Civil Liberties LA County Jail LASD Sheriff Lee Baca

Undersheriff Paul Tanaka Explains What He REALLY Meant About “The Gray Area”



On Tuesday, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka
sent out a department-wide memo having to do with what he termed “The Gray* Area”—a term that he has been criticized for using liberally.

In the memo (which is reprinted after the jump in its entirety) Mr. Tanaka, who is the second in command to Sheriff Lee Baca, states that he is writing to clarify matters because he’s come to find out that deputies have misinterpreted the term. “Some would like to believe that the gray area is the area between right and wrong,” he writes, “that it characterizes certain police misconduct as acceptable, and that the end justifies the means.”

Mr. Tanaka wants, he says, to “ensure ensure that there is no misunderstanding — that when it comes to right or wrong, there is NO gray area.”

And so on.

He adds that he’s bringing up the matter now due to the fact that “…during the past couple of years, we have seen deputies fired or prosecuted for operating in their own self-defined gray area, for believing it was ok to do so, for losing their way, for believing the end justified the means, and for compromising their responsibility to do what’s right….”


HE SAID, THEY SAID.

Mr. Tanaka’s apparent shock at how the phrase has been perceived would appear to fly in the face of accounts by department personnel —present and former—who have reported having heard the undersheriff use the term with much less benign intent when on varied occasions he allegedly exhorted the troops to “work in the gray, work it hard”—and other words to that affect.

WitnessLA first broke the news about the undersheriff’s past work in the gray speeches in Part 3 of our Dangerous Jails series by Matt Fleischer.

Since the story appeared, a string of department sources have contacted us with similar accounts— all of whom saw the undersheriff’s words as having a more problematic meaning.

More recently, two of the LASD “witnesses” spoke about the issue in their testimony before the Jails Commission. In May, former Commander Robert Olmsted was asked if he’d heard the term, and, this month, Captain Pat Maxwell was asked a similar question. Both told of instances where the undersheriff has used the phrase in front of a group, and both indicated he did not use it in the high-minded manner with which he characterizes it now.

In addition to the two men’s testimony, the commissioners were also provided with a 2007 memo by a Captain Steven Roller, that documented a visit by then-Assistant Sheriff Tanaka to the department’s Century station in which he again seemed to exhort the troops to push the envelope of legality. According to Roller, Tanaka told an assembly of deputies and officers that they…

“….should function right on the edge of the line, in that deputies need to be very agressive in their approach to dealing with gang members”

Roller also wrote that Tanaka talked about his dislike of the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau and cautioned supervisors about disciplining their deputies. “He said he would be checking to see which supervisors were putting the most cases on deputies and he would put a case on them.”

[click thumbnail of Roller memo to enlarge]

Last week, the LA Times expressed concern in an editorial that the undersheriff “…allegedly encouraged supervisors to allow deputies to work ‘in the gray area.'”


DEPARTMENT MEMBERS REACT

After obtaining Mr. Tanaka’s memo on Tuesday afternoon, WitnessLA asked a bunch of department members —both retired and working—what they thought of the undersheriff’s letter. All had a similar reaction to what they uniformly regarded as revisionist history.

For instance, a former LASD unit commander with a background in both of the department’s self-investigative arms, Internal Affairs and ICIB, had this to say in an email:

Anyone who has been around law enforcement for more than a cup of coffee knows exactly what Tanaka was referring to when he went station by station [talking about] “the gray area.” This includes Tanaka attending a pre-warrant deployment meeting a couple of years ago at the Roybal Federal Building ** in Los Angeles. In the presence of about 100 FBI and other federal agents, an Assistant US Attorney and numerous local law enforcement officers, Tanaka was introduced by then Lieutenant James Thornton (now Captain of the Pico Rivera Station) to the large group of agents/officers who were ready to serve a series of warrants in the Hawaiian Gardens area regarding the murder investigation of a OSS Deputy a few weeks earlier. Tanaka stood before the group, which up to that point had several speakers and was being video taped. Tanaka reportedly ordered all video cameras and tape recorders to be shut off. After that occurred, to the complete shock of a majority of those present, spewed about “The gray area.” “Gray area” is a term well known within the law enforcement community and it is NOT representative of Tanaka’s letter.

Retired commander Robert Olmsted was equally dismayed by Tuesday’s memo:

Telling others to “work in the gray area” is to say it is OK to break the law because the ends justifies the means. “The gray area” says to bend the laws for the individual benefit at the expense of the Constitution. Now [Tanaka] is upset that deputies are committing crimes and getting fired? Shame on him because it was his statements to work in the gray which were interpreted to do whatever it takes to accomplish the task.

So, how does one explain the discrepancy? It would seem that either a wide variety of department veterans are grossly mistaken in their interpretation of a multiplicity of incidents—or the undersheriff is dissembling.

Commander Christy Guyovich, whom I spoke with near the end of this month’s commission hearing, was firm in her contention that it was the critics who were wrong, that the undersheriff was very clear about never breaking the law, and that those who said otherwise were deliberately misinterpreting him for their own personal agendas.


UPDATE: I just touched base with department spokesman Steve Whitmore about the memo, and he had this to say: “I think it’s a terrific memo because it removes any confusion. He steps to the front of the line and says ‘this is exactly what I believe. This is exactly what is right and what is wrong.’ It’s direct and to the point. There are no vagaries. There is no confusion. It is another indication of why he’s the undersheriff.”

On July 27, both the undersheriff and Sheriff Baca are scheduled to appear at a specially scheduled jails commission hearing, at which time Mr. Tanaka will presumably have the chance to answer that question for himself.


[EDITOR’S NOTE: The color in question is variously spelled “gray” or “gray.” Both are perfectly correct. Mr. Tanaka used the British-leaning version “grey.” We use the Americanized version that corresponds with the AP Style book and Webster’s, as does the LA Times and most other American publications. However, in the undersheriff’s memo below, we have left his original spelling.


07-17-12
THE GREY AREA
By Paul Tanaka, Undersheriff
Since you began your career, you were told that, as a peace officer, you were going to possess broad discretionary authority; some, including me, have referred to it as the “grey area”. You make a traffic stop because a driver was speeding – do you issue a citation or do you provide a verbal warning? You respond to a call of an intoxicated person – do you book him for being drunk in public, or do you take steps to ensure a responsible adult can take the individual safely home? Examples such as these are limitless and serve to underscore the wide-ranging discretionary powers of law enforcement – the powers you possess.

I’ve come to learn in recent months that the term “grey area” can be easily misinterpreted by those that choose to do so. Some would like to believe that the grey area is the area between right and wrong, that it characterizes certain police misconduct as acceptable, and that the end justifies the means.

I’m writing this message to ensure that there is no misunderstanding — that when it comes to right or wrong, there is NO grey area. The discretionary authority given to us as law enforcement officers brings with it tremendous responsibility. It requires us to be knowledgeable of all applicable laws, rules, policies and protocols and to enforce them in a manner that is fair, impartial and compassionate. Being a peace officer necessitates that you maintain an unwavering sense of right and wrong. Cross this line and you violate our Department’s Core Values, dishonor the badge, let down your fellow deputies, bring shame to yourself and embarrass your family.

Some of you are probably wondering why I’ve chosen to address this issue. The reason is simple – during the past couple of years, we have seen deputies fired or prosecuted for operating in their own self-defined grey area, for believing it was ok to do so, for losing their way, for believing the end justified the means, and for compromising their responsibility to do what’s right. Deputies have been fired and prosecuted for smuggling contraband into our jails to curry favor with inmates, associating with notorious criminals off-duty, lying on police reports, and committing perjury in court. I’m writing this because it disheartens me to see careers and family lives ruined, our Department’s reputation tarnished, and our badge dishonored.

You hired on because you wanted to serve the community in the most noble way. You chose to do so with a law enforcement agency that continually strives to be the best in the business. Do what’s right, do it well, and you stand to have a rewarding career in custody, the courts, patrol, investigations or any of the many ancillary assignments our Department has to offer.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is a proud agency, comprised of some of the finest men and women in law enforcement. The work you do, day in and day out, is commendable and appreciated. Let’s make sure we do it the right way, every day.

** CORRECTION: Originally our informant heard that the pre-warrant meeting was at the Roybal Federal building, but he subsequently learned it was at another location.

24 Comments

  • What a bunch of BS! Celeste: If your boss told you to work in the “Grey Area” would there be any doubt as to its’ meaning? What Tan is really saying is the Deputies involved in the torture and beatings have confessed to the Feds and they laid out Tanaka. How fitting that this same memo will be used to strangle both Tanaka and Baca! The viper calling the pit black!

  • It’s pretty obvious the US’s memo was strictly damage control. WLA does a great job exposing the memo for what it is. Celeste, to further reinforce, in one of the previous articles were the comments of retired detective Larry Landreth to, I believe, was the CCJV. Landreth said he was in a meeting with Tanaka, who disparaged I.A. I don’t recall exactly what was said, but it was along the same theme of not liking internal affairs investigators.

    I’m baffled at Sheriff Baca’s attempt to protect the US at all costs. What a crying shame! If it were any of the line personnel in the hot seat they would be dealt with in a heart beat. The US has become a huge liability because of the rogue culture which has bred. Sheriff, your spokesman said you are not stepping down, but stepping up. Fantastic. That is great to hear. Now swing the bat for crying out loub and put the ball in play! We’re all watching and waiting.

    Thank you to all the retired and current members who are stepping forward to right what has terribly gone wrong with the department. YOU are the true leaders who greatly care about our department!!

  • Police discretion (Grey area) allows law enforcement officials to effectively make decisions in the field when no clear-cut solution is illuminated by law or a handbook. This “Gray Area” trend in police work has many advantages such as allowing officers the flexibility to handle each situation in a manner that best fits its individual needs.

    A police officer has the ability to utilize discretion when determining an acceptable level of force against a suspect. An officer is able to use lethal force if he believes his life to be in danger but he is not obligated to do so.

    Preserving life is always the foremost concern of officers and allowing them the ability to create every opportunity to do so is advantageous to the system across the board in providing victims of an offense closure and allowing an offender an opportunity to do something with his life and amend it as opposed to simply ending it.

    Police officers are not simply rule-following soldiers. DISCRETION also known as gray area, as it is used by these law enforcement professionals, acts as a deterrent to crime simply by avoiding predictable patterns that criminals can take advantage of. A police officer that has an ordered route of patrol each night can be mapped and criminals will target areas at times where police are not immediately available. Discretion in this area however allows an officer to choose his patterns, mix them up and avoid leaving locations without police presence for too long.

    Police officers have discretion “Grey Area” when enforcing some areas of the law insofar as who is ticketed or even arrested. It isn’t cost effective for an officer to attempt to pull over everyone he suspects of speeding or attempt to search the vehicles of those he pulls over. The advantage here allows an officer to focus his energy on those situations where he believes a law has genuinely been broken in reckless fashion or when he believes a suspect is hiding something and may have broken more serious laws.

  • I don’t know why he would put out a memo like that because it is a ridiculous statement coming from him. He looks like even more of a liar and a hypocrite.

  • Mr. Tanaka…disabuse yourself from the idea that we are all morons. A seasoned law enforcement officer equating “working in the grey area” to “officer discretion” is as ridiculous as a CPA equating a directive to”cook the books” to that of “closing out month end”. Your explanation demonstrates desperation to not only professionals within the field but more importantly to the community you have sworn to lead. Shame on you.

  • Shades of grey or gray is like the spitit and the letter of the law.

    It’s like commercial pilots flying into poor weather which is not prudent, but strtches and stays within the parameters of the laws governing pilot in command decision making.

    I fully understand what Tanaka means, his intent, because in this day and age, you have to be smarter than the oxygen consuming scum who kill innocent children.

    Anyone disagree with that observation?

  • Another propaganda/false twist/redundancy published by Celeste. Folks, please do not give this site any credence or the time to justify its existance by posting anything. The two to three retirees that post everything on this site can talk to each other all they want and debate with each other. They will eventually get tired and go away. Don’t let this site or any other sites deminish or affect the tradition and morale of our hard working deputy sheriffs. One sided thoughts like this site and other liberal organizations want to drive a wedge between us all. Let’s not allow it and to give in to their existance. Thank you for understanding.

  • #3 @ right thing. In all my years, 3 decades of police work, I have never heard “the grey area” and “discretion” to equate to the same meaning. To the contrary, the gray area has always been used in a negative context in training I received, during granting of 1538.5 motions, and risk management lecture. Stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Expressions such as “creative writing”, “testi-lie” and “working the gray area” are all no-nos. As a patrol deputy, my sergeants and lieutenants emphasized avoiding working in the gray area to keep us out of trouble. I’m not getting the dual meaning. I challenge you to cite one credible source (other than the Sheriff’s News Letter) where “gray area” is used to describe prudent and lawful discretion.

    By the way, Captain Parker, if you are perusing the blogs today, will you be sending out an email blast of the L.A. Times article of the grey area letter??

  • Not Again: I sense that you need to watch and determine if the FEDS are following you. As for the hard working deputies, certainly you do NOT put yourself in that category!!??

    OH PLAAASSSEEE

  • If Tanaka meant what he said in his latest letter, why did he have the assembled FBI agents and others turn off all their recorders when he talked about “the grey area” prior to a raid? Why did he kick all the supervisors out of meetings with line personnel when discussing this issue? Why would he start investigations on supervisors who investigated line personnel’s questionable actions? I guess the big question is, has Tanaka been misleading and lying to the troops for the past 12 years, or did he lie yesterday in his letter?

  • Cwaits: can’t wait to hear the spin on your questions! I saw some folks at SHB re-arranging the deck chairs similar to what happened on the Titanic!!

  • This e-mail is the talk of the Department. A lot people are insulted that Tanaka would think we are all that dumb to take his explanation of “grey area.” Tanaka has a history of working in the grey area that goes all the way back to his Lynwood days in the late 80’s. How much was he allowing deputies to get away with then? I would say plenty, since they gave him a coveted Viking tattoo as a Sergeant. That is incredible that a Supervisor got one, and his MO has not changed. He has divided this Department and tarnished our badge by encouraging bad behavior.

    Other than the few Tanaka supporters that post on here, every sworn person I have talked to on our Department and others agree with #3 Mike the Saint.

    I love the title, Leadership Message from The Undersheriff. Truth known, the Sheriff wrote it and told him to send it. One thing Tanaka is and that is smart. There is no way he would send this out without being ordered to as he knew it would blow up in his face. The Sheriff is too naive to see or do anything about this.

    PT orSheriff, Here our some themes for the next Leadership Message to consider:

    – Why Tanaka really hasn’t trashed IAB constant and numerous times
    – How his strong arm campaign contributions are mis-construed
    – How not to force people to donate for a Harley Davidson for a Commanders retirement
    – How to get promoted fairly and not Pay to Play
    – Change discipline for a buddy and screw up the whole system
    – Have a secret coin for the cigar club
    – Transfer and ruin supervisors’ lives because the deputies complain
    – Hide stuff from the Sheriff and he and our Department gets trashed again
    – Elected in Gardena and live in Diamond Bar
    – Be in possession of the Lt’s exam before it is given

    Pick one, there are many more

    Lastly, You have spewed this grey for many years and have never defined what it is until it is captured in a public document. We all know what it is and so did and do you. I know it is reserved for only Chiefs and Sheriffs, but I would like to see what a vote of no confidence would be for the U/S. it would be 5%-95% at Lennox, Compton and Century, and 85-15 rest of Department.

  • If Tanaka meant what he said, it seems to me that he would have produced some source of clarification when incidents of his “grey area” advice were originally reported. I would also like to confirm what a couple of you have already indicated: I have yet to find any department member who believes that Tanaka’s memo is sincere.

  • At the risk of pointing out the obvious… Anyone else notice this was the Undersheriff’s first “Leadership Message” (as denoted by the 001 in the corner) in, what, two years on the job? I mean, just sayin’. It’s an interesting brand of “leadership”, though. But that’s an unfair dig: I mean, it’s not GE. Or LAPD. Or, for that matter, a status report by a 16 year old babysitter. C’mon…what do you expect of the man? He’s been busy (not getting us working radio cars, ASAPs, and other stuff other departments had in the 90s).

  • The real and honorable men and women knew and still know exactly what the US meant then and means now. If you wear a tarnished badge, you don’t need instructions on how to break the law. If you don’t wear a tarnished badge, you hear honor and leadership from the top.

  •  I agree that this letter is nothing more than  an attempt to control damage. Someone is going to have to take responsibility for the problems that are being brought out.   Look at what happened at Penn State. Management  in LASD knew about badly behaved deputies  and the incompetence of some of those supervising them.  Instead of fixing the problems when they were  molehills, management solution was to  shamefully ignore them or not supporting those attempting to fix them. Sheriff Baca’s complacency  and  Mr. Tanaka’s  arrogance play a major role in this  mess.

  • To#15- Mr. Tanaka is a good man trying to do the right thing. He’s been Undersheriff for LESS than a year and has helped make positive change in a short amount of time. If we’ve made this much progress in 11 months,imagine where will be in 2 years. Keep up the great work.

  • The message is an attempt to cover his tracks. People giving testimony to the commission are given the questions in advance. He and Baca are getting ready for next week’s hearing. By the way, all real cops know what is meant by the “grey area” and real cops operate with the law and Department policy not in the Grey.

  • I have to put in a few words. I have tried not post for a while, but..
    The email blast was absolutely damage control. Again those in the tower refuse to listen to people below. It should of went out ages ago.
    Tanaka should retire if for nothing else the betterment of the Departments reputation. (Believe me there are more reasons). I still hold the questions if the Sheriff believes we are all leaders, how did the entire executive staff allow this to happen to the department? I KNOW it was discussed in the beginning.
    BUT, the gray area is not the illegal area. Working in the gray means using your mind to attack the problem. Thinking outside the box, being proactive at removing problems.
    To those that assume it is illegal law enforcement and everything is black and white, why then are law libraries full of definitions? Why does it take a criminal court, several appeals courts and finally a US Court to interpret one law? The law is not black and white. Lawyers interpret the law, courts interpret the law and so do we. As a supervisor I have always asked the deputies to be the type of deputies they want in their community, professional, proactive, and respectful. The gray area to me has always meant being the type of deputy who can get things done to resolve issues, legally and lawfully. I would never ask, expect or tolerate a deputy or any other law enforcement officer doing anything illegal.
    For the record, I do not work in Region II, and I am not in the “Car.” Heck I am not on the same freeway.

  • Left at Ball: It is nice to see a Non Tanaka person weigh in. The problem is with the “Grey” area, it is not defined. If you ask, a majority of LE people have a negative (illegal-out of policy) association with the term grey area. It doesn’t matter if you are right or I am right, the big point is that no Major, if any, Law Enforcement Executive should use that word when addressing subordinates. As a leader, one of your strengths should be effective communication to everyone below. When you have used a term for many many years and then have to clarify (cover) it with a department wide email of what you mean, then you have failed as a leader.

  • 50 shades of gray is what Paul is doing. The book is like Paul in his favorite room called EPC. EPC is managed by fear of abuse, What a way to run a department. I walk by on Wednesday morning and see the chiefs waiting to be abused by Paul before the sheriff arrives. So working in the gray is a favorite term for Paul. The memo is put out was leaked the night before and everyone that read it was laughing at the Sheriff. Hey Lee have you heard of the story of Al Capone.

  • Good point train. It;s kinda like writing a supplemental report SHad-32a to the first report cuz DB said there might be an issue, so make it a bit more precise for the filing DA. DUH……

    I agree, nothing is going to happen. Tanaka will retain the teflon, and Baca will be re-elected. I’ll bet captain’s pay on that and six months of megaflex

  • Voicing concerns regarding the decay of the Sheriff’s Department will not end the problem if the concerns are only brought out in the Witness L.A. WEB site. It must be taken further. PPOA and ALADS needs to get out from under the table, stand up, and voice the members concerns of the actions of Sheriff Baca, Under Sheriff Tanaka, and their associates. Our union phone lines must to be consumed with phone calls from members demanding action. If both union presidents continue to stand quiet, then they need to be forced out and replaced with individuals who will have the courage to voice the concerns and issues of the members. This is a critical point in the future our Department. If we let this pass with just comments on this WEB page, then we have failed in our responsibility to our Department. In the face of battle, Honor and courage. The battle is for the life, and honor, of our Sheriff’s Department.

Leave a Comment