UCLA student Chris Bray and government activist Richard McKee
filed a lawsuit last week against the Los Angeles Interagency
Metropolitan Apprehension Crime Task Force in an effort to open the
agency’s meetings to the public.
In 1991, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association
established a joint task force that integrated the personnel and
tools of local police departments to address larger criminal
justice issues within L.A. County, according to a memorandum of
understanding issued by L.A. IMPACT.
Bray and McKee, both members of the California First Amendment
Coalition, claim the task force has habitually violated the Ralph
M. Brown Act, which states that the meetings of California’s
legislative bodies must provide opportunities for public
participation.
Bray and McKee say that so far, all of L.A. IMPACT’s
meetings have been private affairs, and task force members have
made numerous decisions without the public’s input.
“They’re making decisions as a legislative body, but
also saying they’re not an agency. … They’re saying
they’re just cops working together, not an agency,”
Bray said
Originally, the task force’s investigations were meant to
focus on medium-to-high level drug trafficking and help smaller
police departments combat these illegal activities.
The university police department is a former member of L.A.
IMPACT, but left the task force three or four years ago due to
limited resources that barred the department from being actively
involved, said UCPD spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein.
Today, L.A. IMPACT is still largely a drug enforcement agency,
but has also undertaken other responsibilities, such as homeland
security.
The decision to function as a regional homeland security task
force was a private one, Bray said.
After Sept. 11, 2001, the L.A. County Police Chiefs talked about
creating a local organization that could deal with issues of
terrorism.
The police chiefs, who are the executive council members of L.A.
IMPACT, voted to add homeland security responsibilities to the task
force and had the decision symbolically approved by city councils
across the county.
The Brown Act states that legislative decisions cannot be made
without first allowing public discussion and a general vote.
While the Brown Act requires the meetings of legislative bodies
to be public, there are exemptions, especially regarding
“multijurisdictional drug law enforcement agencies.”
Such agencies are allowed to hold closed sessions to discuss case
records.
If L.A. IMPACT can be considered a legislative body, then the
task force can keep information about its investigations private.
But other financial and legislative information must be made
public, Bray said.
The nature of L.A. IMPACT will be under scrutiny if the lawsuit
goes to trial, but many say the task force’s benefit to the
Los Angeles community is undisputed.
Without L.A. IMPACT, smaller police departments would not have
the resources to conduct thorough investigations.
In addition, the task force allows small police departments to
fight illegal drug activity in their cities by pooling police
officers from departments across the county.
Between July 1, 1991, and August 31, 2000, L.A. IMPACT made over
3,000 arrests and seized over 12,000 pounds of methamphetamines and
$5.5 billion worth of street value cocaine, as reported on the City
of Vernon’s Web site.
In response to the lawsuit, members of L.A. IMPACT will meet at
a conference later this month to discuss whether to comply with the
plaintiffs’ request to hold open meetings, according to a
letter written to Bray and McKee by a member of L.A. IMPACT.
If the task force changes its closed meeting policy, other
government agencies across the state may follow with more open
policies.
“This will be a precedent and will hopefully force
openness in dozens of agencies,” Bray said.