Opinion: Chief Beck’s and Chief Sanchez’s Tunnel Vision

Correction by authors

Our Op-Ed on Tunnel Vision by Chief Beck and Chief Sanchez incorrectly stated that an Officer involved in the Ezell Ford shooting had been disciplined. It is correct that the LAPD Inspector General, by focusing on the events leading up to the shooting, concluded that the Officer’s conduct was outside of policy and that the LA Police Commission adopted that conclusion as its determination. But disciplinary decisions are made by Chief Beck, not the Commission, and Chief Beck has not publicly indicated whether he will act on the Commission’s determination or his own initial determination.

 

LAPD Chief Charles Beck and Pasadena PD Chief Phillip Sanchez both recently viewed police use of force incidents through tunnel vision – Chief Beck in the shooting of Ezell Ford and Chief Sanchez in the shooting of Kendrec McDade. Both Chiefs narrowly focused only on the moment of shooting – tunnel vision that would exonerate officers from discipline by determining that the Officers had reasonable safety concerns at the time they fired their guns. Both Chiefs ignored the tactical mistakes and policy violations of the shooting Officers that put them in positions where they may have reasonably feared for their safety. But Chief Beck’s determination did not stop an LAPD Officer from being disciplined, while Chief Sanchez’ determination resulted in no discipline for the Officers who killed Kendrec McDade. Why did Chief Sanchez’ tunnel vision result in no discipline while Chief Beck’s tunnel vision did not prevent discipline?

The discipline-differential cannot be explained by the seriousness of the Officers’ conduct

Because the Officers’ pre-shooting conduct in the McDade case was worse than in the Ford case, the seriousness of the Officers’ conduct does not explain the discipline-differential – rather, the seriousness of the pre-shooting conduct would dictate that the Pasadena Officers who shot McDade are the ones most clearly warranting discipline. The Office of Independent Review Group (“OIR”) Report on the McDade shooting sets out an egregious series of at least 10 avoidable tactical mistakes – some of which were policy violations — that put the Pasadena Officers in a position where they may have reasonably feared for their safety. Those tactical mistakes or policy violations during the chase included not turning on lights, siren, and video camera, not radioing in observations, not communicating, plans to each other, pursuing McDade into an unsafe throughway, driving with a gun in one hand, failing to reevaluate after crashing the patrol car, not reporting the collision, attempting to apprehend rather than contain, using an unauthorized and inappropriate box-in/cut-off maneuver, and stopping the patrol car too close to a suspect purportedly believed to be armed. The out-of-policy offense in the Ford case was detaining the suspect without probable cause. The McDade pre-shooting mistakes were clearly more serious.

The discipline-differential cannot be explained by the seriousness of the Officers’ conduct

The difference between the Pasadena and LA outcomes is not because outside reviewers in the Ford shooting were more critical than in the McDade shooting. The LA Inspector General (“IG”) disagreed with Chief Beck’s conclusion because the IG did not look at the Ford shooting through tunnel vision; unlike Chief Beck, it faulted one of the Officers’ pre-shooting conduct as outside policy and, unlike Chief Beck, recommended discipline for that Officer. The OIR reviewed the McDade shooting and informed the Pasadena PD of all the pre-shooting tactical and policy violations. The OIR group’s scathing report recommended that the Pasadena PD reinterview the involved Officers and at least 2 witnesses; its report recommends at least 23 questions that should have been asked by the Pasadena PD (there are probably more such questions in the redacted portion of the OIR Report). A substantial portion of the OIR Report criticized the PD’s tunnel vision, but its criticisms were ineffective in leading to any discipline.

The discipline-differential is explained by an effective IG in LA versus Pasadena’s systemic weakness

The LA IG’s recommendations were effective in causing appropriate discipline. The LA IG is an independent body that reports to an independent Police Commission. The Police Commission chose the IG’s recommendation for discipline rather than Chief Beck’s tunnel-vision recommendation. Chief Sanchez and City Manager Michael Beck, decisionmakers who were also operationally responsible for the Department and therefore conflicted, chose to decide based on their tunnel vision and to ignore the pre-shooting misconduct that warranted discipline. Pasadena hired independent reviewers who did a superb job, but because they reported to the City Manager and the Police Chief — the foxes guarding the chicken house –, the excellence of their independent review did not matter. The Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”) proposed by the coalition of Pasadena organizations supporting increased oversight would correct Pasadena’s systemic weakness by having an IPA perform the same thorough review functions that the OIR Group performed but (1) independently of the police line of operational authority, (2) systematically rather than ad-hoc, (3) beginning at the time of a shooting rather than later, (4) critiquing in real time rather than months or years later, and (5) with more ability to make its recommendations effective. An IPA would correct Pasadena’s systemic weakness and make independent review effective as in LA.

Tunnel vision creates liability risks

Pasadena PD’s tunnel vision served the City’s immediate purpose of whitewashing the shooting Officers’ misconduct in order to protect its narrative in McDade’s mothers wrongful death lawsuit that the shooting was a good shooting that did not warrant discipline, counseling or training. But by refusing to acknowledge and remediate the problems that the OIR Group was pressing, the City has been disserved in the long run by conduct that covers up the problems rather than honestly facing them. Peace officers have a duty to act reasonably when using deadly force. The reasonableness of an officer’s conduct is determined in light of the “totality of circumstances” surrounding the use of deadly force. The 2013 California Supreme Court decision Hayes v. County of San Diego ruled that “preshooting conduct” is included in the totality of circumstances surrounding an officer’s use of deadly force, and therefore the officer’s duty to act reasonably when using deadly force extends to preshooting conduct and negligence liability can arise from tactical conduct and decisions employed by law enforcement preceding the use of deadly force. The fruit of the City’s strategy to delay, deny, and deceive on the McDade shooting will be new exposure in the future unless real reforms take place. Putting an IPA in place should be the first step on the road to reform.

Dale Gronemeier and Skip Hickambottom are local civil rights attorneys who represent Kendrec McDade’s mother and Pasadena police oversight organizations and activists in the Public Records lawsuit that obtained the maximum legally-permissible release of the full OIR Report.