Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Gangs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $8 million settlement tied to deputy‑gang allegations; long public debate on accountability follows
Summary
The Board approved an $8 million settlement arising from alleged deputy‑gang misconduct. Supervisors pressed Sheriff Robert Luna and the Office of Inspector General on accountability, naming of groups, investigative processes, and protections for whistleblowers; public comment included calls for external oversight and repeated allegations of harm to community members.
The Board approved an $8 million settlement on an item that renewed public scrutiny of alleged deputy‑gang activity in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and of the county’s cost exposure from related litigation.
During a prolonged exchange, supervisors asked the sheriff and the interim inspector general how the department is addressing longstanding allegations, whether it will identify named groups when evidence exists, and what steps protect deputies who report misconduct. Sheriff Robert Luna described a list of reforms he has pursued since taking office — including forming an Office of Constitutional Policing, adopting a new policy aimed at prohibiting gang‑like behavior, updating use‑of‑force policy, and launching focused internal inquiries. Critics including the Office of Inspector General urged additional transparency, real‑time monitoring options and clearer mechanisms to identify groups where violations include discriminatory membership or coordinated onduty misconduct.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell framed the issue as both a public‑safety and a financial problem, noting the county’s repeated payouts and the harm to community trust. Community speakers, family members of people who died in custody, and advocates urged independent oversight and criminal accountability in some cases. The OIG told the board that, while some historical lists of names exist, statutory and investigative constraints have complicated public naming and that collaboration on real‑time monitoring would improve investigative quality.
The board approved the settlement and asked for continued follow‑up and briefings; multiple supervisors signaled they would pursue follow‑up actions to improve investigative transparency, whistleblower protections and interagency oversight.
Ending note: the discussion underscored the board’s broader concern about county liability, the cost of repeated settlements, and the urgency of restoring public trust through systemic reforms.
