Bravo!!! LAPD Computer Targets Rogue Cops

Wildcard

Moderator
LAPD Computer Targets Rogue Cops
Associated Press

Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68294,00.html

03:05 PM Jul. 23, 2005 PT

LOS ANGELES -- Dogged by scandal, the Los Angeles Police Department is looking beyond human judgment to technology to identify bad cops.

This month, the agency began using a $35 million computer system that tracks complaints and other telling data about officers -- then alerts top supervisors to possible signs of misconduct.

The system is central to a federal oversight program ordered by the U.S. Justice Department after a wave of abuse allegations in the 1990s cast doubt on the LAPD's ability -- and willingness -- to police itself.

"There definitely needs to be computerized management" of officers, said Andre Birotte, the LAPD's inspector general. "There have been concerns with all the scandals that have gone on within the department."

Community leaders hope the tracking system can help restore public confidence shaken by high-profile shootings and scandals involving the LAPD.

"I don't think any single thing will solve problems with the Police Department. But this could go a long way toward doing it," said the Rev. Cecil "Chip" Murray, an activist and former pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church, an influential congregation in South Los Angeles.

The system, developed by Sierra Systems Group and Bearing Point, mines databases of complaints, pursuits, lawsuits, uses of force and other records to detect patterns that human eyes might miss or choose to ignore.

In the past, much of that data existed only on paper spread across various bureaus. That made it difficult to compile detailed performance profiles of officers and spot potential abusers.

Now, anyone whose conduct differs sharply from their peers' automatically gets flagged. That could mean a vice detective who fires significantly more shots than other investigators or anti-gang cops with a high number of excessive force complaints.

Safeguards have been built in to catch abuse that might be widespread within certain peer groups.

If the system pinpoints unusual conduct, it triggers an electronic message to direct supervisors, who must take a second look. The notices also travel up the command chain to a deputy chief as an extra level of oversight. Managers can access the system anywhere in the department through an internal website.

Depending on their conduct, some officers could be ordered to undergo more training or counseling. Follow-up investigations could lead to firing or criminal charges.

Other troubled police departments, including New Orleans and Miami-Dade County, have turned to such tracking systems. New Orleans recorded a drop in citizen complaints, and Miami-Dade saw a decrease in use of force reports in the first years after systems were implemented, according to a 2001 study by the Justice Department.

The technology could face its toughest test at the LAPD -- the second-largest police department in the nation with nearly 13,100 officers, jailers, dispatchers and other personnel.

Portrayed on TV as dutiful and honest in the Dragnet and Adam-12 eras, the department has long struggled with allegations of brutality, even before the 1991 videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King.

Tension flared again this month when police shot and killed a 19-month-old girl and her father as he clutched the girl and fired dozens of rounds at officers. Police are investigating the standoff, which left relatives and activists outraged that officers didn't show more patience during the incident.

Some rank-and-file officers fear the tracking system could mistakenly tag hardworking personnel and hurt their careers.

"How many times do you have to get triggered before they slow you down, transfer you, and you get a bad reputation?" said Gary Ingemunson, independent counsel for the union that represents LAPD officers. "The subtle message is: stay in the middle of the pack. Don't stand out."

Union lawyers also argue that bad cops could game the system by curbing their activities just enough to avoid being detected, while good cops might hesitate in life-and-death situations due to concerns about getting flagged.

"A lot of hesitation could get somebody killed," Ingemunson said.

Police Chief William Bratton questions whether anything can end abuse and corruption by officers. "Nothing will eliminate it," Bratton said earlier this year as the city announced that payouts from a corruption scandal at the Rampart Division would cost taxpayers nearly $70 million.

Claims that officers working in the rough division beat and framed innocent people resulted in scores of criminal convictions being reversed.

"As long as you have police officers, you always have the potential for corruption," Bratton said. "As long as you have human beings, there is potential for crime."

Others wonder whether computer algorithms can analyze something as complex as police behavior. They say no amount of number-crunching can account for stress, personal problems and psychological quirks.

"There are people who look wonderful ... and then do something out of the blue that's totally inappropriate," said Dr. Susan Saxe-Clifford, a psychologist who has worked with Los Angeles police. "We're working with people, not machines."

Los Angeles police have little choice about using the system, first recommended in 1991 by a special commission formed after the King beating that found major lapses in the agency's efforts to roust problem officers.

Critics lobbied for the system over the years but met resistance from the department and City Hall. Federal funds set aside for the program went unspent.

Meanwhile, accusations of abuse persisted. Last year, the department fielded nearly 6,500 complaints ranging from excessive force to racial profiling. About 14 percent have been sustained, with 1,400 still under investigation.

By comparison, there were 5,212 complaints in 1999, with 36 percent upheld after nearly all the investigations were completed.

The LAPD said it has made progress in countering abuse. Under the 2001 federal consent decree, it beefed up its internal investigations and established an ethics enforcement section that runs sting operations on suspected corrupt officers.

Department brass have tried to ease fears of the computer system, saying most of the cops spotlighted won't face consequences. Many could even receive commendations if the system shows them doing exemplary work.

What's more, the computer doesn't make a final decision but only gives a statistical overview for superiors to inspect, said Deputy Chief David Doan, who heads the bureau installing the system.

"A human being will analyze that and will be making that judgment," he said.



http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,68294,00.html
 
so if you dont like a policeman in LA file complaints against him?
while the computer systen is good it should throw out any compalints/lawsuits/ect... in which the officer has been cleared of since in America we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In our apologist world today and political correctness the officers are right to fear the system.

the question is is will that human being be interested in justice or political correctness and symbolism?
 
Welcome to the World of Everyday Citizen.
Rich

been there done that have the hat and T-shirt.

That is why im not on a lot of peoples christmas card list...lol

dont have any knee pads and never sugar coated anything, nor did I have a knack for kissing certain parts of the anatomy. if something sucks it sucks...politically correct or not.
 
right :rolleyes:

computers serve to compile data, sort data, output data.

Justice will only be served if the person reads every complaint instead of just looking at percentages. if they only look at the percentages..they are wrong.
 
The $35 million computer should probably, as its first task once it is online, is point out the misdeeds of whoever spent $35 million on a computer to keep track of cops' misdeeds!


What the hell?! Thirty-five million freaking dollars?!

They couldn't keep track of this stuff on a Mac or a PC?! Are there that many crooked cops in L.A.?! :barf:


-azurefly
 
LOL...blew right by the 35 million pricetag.

Thats one hell of a computer for 35 milion. Maybe the city should investigate why it cost 35 million.
 
The $35 million computer should probably, as its first task once it is online, is point out the misdeeds of whoever spent $35 million on a computer to keep track of cops' misdeeds!


What the hell?! Thirty-five million freaking dollars?!

They couldn't keep track of this stuff on a Mac or a PC?! Are there that many crooked cops in L.A.?!


-azurefly


+1 Read my mind
 
The $35 million isn't just for a computer and software.
Buy the computers (plural) and networking equipment which will interface with other computers storing the databases for IA, Burglary, Vice, Homicide, Fraud, Auto-theft and all of the street patrol records. Add to that other databases that may be used.
That's probably about $5-$8 million.

The rest will be to pay for consultants to help interface the new systems, create archival logs, create reports, optimize databases, and so on.

That said...

Over time the system becomes more accurate as to how many complaints the average officer receives in a year, a quarter, a month. An officer repeatedly cleared of complaints could indicate a problem - not with the officer but with the investigators or procedures. It might warrant a review of the complaints AND the investigators' work.

Of course the street slime may figure that getting people to complain about the cops who are good at their jobs is one way to slow them down. But that may also stand out when otherwise good cops start getting many unsubstantiated complaints.
 
Re: the $35 Million
That funding came from The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1994 which set aside $30 billion for it.

Yet another thing the Clintonistas will blame the current administration for, that Slick Willy was really behind.:barf:
 
an officer repeatedly cleared of complaints could also indicated he is following procedure and doing things right or that the complaints are bogus because someoene doesnt like the officer doing his job right.

so would you rather be tried by a jury of your peers or the data from a computer?

That 35 million still came from the taxpayers...as a public servant you have an obligation to spend the taxpayers money wisely.

I have worked for the military since the first 286 computers came out...the only thing that that they do is allow me to get data faster than I could manually and track items via web based browser software, and acess to more data from other people/institutions.... which means I have access to more FYI to make a decision. The failure or the success of this program still depends on humans. If the human element does things right...okay. If the human element goes for political correctness and starts kicking officers out you will see a lot of officers just bypassing potential criminal problems/neighborhoods which might generate complaints by which means that joe citizen will once again end up on the short end of the stick.

computers give data...people solve or create problems with the data.
 
I used to live in L.A. and have a friend who lives there and usedto work for the LAPD, but quit after two years working for the CRASH unit to work for a PD close to LA, in part due to stupid things such as keeping track of complaints from low-life scum that filed complaints as a way to harrass the "5.0" Now they spend $35M to get their officers lining up to lateral to another force. Way to go, LAPD!!!
 
Garbage in, garbage out....
What a waste of money, how about supervisors keep track of who they are responsible to supervise do their job by getting rid of the problem child. Seems to work in the military and it's larger than 13,000 people.
 
The same stuff goes on in the military...lol

When the Generals gather to be with the BIG Kahuna General they all whip out Powerpoint and see who has the biggest statisitical...........
 
So I guess Vic Mackie and the boys are headed fro trouble, huh?

03.jpg



:D
 
Back
Top