Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Tuesday, March3, 2015
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES(Column)
Controversies Over Honorary Peace Officer Badges: Not Unique toL.A. City or County
By ROGER M.GRACE
Ninth in a Series
TheCity of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles are geographic entities withdistinctiveness. Across the globe, people know of Hollywood and its handprintsin cement and its “Bowl”; Beverly Hills and its mansions and shops; Malibu andits beaches; the San Fernando Valley and its “Valley girls.”
Butlacking in distinctiveness are the flaps that have periodically occurred overissuance by officials of the City of L.A., or the county, of honorary lawenforcement badges. Those controversies, chronicled over the past severalcolumns in this series, are typical of ones that have taken place in localitiesnationwide.
Today:a look at news stories, from the 1920s to the 1960s, relating tobadge-conferring practices in other cities within this county, and in othercities and counties in California.
•Oakland, 1923: Recipients ofhonorary badges in that city were termed “special policemen.”
|
|
| COLBOURN |
Fuzziness hasoccurred with some frequency in the first part of the 20th Century as towhether individuals with badges were actual “reserve” officers (as nowdenominated), expected to perform police duties—when called upon, or per aschedule—or whether they were honorary recipients of a memento, possessed of noduties and no law enforcement powers.
The OaklandTribune’s Jan. 25 edition reports:
“Commissioner[of Public Health and Safety] Frank Colbourn today started making a list of allthose citizens who, under old easy-going regimes, secured the title and badgeof ‘special policemen,’ and found the badge very handy in case of beingarrested for speeding. All special policemen will be notified that they areliable to duty at any time, and will be asked to keep in constant touch withheadquarters.
“‘Weare not trying to take these badges away from anyone,’ says Colbourn, ‘andthere are many citizens who are well-entitled to them. Others are not. But nodoubt as these citizens have accepted the badge and taken the oath, they willbe willing to abide by the conditions.’ ”
•Torrance, 1931: A July 11 LosAngeles Times story provides this information, reflecting the prevailinguncertainty as to the breadth of authority an honorary badge conferred:
“Adefense plea advanced by City Engineer Frank Leonard in police court lastnight, claiming exemption from the usual $2 fine for failure to make aboulevard stop, because he is the holder of a police badge, was overruled byPolice Judge C. T. Rippy. The case, the subject of much discussion sinceLeonard was given a ticket by Police Officer William Malta last Fridayafternoon on an asserted failure to make a boulevard stop at the intersectionof Cravens and Magnolia avenues, was disposed of in record time by Judge Rippy,before a courtroom crowded with City Hall attaches.”
•Burbank, 1931: The Los AngelesTimes’s edition of Sept. 17 says:
“Chiefof Police [Lou] Holtzendorff has issued a call for police badges and deputycommissions that were given out by all police regimes that preceded him here.
“TheChief says that rumors have come to him that parties posing as hisrepresentatives are asserted to have tried to collect money on a basis of apromise of police protection.”
•Alameda County, 1934: An OaklandTribune article on Dec. 28, 1934, heralds:
“Upwardsof 3000 special deputy sheriffs of Alameda County will lose their honorary badgeson January 6 and for the most part will not be re-appointed, it was announcedtoday by Sheriff M. B. Driver.”
Driverhad been elected sheriff on Nov. 4. He was appointed to that post earlier thatyear by the Board of Supervisors, while he was serving as mayor of Berkeley.
TheTribune quotes him as saying:
“Iam inaugurating a new policy with respect to special deputies to becomeeffective with the start of my new term in office.
“Allappointments now in force will be canceled at that time and in the futurespecial deputies will be appointed only where there is actual need for them,and where the need is established to my satisfaction.”
Thearticle observes:
“Inthe past special deputies have been created almost as freely as Kentuckycolonels—on request or recommendation of various police chiefs, officials andinfluential citizens.”
Thenewspaper notes that Driver “pointed out that there are men who are employed aswatchmen in various industrial plants who should carry special deputy’sbadges,” and that upon proof of such need, appointments would be made.
•San Mateo County, 1946: The case of Peoplev. Ronald F. Kaehler also reflects uncertainty as to what powers thepresentation of an honorary badge conferred on the recipient.
|
|
| —San Mateo County History Museum McGRATH |
Kaehler,the 23-year-old son of the San Francisco stock exchange president, apparentlyhad been issued a badge, as well as a card certifying his status as an honorarydeputy, by Sheriff James J. “Big Jim” McGrath. On April 2, according to newsaccounts, he purported to act as a law enforcement officer in drawing a gun ontwo men he suspected of being in the act of stealing an automobile.
Oneof them ran; Kaehler fired in his direction; he was hit (the defendanttestified he merely wanted to cause him to halt) and died from his wound.
TheSan Mateo Times’ July 13, 1946 edition tells of Kaehler’s conviction theprevious night for manslaughter. The article recounts:
“ProsecutorA. S. Whitmore, in his closing argument…branded as without merit Kaehler’s pleathat he thought he had a right as a special deputy sheriff to shoot.
“‘Ifthe sheriff himself had shot a man in the back under the circ*mstances he wouldbe where this defendant is sitting,’ Whitmore declared. He took a slap atSheriff McGrath’s office when he added:
“‘It’sabout time the sheriffs office quit issuing these so-called courtesy deputies’cards. These cards don’t mean anything....They carry no authority.’ ”
AJuly 15 editorial in the Sacramento Bee declares:
Kaehlertestified at his trial that he was an honorary deputy sheriff of San Mateo andas such had authority to carry a gun and to investigate suspiciouscirc*mstances.
It is debatablewhether a courtesy badge gave Kaehler any such right, but in effect that isneither here nor there.
The factremains, however, that the custom of some sheriffs in deputizing citizens forpurely honorary or political reasons opens the way to numerous abuses.
There is roomfor considerable doubt whether courtesy badge wearers make any contribution tolaw enforcement. And if the badges are worn by persons of the wrong temperamentwho might wish to parade their supposed authority, someone is liable to gethurt.
The Kaehler caseshould cause all sheriffs in the habit or issuing [honorary badges] to considerthe possible consequences.
Recommendationsof the county grand jury are summarized in the April 1, 1947 edition of the SanMateo Times. They include this: “All honorary deputy sheriff badges, cards, orpermits be revoked by the sheriff, and that new permits be issued ‘to thosepersons only who are entrusted with the public’s safety.’”
Kaehlerwas paroled, without notice to prosecutors, after serving 20 months of a six-yearterm at San Quentin, according to a May 27, 1948 report in the Times.
•Santa Ana, 1960: An Aug. 10 LosAngeles Times article says:
“MarshalRobert Steinberger of the Santa Ana-Orange Municipal Court District, one ofseveral officials accused of handing out honorary badges indiscriminately,resigned [yesterday].
“Amongpersons who have been quizzed by the Orange County grand jury about receivinghonorary badges are [local gangster] Mickey Cohen and Dante DeCanio, the latternow under indictment by the Los Angeles County grand jury for abortion.”
Fromthe Long Beach Press Telegram’s issue on Aug, 13 comes this information:
“MarshalW. J. (Pete) Winslow of Santa Ana announced today he has filed demands with allpersons holding special deputy marshal’s badges issued by his predecessor toturn them in.
“Thereare approximately 145 deputy marshal’s badges outstanding, he said. One of theletters of demand has been sent to ex-mobster Mickey Cohen, he said.
“Winslowsaid if the demands are not honored, he intends to reclaim the badges inperson.”
COMMENT: Winslow’sremark strikes me as an announcement by the new marshal that he intended toutilize his status as head of a law enforcement agency to personally intimidatepersons who were lawfully holding gifts from his predecessor into relinquishingtheir personal property.
Butsuch bullying was nothing new.
Aspreviously recounted here, there were several wide scale recalls in the City ofLos Angeles of honorary badges, bestowed on members of the general public, thelast taking place in 1938-40. And there was one orchestrated by Sheriff PeterJ. Pitchess in 1963.
There’sno doubt that each recall was preceded by frequent misuses of the courtesybadges, which shouldn’t have been given out in the first place. But nostatutory authority existed for repossession of them.
Since1929, impersonating a police officer, under specified circ*mstances, has beenproscribed by Penal Code §146a. Penal Code §538d(b), enacted in 1945, bars useof badges resembling those worn by law enforcement officers. The 1960 version,in effect when Winslow issued his proclamation, provided:
“Anyperson who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses…any badge…which falsely purportsto be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the authority of apeace officer, or which so resembles the authorized badge…as would deceive anordinary reasonable person into believing that it is authorized for the use ofone who by law is given the authority of a peace officer, is guilty of amisdemeanor.”
It’sthe use of a faux law enforcement badge, not the mere possession of it,that the Legislature has condemned…rendering the recalls heavy-handed stunts.
Carryinga looks-like-real peace officer badge in a wallet and, intentionally or not,conveying the impression by merely opening the wallet of being a lawenforcement officer, is quite different from having an honorary badge at home,mounted on the wall, sitting on the mantle, or on an office desk encased inplastic.
It’sno doubt the innocence of such displays that prompted the Legislature in 2000,in revamping §538d(b), to remove a person who simply “exhibits” what resemblesan actual peace officer badge—as honorary badges nearly always do—from thereach of the statute.
Throughthe years, whenever a public official proclaimed that the completed gift of anhonorary badge was being rescinded, the recipient’s response ought to havebeen: “Hell, no—your department gave it to me, it’s mine.”
Yet,for the most part, there was mindless and spineless compliance.
FOOTNOTE: Holtzendorff,the Burbank chief of police who in 1931 cancelled outstanding badges issued byhis predecessors, had a unique approach. Shortly after becoming chief on June15 of that year, he abolished ranks within the department.
AnAug, 6, 1931 Associated Press dispatch quotes him as saying:
“There’sbeen too much monkey business about running a police department. Now that I’mhead of the department I’m going to run it like a police department, and notlike an opera bouffe with a soldier chorus. All members of the department areeither plain patrolmen or detectives.”
Holtzendorffresigned after less than a year in office—a somewhat turbulent reign—laterbecoming police chief in Phoenix, then working as a private detective inBurbank.
Next: Flaps overbadges, in other counties, in the 1970s.
Copyright 2015, Metropolitan News Company
MetNews Main PagePerspectives Columns
