."

This precipitated a cheer from the 50 or so Tanaka supporters who jammed the back of the room wearing red or white t-shirts emblazoned with their guy's name.

Hoping to head off such outbursts the council president, George Thomas, who was moderating the debate, had cautioned audience members to hold any applause and the like until the event's end. He now fixed the noisy Tanaka-ites with an enforcement stare.

Jim McDonnell also used the phrase "catastrophic failure of leadership", and poked at those candidates who are or were recently at the top of the department.

"We heard over and over again," he said, "'I didn’t know, I don’t recall. Nobody told me.' We didn't need to have one deputy indicted" he said. "If they had been held to a high standard, their families would be intact. Their freedom wouldn't be at stake."

With a clear swipe at pay-to-play accusations against Paul Tanaka, McDonnell also announced that he was the only candidate who had sworn not to take any money from those working for him or from members of the LASD.

(In fact, Jim Hellmold too has made the same pledge.)

Pat Gomez leveled similar criticism when he said that he would request that the FBI do a forensic audit of the department's finances. "Mr. Tanaka talked about being a CPA," he said. "Yet the auditor released a report in January and said that $138 million in funds were mishandled from special accounts within this department. Who's responsible for that?"

Tanaka struck back at various points citing what he characterized as the inexperience and, in the case of McDonnell, the outsider status of his rivals. "As a 31 year veteran of the department I'm the only candidate who has the institutional knowledge that will be critical for restoring trust and credibility to the organization. The job of sheriff is too big and too important for on the job training."


GETTING IN A RUNOFF

One of the debate's undercurrents was the fact that, due to the large number of hopefuls in the race, it is unlikely that the June primary will produce a winner.

The matter is intensified by the the fact that some election watchers suggest Jim McDonnell---with his extensive resume and his list of high profile endorsements---is the closest thing to a frontrunner in the contest. If that is so, he will occupy one of the slots in the runoff, leaving only one up for grabs between the rest.

Thus it may not be enough for the remaining candidates to merely impress voters with their own stellar qualities. They also must to find a way to knock a couple of others out of the running---or at the very least, dirty them up a bit.


AND....THE ISSUES

A few of the questions pertained to specific LASD policy issues---things like the use or misuse of red light cameras (most of the candidates were at least moderately for the cameras, with the exception of Gomez and Vince, who disliked the things), and what the candidates would do about issuing concealed weapons permits, or CCWs, which California's 58 county sheriffs and the state's police chiefs are authorized to grant,

The topic of CCWs has heated up in recent weeks following the decision last month by the 9th circuit Court of Appeals in which the court made it much easier to get the permits. (The 9th Circuit's ruling has been appealed to the US Supreme court.)

Paul Tanaka, who of the group has consistently been the strongest proponent for CCWs, talked about the Second Amendment. "I support that being able to possess a CCW is a right not a privilege."

McDonnell said he thought it prudent to wait to see what SCOTUS did in order to avoid future lawsuits, as did Olmsted, who added that he would require those to whom he granted CCWs to go through a rigorous certification and training equal to that of active deputies.

Lou Vince was another CCW enthusiast. "Right now the only people who have guns are the crooks," he said. "And that's just not fair."

Only Hellmold said that, in fact, he's in favor of anything that limits CCWs. "In 2005 when I arrived in Compton, there were over 400 shootings where our young men in Compton were struck by gunfire. I do not want more firearms in the street. If each of these candidates for the sake of perhaps getting the NRA to support them says that they would issue CCWs...how many hundreds of thousands of CCWs would you issue? Or are you just saying it for the for the soundbite? You know who it impacts? It impacts our young kids in some of the inner city areas...."

On other issues, Vince had a list of specifics as to how he'd lower the ever-problematic population of the LA County jails, including a pre-trial release risk assessment strategy that could help insure that people awaiting trial were not unnecessarily clogging the jail system simply due to an inability to pay their bail.

When it came to what kind of oversight the various candidates thought the department required, five of them described the various ways they embraced civilian oversight, whereas Gomez called the existing watchdogs, including the newly appointed inspector general, a waste of money. Tigers with no teeth. "[The IG] has no authority to do anything. So that’s a waste of taxpayer dollars,” he said.

As to who won the debate, in a quick poll of some of the council members found their opinions to be all over the place. They would have to wait and see, most said. But this was a good beginning.


PS: IF YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO ROGERS ON WHICH WAY LA? You can find the podcast here.


*Most of the candidates participated in a private forum last month organized by the LASD deputies’ union, ALADS (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs).



AND IN OTHER NEWS….AN INTERVIEW WITH U.S. ATTORNEY ANDRE BIROTTE

The LA Times’ Patt Morrison interviewed US Attorney Andre Birotte, and it’s definitely something you’ll want to read.

Here are some relevant clips:

Do you expect more sheriff indictments?

The investigation is ongoing. We go where the evidence takes us.

Are all of those indicted going to trial?

This is high-stakes litigation. When we charge cases, we go in with the assumption that it’s going to trial. We make sure we dot our I’s, cross our Ts and say how is this going to play out to a jury?

Some deputies have volunteered information to your office. Why?

Some think it’s the right thing to do. I think there are some who thought these kinds of matters would not be looked at very seriously by other officials, and I’m speculating, but I gather there may be some who, once the indictments were announced, realized the government was serious and decided maybe it is time to come forward and tell the truth as to what they observed or may know.

Was any kind of deal discussed for or with then-Sheriff Lee Baca?

I can’t comment as [to how] it relates to Sheriff Baca’s sudden and unexpected [retirement]. We have an ongoing investigation; I can’t say more than that.

Read on!

Posted in 2014 election, FBI, LASD, U.S. Attorney | 32 Comments »

Big Problems With Idaho’s Private Prison…. A New Sheriff Candidate Debate!….CA Needs Sentencing Reform…Out of Control Prosecutors…..& Paul Tanaka Has a Plan – UPDATED

March 11th, 2014 by Celeste Fremon


FEDS INVESTIGATE AWFUL PRIVATE IDAHO PRISON (ARE YOU LISTENING CALIFORNIA??)

The FBI has launched an investigation into Idaho’s largest and most violent prison, a for profit facility run by the private prison behemoth, Corrections Corporation of America—or CCA. The chronically understaffed prison has a reputation for being so out of control that inmates reportedly call it “Gladiator School.”

The facility got bad enough under CCA’s management that, in January of this year, Idaho decided to take back oversight of the place.

And now the FBI is stepping in.

It is sobering to note that California also contracts with CCA. Right now they house approximately 8000 of our state’s inmates, with that number scheduled to rise, making us CCA’s second largest customer.

Rebecca Boone of the Associated Press has the story on this latest CCA scandal Here’s a clip:

The Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA has operated Idaho’s largest prison for more than a decade, but last year, CCA officials acknowledged it had understaffed the Idaho Correctional Center by thousands of hours in violation of the state contract. CCA also said employees falsified reports to cover up the vacancies. The announcement came after an Associated Press investigation showed CCA sometimes listed guards as working 48 hours straight to meet minimum staffing requirements.

[BIG SNIP]

The understaffing has been the subject of federal lawsuits and a contempt of court action against CCA. The ACLU sued on behalf of inmates at the Idaho Correctional Center in 2010, saying the facility was so violent that inmates called it “Gladiator School” and that understaffing contributed to the high levels of violence there.

In 2012, a Boise law firm sued on behalf of inmates contending that CCA had ceded control to prison gangs so that they could understaff the prison and save money on employee wages, and that the understaffing led to an attack by one prison gang on another group of inmates that left some of them badly injured.

The Department of Justice requested a copy of a forensic audit done for the Idaho Department of Correction earlier this year. That audit showed that CCA understaffed the prison by as much as 26,000 hours in 2012 alone; CCA is strongly contesting those findings. CCA’s Owen has said the company believes the audit overestimates the staffing issues by more than a third.


VAN NUYS HOSTS FIRST SHERIFF’S CANDIDATE’S DEBATE ON WED. NIGHT, MARCH 12

The debate will take place this Wednesday night starting at 7:00 pm.

It will be held at the Van Nuys Civic Center, at 6262 Van Nuys Blvd., on the ground floor of the building.

The only candidates for LA County Sheriff who are, at the moment, not coming are Assistant Sheriff Jim Hellmold and former undersheriff Paul Tanaka.

Perhaps that will change. Let us hope so.

UPDATE: Paul Tanaka is now confirmed and, with luck, they’ll also get Hellmold. (Note to Jim: Call these people back. Now!)

PS: THIS NEWLY ANNOUNCED VAN NUYS DEBATE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ACLU/LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTORS DEBATE that will take place next week on March 20. We’ll remind you again when we’re closer to the date.


CALIFORNIA NEEDS A SENTENCING COMMISSION SEZ THE NY TIMES

We may have modified our Three Strikes statute, and that’s a welcome step, but California still has a great many laws on the books that are not in the best interest of public safety, and which have much to do with why we have been struggling with overcrowded prisons.

The NY Times weighs in on the topic of our need for sentencing reform.

Here’s a clip:

California should move quickly to set up a commission. Over the past few decades, the federal government and about one-third of the states, from Alabama to Washington, have established commissions to address overcrowding and other issues. By using data-based assessments of who is more or less likely to re-offend, they help correctional systems both protect public safety and save money. A 2010 report by the California state auditor estimated that the longer sentences imposed under the three-strikes law will cost the state an additional $19.2 billion.

As important as reducing prison populations is making sure that people don’t go right back in. That will require postprison programs focusing on jobs, housing, and treatment for drug addiction and mental illness. California has budgeted for this as part of a statewide reform initiative, but the money needs to be spent wisely. (A report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office criticized Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to move prisoners to county jails and private prisons. It said the state should focus on longer-term solutions, like reducing sentences for some crimes and diverting more offenders away from prison.)

Governor Brown, who has thwarted meaningful reform in the past, has begun to show some openness to change — for example, in signing off on parole releases at a far higher rate than any governor in decades…


PROSECUTORS SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW? A NOVEL CONCEPT?

It is fairly well established that American prosecutors have too much power, and too little accountability.

A 2009 study that looked at the primary causes for wrongful convictions overturned based on DNA evidence found that prosecutorial misconduct was a factor in from 36% to 42% of the convictions. And what happens to those prosecutors whose shaving of the legal dice has resulted in someone doing time for something he or she didn’t do?

For the most part, nothing.

Finally, however, a few judges in various areas of the country are starting to speak out against prosecutorial misconduct. Last year, Alex Kozinski of California’s 9th Circuit did so memorably.

Radley Balko writes for the Washington Post about other judges who have also spoken up—basically saying that prosecutors have to abide by the law.

And how have prosecutors reacted to this criticism? Not well, writes Balko.

Here’s a clip:

….Late last year, South Carolina State Supreme Court Justice Donald Beatty joined Kozinski. At a state solicitors’ convention in Myrtle Beach, Beatty cautioned that prosecutors in the state have been “getting away with too much for too long.” He added, “The court will no longer overlook unethical conduct, such as witness tampering, selective and retaliatory prosecutions, perjury and suppression of evidence. You better follow the rules or we are coming after you and will make an example. The pendulum has been swinging in the wrong direction for too long and now it’s going in the other direction. Your bar licenses will be in jeopardy. We will take your license.”

You’d think that there’s little here with which a conscientious prosecutor could quarrel. At most, a prosecutor might argue that Beatty exaggerated the extent of misconduct in South Carolina. (I don’t know if that’s true, only that that’s a conceivable response.) But that prosecutors shouldn’t suborn perjury, shouldn’t retaliate against political opponents, shouldn’t suppress evidence, and that those who do should be disciplined — these don’t seem like controversial things to say. If most prosecutors are following the rules, you’d think they’d have little to fear, and in fact would want their rogue colleagues identified and sanctioned.

The state’s prosecutors didn’t see it that way.


CANDIDATE FOR SHERIFF PAUL TANAKA RELEASES HIS “POSITIVE VISION” FOR THE LASD

On Monday, former undersheriff Paul Tanaka released his eight topic plan for “changing the direction of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.

The plan divides its recommendations into eight categories: executive staff, accountability, transparency, budget, officer training, patrol, jail operations and crime.

Among its notable points, Tanaka pledges “100% cooperative effort with the Inspector General.” If elected, he also intends to “establish a promotional testing process, which will ensure that only the highest qualified employees are considered – based on experience, knowledge and effort,”

There’s lots more so read the details here.

Posted in 2014 election, Innocence, Paul Tanaka, prison, prison policy, Prosecutors, Sentencing | 12 Comments »

« Previous Entries