Chief of Police Charlie Beck’s proposed changes to the LAPD’s automobile impound policy will be voted on by the Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday. It is pretty much preordained that the change will pass through the commission without a hitch.

While the new policy is all but a done deal, what remains open to question— according to critics of the change—is whether or not the proposed new interpretation of the LAPD’s policy is legal. City attorney Carmen Trutanich’s office has told the chief, that the change is not only permissible under the law, it is more correct than the old procedure.

However, according to a statement released Monday afternoon by the LAPPL (the LAPD union) California’s Legislative Counsel says it’s not legal. (The Legislative Counsel is what CA lawmakers and others use to sort out such matters.)

(And, indeed, that’s what the letter from William Chan, Deputy Legislative Counsel, says.)

For those of who have somehow missed this controversy, here’s the deal. Last Spring LAPD Chief Charlie Beck announced that the department was changing its rules for impounding cars of unlicensed drivers at sobriety checkpoints.

The old policy requires that the cops impound a car for 30 days if it is being driven by an unlicensed driver, whether the driver has been drinking or not. For years immigrant rights advocates have rightly pointed out that the policy cuts unfairly against undocumented immigrants, who often need cars to go to work and take their kids to school, but are prohibited from getting a driver’s license under California law. (Thank you, Arnold Schwarzenegger.)

Bothered by the fact that the impound procedures scooped up and penalized so many otherwise-law abiding undocumented residents, Chief Beck made a change that allows the unlicensed driver to call a licensed driver to pick up the car, as long as driver A has ID and car insurance. The unlicensed driver also cannot have caused an accident, or have prior conviction for the same offense. Otherwise the full 30 days kicks in.

Critics of the policy point out that unlicensed drivers are significantly more likely to be involved in fatal crashes and more likely to drive drunk and other reckless behaviors than are validly-licensed drivers.

Of course, all this would be a moot point if undocumented folks were allowed to get drivers’ licenses— then only the unlicensed scofflaws, who are so statistically dangerous, would be at risk of impounds. But, hell, why be practical? (I’m talking to you, California state legislature.)

Okay, back to the question raised in the beginning: is the change legal or not?

Beck makes it clear he has accepted the opinion of City Attorney Trutanich, whose reading of the law centers around the fact that there are two dueling sections in the CA Vehicle code, one of which mandates a 30-day impound, (that costs the poor car owner about $1,300 or more in fees)—while the other Vehicle Code Section allows a car to be released the next day, with proper documentation, (at an approximate cost of $250). Beck explains that he is perfectly within the law when ordering his officers to enforce the second, less onerous section, rather than the first.

The Legislative Analyst says, to the contrary, that the local cops can’t pick and choose between the two Vehicle Code sections; that the one that specifies the mandatory 30-day rule for those who have never had a California DL, legally holds sway. (If you’re not put to sleep by all this and are curious, you can look it up here. The relevant opinion is in the last full paragraph at the bottom of page 6.)

Beck counters that a number of court decisions back his and the City Attorney’s reading of the matter:

Commonly referred to as the Community Caretaking Doctrine, the courts have determined that the decision to impound any vehicle should be based on the totality of circumstances and must be reasonable and in the furtherance of public safety. Statutory authority alone is not sufficient to deprive someone of their vehicle.

In any case the commission votes today and, barring any force majeure, the chief’s proposal will pass.

UPDATE: Blogger Ron Kaye has found an interesting twist on the City Attorney’s opinion on the impound issue. It seems that civil rights attorneys in a federal lawsuit filed in behalf of undocumented immigrants who had their cars impounded for 30 days, argued that the cops had no right to do all this impounding, and to back up their claim, they cited the aforementioned Community Caretaking Doctrine. [See Above], Mr. Trutanich’s office countered that, according to previous decisions upheld by the 9th Circuit the police could absolutely impound the cars of drivers who never had a license, that the Community Caretaking Doctrine did not apply.

So which is it?

AND IN OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT NEWS—-THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IS HOPING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW 2-TRACK CAREER SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS SOME DEPUTIES TO NOT HAVE TO SERVE YEARS IN THE JAILS

The sheriff’s department’s insistence that all deputies have to work the jails for their first years out of the LASD academy has long been a source of criticism for reformers, yet the department has resisted change. Now, it seems that, Sheriff Baca is embracing the notion of a two-track career system—parole OR custody, with custody duty offering a fast track to promotion.

Ari Bloomekatz and Robert Faturechi have the story for the LA Times.

AND SOME GOOD NEWS: AS EXPECTED, THE TRUANCY FINE ISSUE MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE AT THE CITY COUNCIL

Rick Orlov of the Daily News/Contra Costa Times has lots of the details.

School Board prez, Monica Garcia, approved the move.

DID RADIO SHOW THIS AMERICAN LIFE MOVE APPLE TO SEND OUTSIDE INSPECTORS TO FOXCONN?

On Monday, in response to a growing upset from its devoted customers, Apple announced that it had asked an independent inspecting entity to assess conditions at Foxconn and the other main factories where our shiny new i-things are made.

The outcry has been building for a while, but many believe the turning point was the January 6, 2012, brilliant and devastating broadcast by NPR’s This American Life about the Foxconn plant.

By the end of last month, the NY Times followed up with its own affecting report on the awful conditions. But it was the amazing Mike Daisy’s adaptation for TAL of his one-man show on the topic, combined with the TAL staff’s own follow-up—from which there was no going back—especially when, a few days later, there were horrifying reports of a threatened mass suicide among Foxconn workers.

You really are missing something if you don’t listen to the podcast.

May Apple’s audit genuinely stimulate change.

In LA’s most recent round of budget cuts last week, the mayor’s office, the city council and the office of city attorney Carmen Trutanich, all had another $1 million cut from their respective bottom lines.

As one might imagine, no one is very happy about this newest bout of fiscal slashing.

However, Mr. Trutanich has responded to the cut with a move that critics say is designed to throw a retaliatory punch at the mayor and the city council at the expense of the needs of the city and its police force.

Specifically, Trutanich has abruptly shut down all the CA’s branch offices citywide—most notably in Van Nuys, Hollywood and San Pedro. This means that LAPD detectives from, say, the department’s various Valley and Harbor divisions, who would normally file misdemeanor criminal cases at those city attorney satellites with comparative efficiency, will have to spend hours driving to and from downtown instead— longer in rush hour traffic. To make matters worse, the detectives worry, the downtown offices will likely be plagued by a processing pile up due to the sudden centralization. Thus cops will have to add waiting time to their new extra driving time.

City Attorney Trutanich told Eric Leonard of KFI radio on Monday that, indeed, “downtown is now where all filing takes place.

“Somebody has to say – you know what - we’ve cut enough out of public safety,” Trutanich added. “It makes no sense to have 10,000 police officers and not be able to complete a prosecution.”

But many of the detectives who will be the most affected by Monday’s district office shuttering strategy believe that other less harmful cuts could be made and worry that Trutanich is simply using the move to play hard ball with the city council—at the expense of public safety.

While the city attorney makes his political point, they say, a large swath of LA’s already overstretched police force is going to have to spend precious hours driving and waiting, waiting and driving—when that same time could and should be spent….you know… policing.

There are assuredly more rounds to go in this fight. So stay tuned.

NOTE #1: I began reporting this story late in the day, thus by the time I tried to call the city attorney’s office for comment, it was exactly 6:01 pm. I knew I would likely not find Mr. Trutanich’s public information officer still at work, but I assumed that—as is the policy with most other PIOs for public figures and government agencies—the city attorney’s guy would have a cell-phone number or some other after hours form of contact to accommodate reporters on deadline. Alas, he did not.

NOTE #2: LOOKING FOR AN ANTIDOTE TO THE CABLE TV TALKING HEADS WHEN YOU WATCH TONIGHT’S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE?

Try KCET’s SoCal Connected, which goes live at 6 pm.

The show’s anchor Val Zavala will be joined by panelists Larry Elder, Patt Morrison, and SoCal Connected correspondent Brian Rooney—a good line up.

The live broadcast will also stream in real-time at www.kcet.org/socalconnected. Viewers are invited to offer feedback online during the broadcast at KCET’s FaceBook page, plus Twitter posts will air throughout the coverage.

Sounds good to me.

The bill that could have given City Attorney Carmen Trutanich his own grand jury was shot down in the Assembly’s Public Safety committee, thus never made it out to the state assembly floor for a vote. The bill, SB 1168, introduced by Senator Gill Cedillo, passed in the state senate. However the committee defeat means that that SB 1168 is dead for another year, maybe forever.

It likely didn’t help the bill’s chances that such state organizations as the California District Attorneys Association and the California Chamber of Commerce were against the idea.

A motion to oppose the SB 1168 was to have been discussed in Wednesday’s LA City Council meeting, but the bill’s death in legislative committee made the local motion a moot point,

However, the city’s Chief Administrative Officer still delivered his planned cost analysis of the proposed new grand jury.

Mr. Trutanich contended the grand jury would save money. However the CAO’s report indicated that this was not the case In fact, according to the CAO, the $$ needed to impanel a grand jury, along with other court costs, would put the City Attorney over budget.

In Sacramento, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D- San Francisco), the Public Safety Committee’s chair, told the LA Times’ Patrick McGreevy that he felt he was being asked to jump into an “internecine battle” going on in Los Angeles.

“I just thought it was inappropriate to bring to the Legislature,” Ammiano said Wednesday, the day after the committee action. “I don’t want to play in somebody else’s backyard.”

Right, and in that same vein, kudos to council members Jan Perry and Bernard Parks for staying on the subject, while most of the rest of the council either sided unquestioningly with Trutanich or seemed to remember urgent appointments elsewhere when the grand jury topic arose. Jan Perry in particular refused to bend to the insistent winds blowing out of the city attorney’s office.

TRUTANICH’S GRAND JURY

Tuesday the City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss SB 1168, the bill that would allow City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to have his own grand jury. The bill has passed the state senate and with a trip to the state assembly still ahead.

The City Council will decide whether or not it is in favor of the bill. Councilmembers Jan Perry and Bernard Parks are strongly opposed, and would like the idea to be put to a vote of the residents of Los Angeles.

COUNTY SUPERVISORS EXPECTED TO VOTE $400,000 TO SETTLE JUVENILE HALL MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE/WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT

Also on Tuesday, the LA County Supervisors are scheduled to vote to settle a lawsuit brought by the parents of Tremayne Cole.

The bare bones of the case, which is expected to be settled for $400,000, are as follows:

According to the county’s own report, on February 5, 2008, a short, skinny, 14-year-old boy named Tremayne Cole was placed in one of LA County’s juvenile halls, Los Padrinos. Four days later, on February 9, Tremayne complained of a bad headache, a tooth ache, and he was running a fever. Although he was given medication, he was reportedly not seen by either a doctor or a dentist until around February 17 when he had grown so sick that he was transferred to LA County-USC hospital. Tremayne died of complications of meningitis on March 4, 2008.

Tremayne’s parents allege that the adults in charge dropped the ball on their son pretty much at every step.

City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s quest to acquire his own personal Grand Jury continues.

The controversial bill, SB1168, that would allow the city attorney to get what he wants, is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee on June 27.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman’s Jan Perry’s resolution to oppose the idea may or may not be brought up in the council today, Friday. (Everyone is waiting for the fiscal report on the bill by the City’s Administrative Officer (CAO).

BUT THE BIG NEWS AROUND THIS ISSUE is the fact that Trutanich received a nasty blow this week when the California District Attorneys Association wrote Gil Cedillo, the bill’s sponsor, to say that, thank you very much, but they would NOT be supporting this measure.

The DAs also opined that the grand jury Trutanich wanted was “potentially unconstitutional.”

Word is that Trutanich, was really, really not happy at this outcome. Vocally not happy.

Anyway….here is the heart of it the district attorneys’ Dude-I-don’t-think-so letter :

On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), I regret to inform you that we are opposed to your measure, SB 1168, as amended on May 25,2010. This bill would allow the Los Angeles City Attorney to request the impanelment of a misdemeanor grand jury.

[SNIP]

More concerning is that the measure proposes a potentially unconstitutional arrangement because the misdemeanor grand jury would exist simply as an investigative tool. Grand jurors would only have the power to subpoena witnesses as well as hear andrecord their testimony; there would be no power to indict. This bill creates something that has never existed before: a grand jury with no ability either to determine that a crime has not occurred or to indict. Such a system would likely face a charge that it is a sham and a violation of the separation of powers.

Specifically, the argument would be that a judicial agency (the grand jury) is being used to
carry out an executive function (the investigation of crime) and that this grand jury performs no judicial function because it does not have the power to independently evaluate the evidence and render an opinion whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Although this bill might provide the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office with a helpful tool, we
must consider the potential impact on other prosecutors. The grand jury performs an important function and we do not want to risk losing it…..

ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER…..ZOMBIES

If you’ve already finished being aghast at the great welfare-to-casino debacle, and/or Antonio’s ongoing ticket idiocy, then, if by some odd chance you haven’t yet read the Guardian’s Xan Brooks instantly legendary live blogging of the Isner-Mahut Zombie tennis match at Wimbleton, do it this second. I know I’m late in the bringing this up. But its face-achingly funny. (And, if you’ve already read it, it bears reading again.)

(Everyone says to start at hour 4:05 pm but I’d read the whole damn thing.)

(Screw tennis, I think the guy should start live blogging American politics. it’d make everything more bearable. I’m sure of it.)

UPDATE: By the way, it’s worth noting that Kevin Roderick at LA Observed flagged Brooks’ poetic and gloriously frantic live blogging—and the press follow-up—ahead of anybody else. A few random sports bloggers saw it. But Roderick was out spreading the word early. And I’m glad he did.

The discussion continues over whether LA’s City Attorney Carmen Trutanich should be given his very own Grand Jury, which he contends that he needs. If you will remember, if he gets the thing, it is believed he will be the first City Attorney—or City Attorney-like office (the position is called something else in say, New York City or Chicago)—to have a Grand Jury at his/her disposal.

District attorneys have access to grand juries. So do attorneys general and federal prosecutors. But city attorneys? Uh, no. They just don’t.

(In fact, just for the hell of it, I called representatives of the like offices in New York and Chicago and explained what our city attorney wanted. Their reactions to the idea ranged from quizzical to a more polite version of “WTF??”)

Yet, Mr. Trutanich was so convinced he had to have one of the things that he by-passed the option of having the conversation with the city council about the matter, and then taking his request to LA voters in the form of an amendment to the city charter.

Instead he managed to get state senator Gil Cedillo to introduce a bill into the state legislature that would accomplish the deed without the inconvenience of LA city government and/or voters having to be consulted at all. To date, the state senate has passed the bill—SB 1168—and it is headed to the Assembly.

When I say “by-passed the city council,” I mean they knew zip about the bill until it was already headed for passage.

Councilwoman Jan Perry said that the first she heard about the thing was when LA Times reporter Patrick McGreevy called her to ask for a comment on the matter.

Since Los Angeles is a charter city, this kind of end run around city government is extremely unusual. Depending upon whom you ask, it is also possibly not legal.

However, Mr. Trutanich is, of course, himself an attorney, and clearly he thinks its a fine idea.

SO…. WHAT IS A GRAND JURY ANYWAY?

In case you have forgotten (or were never really sure in the first place), the purpose of a Grand Jury-–which has been an American institution since colonial days—is for a group of 16-23 ordinary citizens to review the adequacy of evidence presented by a prosecutor and then decide whether to indict the suspect or suspects. In most state courts—California included—that function is more commonly performed by a preliminary hearing in open criminal court. However, in certain cases, a Grand Jury is used instead. It is such an important tool it is enshrined in the US Constitution.
However, by its nature, a Grand Jury is particularly vulnerable to abuse because it is not subject to the same rules and balancing oversight that apply to criminal courts.

For instance, neither witnesses nor suspects who are called before a grand jury are allowed to have an attorney present when they testify. Unlike in criminal court, hearsay evidence is allowed. The accused has no right to present evidence or cross examine witnesses. Grand Juries meet in secret, and a formal record of the proceedings is not usually provided to the suspect even after an indictment.

TRUTANICH’S PROPOSED GRAND JURY IS DIFFERENT

The Grand Jury that Mr. Trutanich has asked for—and will get if SB 1168 passes—cannot indict. It can only investigate, which sort of stands the traditional purpose of the GJ on its head.

Still, like regular grand juries, it can issue subpoenas and question witnesses outside the normal rules of criminal proceedings. In other words, if used badly, it means that a prosecutor can go on evidentiary fishing expeditions that a regular criminal judge would never allow.

If passed, SB 1168, will only last as long as Mr. Trutanich is in office. It sunsets on January 1, 2014, six months after his term as city attorney has ended.

SO WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

Well, you should always care when a public official wants a lot more power than he or she is presently accorded by law.

Up until now, no one has seen the need for the LA city attorney to have Grand Jury power since the city attorney’s main job is to be the legal representative and adviser to the city and its government representatives.

However, Trutanich’s point is that LA’s City attorney also prosecutes misdemeanors. So he and representatives of his office say that he needs the Grand Jury in order to better investigate such misdemeanor issues as health insurance fraud, mortgage fraud, wage theft, product safety, workplace safety and patient dumping by hospitals—all of which can assuredly be complex.

Most specifically, Mr. Trutanich wants the grand jury for its subpoena power.

Since the announcement of the senate bill’s existence, Mr. Trutanich’s subpoena power desires have been questioned by a wide variety of people.

One of them, Raphael Sonenshein, wrote a very critical editorial in the LA Times last Friday. This was notable since Sonenshein is a scholarly sort who was the head of the Charter Reform Commission, one of the two commissions that wrote the revisions to the city’s charter that voters passed in 1999 (the first such revisions since 1925). In other words, few know LA’s governmental structure better than Raphael Sonenshein.

Sonenshein was basically aghast at the idea, and concluded his Op Ed with the following:

Any city attorney who tries to go around voters and lobby the Legislature for additional, novel and unnecessary power is exactly the wrong person to be entrusted with it. Trutanich is a textbook case of a city attorney whose actions have raised questions about how wisely he has used the power he already has.

Since his election in 2009, Trutanich has threatened city officials and private citizens with jail when they get in his way, and has abused his bail authority. One can only imagine what Trutanich would do with a secret grand jury.

The Daily News editorial board was also made queasy by Trutanich’s power grab:

“…there’s something that just doesn’t feel right about Trutanich’s latest effort….” they wrote.

TELLING RADIO MOMENTS

The Founding Dean of the UC Irvine Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, has also questioned the legality of Trutanich’s move. Last week, Chemerinksy, who was the chair of the other committee that revised the city charter in 1999, was on Which Way LA? along with Trutanich and City Councilmember Jan Perry.

It is worth your while to listen.

On the show, both Chemerinsky and Perry were calm as they pointed out the probable illegality of what Trutanich is doing.

Trutanich, however, testily accused the city council of trying to violate his first amendment rights with their objections to his end run.

He also said that, when he acts as a prosecutor, he’s the prosecutor for the state of California, not for Los Angeles, so he is in fact empowered to go to the state for such powers.

In response, Chemerinsky basically said you’ve got to be kidding, dude, except that he said it very nicely and patiently and in much more legal detail. (The section begins at about minute 19-ish and goes to minute 21:40.)

And then there was a rather surprising exchange at minute 13:20, at which point Mr. Trutanich actually attempted to bitch-slap Warren Olney.

Taking a swing at Warren Olney under any circumstances is a move guaranteed to make anyone look bully-ish and stupid.

In Trutanich’s case, it was not a wise PR choice for a man who wants us to let him grab a bigger badder weapon than he already possesses—without discernible legal checks to hold him accountable.

Photo/LA Times

It was announced Friday afternoon that Bruce Riordan—a former federal prosecutor who has been the head of the gang detail for the City Attorney’s office under both Rocky Delgadillo and now Carmen Trutanich—will be leaving Trutanich’s office to join newly minted US Attorney Andre Birotte, Jr as Birotte’s Senior Counsel.

Evidently, ’tis the season for intriguing job changes in law enforcement.

Just to remind you, Birotte’s office covers the Central District of California, the largest in the nation.

And in case Riordan’s name isn’t immediately familiar I should tell you that he is veteran prosecutor who has broad experience both on a state and a federal level.

More specifically, he is highly respected by law enforcement and other prosecutors--but also by liberal types like me who value smart, aggressive, informed prosecutors who, while hard charging, have the willingness to see the larger, more complex human picture when it comes to subjects like gangs. Riordan epitomizes those two kinds of abilities—that many see as mutually exclusive. (PS: They’re not.)

He will be a loss for the CA’s office, but a gigantic win for Andre Birotte’s team. (Bruce said that his boss, Trutanich, who had to have been disappointed at the move, was gracious about letting him go.)

I talked with Andre Birotte today, and he said he is thrilled that Bruce will join him. They’ve known each other for years, “and we’re like minded,” he said. And he brought up that Riordan has a unique level of experience in the area of gangs, both in the CA’s office and as a federal prosecutor. All true.

Both Birotte and Riordan sound pretty fired up about the jobs ahead of them. It’s nice to hear the enthusiasm, actually. Birotte ticked off all the areas his office will be pursuing. There’s violent crime, naturally, but cyber crime is also a biggie. Plus those mortgage-remediation predators and other fraudsters who are stalking the desperate in increasing numbers in this difficult economy. And civil rights violators. And more.

It’s a long list.

Andre also said that one of the things he and his team will do in the near future is extensive outreach to the communities and counties that the Central District covers. “We have to be willing to listen to the community,” he said. “So we’re going to do outreach like never before.” Unusual for a prosecutor—and a very good call.

We talked about the various challenges Birotte and his office will face, including budget cutbacks. Eventually the topic of justice surfaced. I mentioned that, in the present prosecutorial climate, both on a local and a federal level, sometimes it seems that the goal is to win a big as possible, but not necessarily to seek justice—especially when winning and justice are in conflict.

“Its funny you should bring that up,” he said, “I’ve just been telling my staff that this is going to be a justice-driven office. Firm but fair. But more than anything, justice-driven. It’s not just about winning. And I know Bruce feels that same way.” That’s part of why he wants to work with Riordan, he said.

Good words. And, fortunately for the rest of us, with Andre Birotte and Bruce Riordan, the notion of justice is more than just talk.

Congratulations, BRUCE!

PS: I HAVEN’T FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE TRUTANICH/GRAND JURY ISSUE… But right now it’s looking like it’s going to wait until Monday, given the time.

LA’s City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is pushing for the passage of a bill in the state legislature that would give him his very own grand jury—making him, it is believed, the only city attorney in the nation to have such powers.

City Council members Jan Perry and Bernard Parks aren’t sure this is such a swell idea. I tend to agree with them.

The Los Angeles District Attorney has two grand juries at his disposal. Trutanich, who can prosecute civil matters and misdemeanors, says he needs one too, as the LA Times reports:

City Atty. Carmen Trutanich asked that Los Angeles be the only city in California given power to empanel a grand jury to investigate significant misdemeanor cases. Legislation approved by the state Senate on Tuesday would grant that request, providing the panel with authority to subpoena documents and compel testimony before criminal charges are filed.

“This is a tool that, when used properly, will get to the bottom of a real criminal act,” Trutanich said. “I know from a public safety standpoint the citizens of Los Angeles will be much better off for it.

[SNIP]

He complains of a Catch-22: He can’t slap the hospitals involved with subpoenas for records, or compel witnesses to tell what they know, before he files criminal charges. But filing charges requires such evidence to back them up.

Uh, yeah. That evidence thingy…..it’s kind of the point. You’re supposed to have some of it before you file.

Whereas Grand Juries, as a famous crime writer once wrote, will pretty much indict a ham sandwich if the D.A. asks nicely, proper evidence or no.

The proposed grand jury would not have the power to indict, only to investigate crimes. But if Trutanich gets his, it would give the city attorney a lot of unrestricted power. Unlike the other cogs in the legal system, a GJ may investigate, interview witnesses, demand testimony and information in a manner that is freed from certain restrictions that a conventional legal process imposes. Also a grand jury does its work entirely out of the public view and devoid of scrutiny, thus grand juries are notoriously open to abuse.

In addition, according to Perry and Parks, a grand jury adds another big ticket item to the budget in a fiscal climate where the city needs to cut big ticket items.

They are also uncomfortable with the State Legislature “singling out” the City of Los Angeles for this kind of decision without the LA city council having some say so.

I agree with all their points.

Certainly we want Mr. Trutanich to have the tools he needs to best do his job and we are happy that he has been aggressive in going after people like the supersign scofflaws. But all that said, our city attorney has not shown a strong inclination for self moderation when in comes to the power his office already possesses. So it would seem prudent for the rest of us to think through the implications of the matter before handing over the keys to a brand new, souped-up grand jury.

I’ll keep you up to date as this unfolds.

SKID ROW DRUG DEALER GANG INJUNCTION

On Wednesday, the LA City Attorney’s office announced a new kind of gang injunction that doesn’t target particular gangs per se, but names individuals from a variety of LA gangs who are believed to be coming into Skid Row on a commuter basis to sell drugs.

Kate Linthicum of the LA Times has the story as does C.J. Lin of The Daily News.

There are those who object to the injunction saying that homeless who are merely addicts—who may have run messages for dealers to get their own stash— will be driven away from the Skid Row area where they can acquire much needed services and help.

But others who serve the homeless, like the Union Rescue Mission’s Andy Bales, see the injunction as a good move. “This is the best news we’ve had in a while,” Andy Bales told the Times.

Bruce Riordan, the city attorney’s director of anti-gang operations, said that those listed in the injunction will have plenty of time to challenge their inclusion before the injunction actually kicks in.

Speaking personally, while I know there are more than a few possible abuses that can occur, and mistakes will no doubt be made, still I think the use of an injunction to dissuade the drive-through drug dealers who prey on the homeless is an idea that has appeal.

In the end, whether the injunction is used as valuable tool or a cudgel will depend upon the intelligence and the finesse—or lack thereof— with which it is enforced.

PARENTS’ SCHOOL CHOICE WINS—TEMPORARILY

In past years, around 12,000 students who live in the LAUSD area have been given permission to transfer to a school in a district outside LAUSD—districts such as Beverly Hills, Las Virgenes, Culver City and so on. The idea is that students can transfer to take advantage of a particular program that their local schools didn’t have. Sometimes the requests were just what they said they were. Other times, it was merely a case of frustrated parents who had learned to work the system because they wanted to get their children the hell out of the overcrowded, over-bureaucratized, often-failing Los Angeles Unified School District.

Last month, however, LAUSD superintendent Roman Cortines said that, next year, all of those 12,000 plus kids had to come back. The reasons had nothing to do with the kids’ well being. It was purely a money issue. If most of those students came back to Los Angeles schools LAUSD would get around $50 million more from the state in ADA money—ADA being the sacred average daily attendance figure that dictates much of school funding.

After weeks of parents flipping out, on Tuesday, Cortines and the school board reluctantly walked that very unpopular cat back, and said yes to the transfers—temporarily.

State Senator Gloria Romero, who wants to be the next head of Education for California—was vocally in favor of keeping the transfer policy. “While some might argue that LAUSD will suffer by implementing these reform measures…..Let us not forget that the needs of students must always come first,” she wrote.

Uh, yeah. That last part, the students come first thingy, would be very good to remember.

CALIFORNIA MOVES ONE STEP CLOSER TO REPEALING STATE LAW MANDATING A “GAY CURE.”

On Tuesday, the Assembly’s Public Safety committee passed AB 2199, a bill that would repeal a section of the California Welfare and Institutions code, created in the 1950s, which—no kidding—requires the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the “causes and cures of homosexuality.”

Startling to find that such a sad and loathsome thing is on the books, but it is. And it codifies bigotry.

The bill to repeal the statute passed out of committee with a 4-0 vote, but there were also three abstentions—namely Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, Assemblymen Curt Hagman, R-Diamond Bar, and Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford.

(What’s that about? No, don’t tell me.)

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, explains the genesis of the icky statute in question here in the LA Times.

Witnesses said it happened a week after Katrina hit as people were trying desperately to get to some kind of safety. Officers denied it and aggressively covered the incident up. But now,former New Orleans police officer Michael Hunt says he participated in covering up the murders of unarmed civilians, and told the whole horrifying story on the record in federal court on Wednesday.

The NOLA Times Picayune has the fullest account.

And here is their earlier investigation of the shootings.

Photo from AP

REVISITING THAT MILLION $ BAIL FOR THE SUPERGRAPHIC OUTLAW

If you’ll remember, last month, I objected mightily to the one million in bail that City Attorney Carmen Trutanich requested and got for supergraphic super-scofflaw, Kayvan Setareh, but then I began to wonder if the matter wasn’t a bit more complicated than I’d hastily portrayed.

Neon Tommy reporter Chris Pisar looked more deeply into the issue and came up with a well-balanced report that informs you—then allows you to make up your own mind.

Here’s a clip from the heart of the story:

…That leads us to the real question at hand: does the $1 million dollar bail set by Judge Escobedo fit the crime and circumstances or is it excessive?

When asked if the bail fir the crime, Laurie Levenson, law professor at Loyola Law School, had this to say:

“Of course no, that bail is high even for murder,” said Levenson. “That was off the charts.”

But how exactly does a judge determine what the bail amount should be?

The state starts with a bail schedule that outlines what the bail amount should be for a particular crime, said Patricia Kelly of Los Angeles County Superior Court Media Relations. There is also a committee that makes a recommendation to the district attorney or whoever the prosecutor is.

The key is that it’s only a recommendation, not a cut-and-dried figure.

In order to better understand the open interpretation of bail amounts, we first need to take a look at California Penal Code 1275(a), which outlines four main criteria for setting, reducing, or denying bail: the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or hearing of the case, with public safety being the top concern.

Seeing as how Setareh was booked on three misdemeanor counts all but rules out the probability of his bail being set so high due to the “seriousness of the crime.”

The same goes for Setareh’s potential as a flight risk. As a prominent businessman facing only a few misdemeanor charges, the risk does not outweigh the reward.

So what about Setareh’s criminal history?

Setareh has been arrested four different times in the last 15 years, including his most recent arrest on February 26, but has only been convicted of one count, according to Los Angeles Superior Court documents.

That was a misdemeanor conviction back in July of 2002, in which Setareh was arrested for failure to comply with city regulation on graphic ads. He was charged with two similar counts in December of last year but the charges were dismissed.

While he does have a criminal history, it is hardly enough to warrant such a lofty bail.

That leaves us with the issue of public safety….

And public safety is a crucial point. Read on.

JUSTICE 4 JUSTICE

I’ll have a follow-up to this story next week, but in the meantime, Neon Tommy’s Kevin Grant has this very good report on the anger, confusion and upset that was felt by students at the under-enrolled Green Dot charter, Animo Justice, after they learned that their school was being shut down.

(LAT Howard Bloom’s back story on the issue is here.)

Here’s a clip from Kevin’s story:

Read the rest of this entry »