WARREN OLNEY CONFRONTS CARMEN TRUTANICH WITH, YOU KNOW, FACTS REGARDING HIS REALIGNMENT CAMPAIGN ATTACKS AGAINST FEUER

Thursday night’s Which Way LA? with Warren Olney on KCRW featured City Attorney candidates Mike Feuer and incumbent Carmen Trutanich, with each man interviewed for half the show.

More than perhaps any other interviewer or debate moderator during this election season, Olney has consistently asked the most intelligent, probing and illuminating questions of all the candidates who have stepped behind his microphones.

Thursday’s show with the City Attorney candidates was no exception.

However, his segment with Trutanich was a standout, as the ever dignified Olney all but chased “Nuch” around the room (metaphorically speaking), after Trutantich repeated his nonsense about AB109 letting inmates out of prison early, accusing realignment and Mike Feuer of being responsible for putting the Northridge kidnapping suspect on the street so the man could snatch ten-year-old girls….and more.

As we’ve said here, there is a legitimate and important discussion to be had about reforming AB 109 and some of its companion statutes mandating parole and probation reform. But that would require understanding the law in the first place, which Trutanich does not appear to do, and then one would have to deal in…you know, facts.

In the meantime, a hearty thank you to Warren Olney for holding our city attorney’s feet to the factual fire.

NEW STUDY ON PRISON RAPE AND SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN LOCK-UPS SHOWS THAT YOUTH ARE 13-21 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THAN ADULTS WHEN INCARCERATED

A study released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) contained a number of disturbing statistics. But perhaps the most alarming stats have to do with the overall rates of sexual victimization for youth ages 16 and 17 in adult prisons (4.5%) and jails (4.7%), which were significantly higher than those for adults (4.0% in prisons, 3.2% in jails). The report also found that, among kids who reported being sexual victimized by staff, three quarters were victimized more than once, and nearly half said that staff used force or threat of force.

Yet those stats don’t tell the whole story, since kids are much fewer in numbers than adults in lock-up.

According to the highly respected Campaign for Youth Justice, research by BJS shows that 21% and 13% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence in jails in 2005 and 2006 respectively, were youth under the age of 18 (surprisingly high since only 1% of jail inmates are juveniles). Put another way, previous BJS research shows that youth in adult facilities were 13 to 21 times as likely to be sexually assaulted while in custody than their representation in the correctional population.

“This study tells us that youth face sexual victimization in adult institutions, but due to underreporting by youth in challenging adult facility conditions, we need more research to know more about this problem,” says Liz Ryan, President and CEO of the Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ). “Previous studies and the experiences of young people in the adult criminal justice system document that youth are at greatest risk of sexual victimization in adult jails and prisons, “The report underscores the urgency for U.S. Attorney General Holder and the nation’s governors to redouble their efforts to fully implement the Prison Rape Elimination Act’s (PREA) (http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/preac.html) Youthful Inmate Standard by removing youth under 18 from adult jails and prisons.”

Amnesty International also noted that inmates who identify as LGBT in prisons and jails were at least 2.5 times more likely to be sexually victimized by staff than non-LGBT detainees.

LA’S TWIN TOWERS JAIL SHOWS HIGH RATE OF INMATE ON INMATE SEXUAL ASSAULTS ACCORDING TO THE STUDY

In the study, as you might immagine, some prisions and jails had higher frequencies of sexual abuse than others. The report flagged 11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails that it identified as high-rate facilities based on the prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 2011-12.

LA’s Twin Towers Jail was one of those 9 Jails with the highest rates of sexual assaults, said the report. (SEE PAGES 11 & 12)

AND NOW BACK TO REALIGNMENT: A NEW STUDY INDICATES THAT ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME AS PRE-REALIGNMENT

A new study released Thursday by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicates that, under realignment, post-prison arrests are slightly down, while convictions remain static.

The study followed 37,448 lawbreakers for one year after their release from prison and compared those findings with statistics on 51,910 inmates released in the year immediately prior realignment.

The researchers found that post-Realignment offenders were arrested at a slightly lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders (62 percent pre-Realignment and 58.7 percent post-Realignment).

Key findings include:

* The number of post-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes is nearly the same as the number of pre-Realignment offenders convicted of new crimes (21.3 percent pre-realignment and 22.5 percent post realignment).

* Post-Realignment offenders returned to prison at a significantly lower rate than pre-Realignment offenders, an intended effect of Realignment as most offenders are ineligible to return to prison on a parole violation. (42 percent pre-Realignment and 7.4 percent post-Realignment)

This last is due to the fact that, prior to realignment, parolees were being returned to prison on technical violations of their parole at a rapid clip. Whereas now, with many parolees, technical violations—things like staying out of their old neighborhoods, testing dirty, and so on—do not result in 9 mos more in prison.

There is additional fine grain stuff in the study itself, so click here, if you want delve deeper into the matter. A lot more study is needed, yet the bottom line take-away from this study is that those who have been shrieking that realignment is causing crime to run rife through the countryside, do not have facts on their side.

FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF LAPD OFFICIALLY ENDS

The Federal Consent Decrees finally is no more for the LAPD. The AP’s Tami Abdollah has the story. Here’s a clip:

A judge has officially ended more than a decade of federal oversight of the Los Angeles Police Department that was triggered by a corruption scandal involving abusive officers.
In two short sentences, U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess dismissed the final remnants of a consent decree on Wednesday, releasing the department from a transition agreement put in place in 2009 to ensure reforms that had been made were kept in place.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa cheered the formal end to agreement at an afternoon news conference with Police Chief Charlie Beck. Villaraigosa said the department, which was once “an example of how not to police a city, is now a national model.”

Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said the union was pleased the department was free of the federal monitoring.

“Now we can begin looking for efficiencies in LAPD processes while at the same time maintaining the transparency the public deserves,” he said. The union represents nearly 10,000 LAPD personnel.

The city was forced into the consent decree in 2001 under the threat of a federal lawsuit. The U.S. government alleged a pattern of civil rights violations committed by police officers that went back decades.

Now that it’s over, it bears remembering that, as odious as the thing was, the Consent Decree was a tool that Bill Bratton used effectively to begin to institute real reform in the department.

TRUTANICH “MISLEADING VOTERS” ON REALIGNMENT, SAYS GOVERNOR

With just a few days until the May 21 general election, Gov. Jerry Brown has recorded a message to voters calling out City Attorney Carmen Trutanich for spreading misleading information about prison realignment. Trutanich, who is running a decidedly uphill battle for reelection was originally a supporter of realignment. Now, he has changed his tune, and is bashing opponent Mike Feuer for supporting it, inaccurately pronouncing realignment the “get-out-of-jail early law,” and more.

LA Weekly’s Gene Maddaus has the story. Here’s a clip:

In a mailer, Trutanich calls the plan “the get-out-of-jail early law.” The mailer describes Tobias Summers, the alleged Northridge kidnapper, as “one of Feuer’s get-out-of-jail free graduates.”

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has disputed that, saying that Summers was not released early.

Brown endorsed Trutanich in his failed D.A. campaign, but is now supporting Feuer for city attorney. In the robocall, Brown faults Trutanich for “misleading voters by suddenly attacking a public safety plan he once supported.”

We’d kind of like a city attorney who bothers to check his facts on legal matters, but that’s just us.

WILLFUL DEFIANCE NO LONGER GROUNDS FOR SUSPENDING L.A. KIDS

Tuesday, the LAUSD school board voted to ban suspensions for the catchall, “willful defiance,” in favor of alternative behavioral disciplines. L.A. is the first district in the state to take this large step toward school disciplinary reform.

The state bill on the same issue is making its way through the legislative process. According to Public Counsel spokesman Michael Soller, “AB 420 passed the Assembly Education Committee, and is headed for an appropriations vote on May 24 or 25. If it gets out of that committee, then it’s on to the Senate.”

WitnessLA will certainly be keeping an eye on it.

LA Times’ Teresa Watanabe has the story on LAUSD’s vote. Here’s a clip:

The packed board room erupted in cheers after the 5-2 vote to approve the proposal, which made L.A. Unified the first school district in the state to ban defiance as grounds for suspension. The action comes amid mounting national concern that removing students from school is imperiling their academic achievement and disproportionately harming minority students, particularly African Americans.

“Now we’ll have a better chance to stay in school and become something,” said Luis Quintero, 14, a student at Augustus Hawkins High School in South Los Angeles. He attended the board meeting, along with dozens of other students and community activists who have been pushing the proposal by board members Monica Garcia and Nury Martinez.

But the vote came after an impassioned discussion over whether the proposal would give a “free pass” to students and shield them from the consequences of misbehavior. Board members Marguerite LaMotte told students that they needed to pay for their mistakes, while Richard Vladovic said no student had the right to disrupt learning opportunities for classmates.

“I’m not going to give you permission to go crazy and think there are no consequences,” LaMotte said.

U.S. KIDS’ HIGH EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE AND TRAUMA

According to a new report from JAMA Pediatrics, four out of ten kids in the U.S. were exposed to physical violence in the last year. In addition, an alarming 13.7 percent of the 4,500 children surveyed reported repeated mistreatment from their caregivers.

The Examiner’s Sharon Gloger Friedman has the story. Here’s a clip:

…Survey results showed:

*Physical assault in the past year was reported by 41.2 percent of respondents.

*Assault-related injuries were reported by 10.1 percent of respondents.

*Nearly 11 percent of girls ages 14 to 17 reported sexual assault or abuse.

*Repeated maltreatment by a caregiver was reported by 13.7 percent of respondents; of that group 3.7 percent said they experienced physical abuse.

More than 13 percent of kids reported being physically bullied; one in three said they had been emotionally bullied.
According to Dr. Michael Brody, a child psychiatrist in Potomac, Md., these numbers may be low.

“I think, unfortunately, this [violence] is so endemic to our society, it’s overlooked. It is considered like a cold,” Brody, who often works with victims of childhood violence, and who is a spokesperson for the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, told HealthDay News.

Brody added that witnessing or experiencing violence as a child can result in rage, lack of security, feelings of powerlessness, nightmares and other psychological aftereffects that last long into adulthood.

Of particular concern are children and teens who suffer frequent exposures to violence. Survey results showed that nearly 15 percent of study participants had been exposed to violence six or more times in the past year and about five percent had been exposed to 10 or more violent acts.

A similar study by the National Survey of Children’s Health found that nearly 48 percent of US youth had experienced at least one major childhood trauma.

Jane Stevens expertly lays out the consequences of this exposure to violence and trauma on her blog, ACEs Too High. Here’s a clip:

Almost half the nation’s children have experienced at least one or more types of serious childhood trauma, according to a new survey on adverse childhood experiences by the National Survey of Children’s Health (NHCS). This translates into an estimated 34,825,978 children nationwide, say the researchers who analyzed the survey data.

Even more concerning, nearly a third of U.S. youth age 12-17 have experienced two or more types of childhood adversity that are likely to affect their physical and mental health as adults. Across the 50 U.S. states, the percentages range from 23 percent for New Jersey to 44.4 percent for Arizona.

The data are clear, says Dr. Christina Bethell: If more prevention, trauma-healing and resiliency training programs aren’t provided for children who have experienced trauma, and if our educational, juvenile justice, mental health and medical systems are not changed to stop traumatizing already traumatized children, many of the nation’s children are likely to suffer chronic disease and mental illness. Not only will their lives be difficult, but the nation’s already high health care costs will soar even higher, she believes. Bethell is director of the National Maternal and Child Health Data Resource Center, part of the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative (CAHMI). The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Service Administration, sponsors the survey.

Those numbers are already formidable, and they get much higher when looking at kids in the juvenile justice system.

KRIS KRISTOFFERSON CONCERT TO RAISE MONEY FOR HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES

And on a happier note, Kris Kristofferson will be performing a benefit concert for Homeboy Industries’ 25th anniversary, at Pepperdine’s Smothers Theater on June 23. (WitnessLA plans to be there.)

FishbowlLA’s Richard Horgan has more details on the concert.

WitnessLA isn’t offering any endorsements at the moment. (Okay, maybe one little endorsement. But we’ll get to in a minute.)

Instead, we have linked to some of the more interesting and informative articles, interviews, mini-debates and what not that we thought you might find helpful as you make your decisions:

FIRST AN OVERVIEW: SO WHO REALLY HAS THE POWER IN LA ANYWAY?

Obviously, everyone knows in general what the Mayor does, and the City Council Members, and the City Attorney. But, past the generalities, a great many of us don’t have a really firm grasp on the details of who has control over what in Los Angeles.

With this in mind, LA Magazine has put together a handy GUIDE TO POWER IN LA that explains…well….everything (or nearly so.)

We highly recommend taking a look.

WHO’S GOT WHAT ELECTIONS $$$ AND WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

KCET has a great Who’s Funding Whom Database, which you can find here.

And here’s a rundown about how to get the most out of the database.

MAYOR

Warren Olney interviews the top 5 mayoral hopefuls—and the interviews are particularly good. Here’s the link, but scroll down, for each interview.

And for individual takes on the candidates:
KPCC’s Frank Stoltze looks at Eric Garcetti and asks if the candidate is tough enough to do what needs to be done as mayor.

Gene Maddeus writes about Wendy Greuel, whom he portrays as a down-to-earth, no-nonsense fix-it woman—with strong union support, namely by the DWP’s powerful workers union, IBEW Local 18—whose backing some voters find worrisome.

UPDATE: Greuel moved to counter that fear on Thursday when she told the Daily News that there would be no DWP raises if LA has a deficit.

Dakota Smith at the Daily News looks at Jan Perry and wonders if she’s too beholden to business groups.

Similarly the LA Times’ Jim Newton wonders if Eric Garcetti is too beholden to the teachers’ union.

In terms of endorsements, the Daily News thinks Wendy Greuel is strong and gutsy enough to take on “stubborn interests”—the unions and others—who “would make L.A. proud as the first woman to lead the nation’s second most populous city.”

The Los Angeles Times goes for Eric Garcetti, whom it says is the candidate with the most potential to “rise to the occasion…” and “the power to inspire.” “He could be just what Los Angeles needs.”

CITY ATTORNEY

While we aren’t endorsing anyone, we do have a strong anti-endorsement. Here it is: ABC—anybody but Carmen. Incumbent Carmen Trutanich has good points, but the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. We went into more detail when Mr. Trutanich ran for District Attorney.

If you’d like a good one-stop-shopping destination that allows you to get a broad strokes idea of the three main candidates—Mike Fuerer, Greg Smith, and Carmen Trutanich—we recommend the on air debate, again, with Warren Olney.

We think it is fascinatingly character revealing for all three of the candidates. For some in a good way. For others, not so much.

CITY CONTROLLER

Once more we refer you to the on-air debate between the candidates with Warren Olney on Which Way LA?

As for sorting out the candidates for voting purposes: LA City Counsel member, Dennis Zine, is the best known and, as such, has a long list of endorsements from unions and elected officials. However persons like former City Controller Laura Chick—and the LA Times, the Daily News, La Opinion, the Daily Breeze and others—are going for Ron Galperin.

Not endorsing, just sayin’…

SCHOOL BOARD

For years, the teachers’ unions have poured gobs of money into the coffers of certain school board candidates whom they could then count on to vote the unions’ direction on any reform issue that the union didn’t like. And true to form, the unions’ presence is being felt in this year’s race too.

But the school board races that are up for a vote in Tuesday’s election have featured a new and muscular funding stream. The money comes from what is collectively known as the school reform movement—a coalition that does not think reform can take place if board members are forever hogtied by unions who put their own interests ahead of those of LA’s kids, with year upon year of demonstrably disastrous results. As a consequence, the the national reform movement has come up with its own big bucks, with some of the money even coming from outside the state. (Not surprisingly, the latter fact has caused controversy.)

Here’s what Education Week has on the matter.

So whom does one vote for in light of all this competing campaign funding?

Well, here’s what the Daily News has to say on the subject.

And here is the LA Times’ list of School Board endorsements.

(You will note both papers’ LAUSD board endorsements are exactly the same.)

The Daily News goes on to explain how it selected its three choices and why it thinks this school board election is of real importance:

What’s at stake is more than just three faces on the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. The result could either confirm the slow move toward innovation and reform in the nation’s second-largest school district. Or it could reverse the course, destroying the few steps the district has taken in recent years to shake up the old, failing education structure.

For that reason, these races have attracted an astonishing amount of money – $4 million so far – as the unions and reform groups battle it out. How this election goes next week could well decide the fate of education reform in the city, state and nation.

That’s why we are strongly encouraging voters in the three districts - 2, 4, and 6 – to go to the polls and strike a victory for the students by choosing these three people:

Monica Garcia in District 2…Kate Anderson in District 4…Monica Ratcliff in District 6

We agree—most particularly about the choice of Kate Anderson. And, we don’t think the Daily News is overstating its case when it talks about how important this election is to LA’s educational future, and probably to the state’s.

So, yes, that’s an endorsement.

(Oh, and one more thing: Vote NO on Measure A.

NOTE: For more on LA’s schools, and education issues—including Tuesday’s board race—-start reading the lively, smart, and very tuned in LA School report.

BUT WHATEVER YOUR CHOICE….PLEASE VOTE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 5.

JACKIE SPEAKS

LA Now got these thoughts from Jackie Lacey on Wednesday morning, once her victory was confirmed.

“The voters are saying the D.A.’s office is not for sale, it’s not like any other political office,” said Lacey, who took 32% of the votes and in November’s runoff will face fellow prosecutor Alan Jackson, who won nearly 24% of the votes. The two candidates led the votes in a surprising upset over L.A. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who raised $1.5 million for the race and secured high-profile endorsements.

“It’s a great country when the person who raises the most money doesn’t win,” she said.

Lacey said she was concerned and intimidated “for a minute” at Trutanich’s endorsements, particularly when Gov. Jerry Brown backed the city attorney. “That was an interesting decision,” she said. She said her campaign then chose to move forward and put “one foot in front of the other.”

She said she would be scrambling to get endorsements from Brown, Sheriff Lee Baca and labor.

“We are making calls as we speak,” she said. “Given what I’ve read about the sheriff’s plans in the jails, and what the governor intends to do, we need to work as a team and we need to start today.”

Had she faced Trutanich in the runoff, Lacey said the campaign could have taken a turn for the nasty and that there could have been “blood on the walls…..”

Lacey said this to The Wave in a Wednesday interview:

“I believe that the next D.A., who I believe will be myself, needs to be courageous and look at repositioning the justice system. There’s a better way to keep the community safe. We need to get people into rehab and mental health programs, and solve this problem forever, rather than have them going in and out of jail.”

AND BACK AT THE TRUTANICH CAMP ON TUESDAY NIGHT

Frank Stoltze of KPCC was at Trutanich’s would be victory party on Tuesday night and posted a…very intriguing story about everyone’s reactions after it became clear that Jackie Lacey had zoomed past Trutanich in votes, and worse, he wouldn’t be in the runoff at all.

Here’s a clip:

….By 1 a.m., the candidate everyone thought was unbeatable — the one who’d outspent his opponents three to one – was beginning to explain his loss.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more vitriolic, negative campaign against anyone,” Trutanich said.

Trutanich complained of attacks by his opponents that distorted his record. His political consultant John Shallman echoed the sentiment.

“They had a pretty nice trap set when Trutanich got in the race,” Shallman said.

But many would argue that the trap was set by Trutanich himself when he pledged three years ago to serve out his term as city attorney before running for another office. Opponents called him a liar, and the campaign offered varying explanations for the switch. Trutanich called the pledge a “gimmick.” Shallman labeled it “silly and political.”

Some voters seemed unconvinced.

Trutanich also blamed the media, especially talk radio hosts who he said regularly attacked him. Shallman said he counted 42 negative news articles. He defended Trutanich’s decision to limit media interviews and debate appearances.

“I don’t know that there’s anything he could have done with the tidal wave of negativity,” Shallman said.

The LA Weekly’s Gene Maddeus was also at the non-victory party and had these nuggets.

Speaking to a dwindling group of supporters after 1 a.m., Trutanich did not concede, but blamed the media for a “major league onslaught” against his candidacy.

“Barack Obama is getting hammered right now,” Trutanich said. “I think the negative campaign against me is worse.”

[SNIP]

“….”I don’t know what we did wrong in terms of running the city of L.A.,” Trutanich told the crowd. “There’s absolutely no corruption in the city of Los Angeles, as far as the city attorney’s office goes. They hit me on street artists. I still think of it as graffiti. Obviously the marijuana crowd came out… We’ve done everything properly. There’s no shame in what we’ve done. Negative campaigns work.”

So-o-o-ooo….let me get this straight: Carmen Trutanich lost this election because of the mean media, the tagger backlash, and the weed-lovers political machine.

Okay. Got it.

Lacey will face LA prosecutor Alan Jackson in November’s runoff race..

Trutanich told the LA Times that he will seek a second term as City Attorney. Assemblyman Mike Fuerer and others plan to run for the office as well. Feurer has already raised $345,000 toward the election, which will take place in November.

Photo by Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times

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