LAPOLICE HISTORY
LOS ANGELES CITY POLICE CHIEF JUAN J. CARRILLO
BACKGROUND
In early 1995, Sergeant Roberto Alaniz, was searching the Los Angeles City archives for information on the early development of the Los Angeles Police Department. Combing over original city council minutes of Los Angeles, he was able to piece together a running chronology of the early Police Department. One of the numerous discoveries was the first and only Hispanic Chief of Police for Los Angeles, named Juan J. Carrillo.
Carrillo was a very remarkable man that accomplished a lot in his life time. He came from a very prominent and wealthy Mexican family that is well known in early California History. As a child, his family sent him to school in Boston, Mass to receive a first class education. His higher education and his exposure to the city life in Boston and the surrounding area would later serve him well and become a reference point in his future civic positions. Under his leadership as Chief of Police for Los Angeles, he designed the original police uniform, the original series one badge, established a detective unit, foot beats and a horse detail.
After his service to the City of Los Angeles, he moved to Santa Monica where he became the Mayor for the first twelve years of its existence and developed the city as we see it today. He was instrumental in establishing several of the parks, the present day wharf and most the roads we use today.
After putting together Carrillo’s biography, Sergeant Alaniz contacted a living grandson of Juan Carrillo, Mr. Ysidro Reyes, and had him review the manuscript for any errors. After reviewing the manuscript, Mr. Reyes who resides in Santa Monica stated, “This is unbelievable, it is as if you were talking to the old timers and the stories they told me are here” After the manuscript was verified for accuracy, it was subsequently published in July 1998, in the short run Los Angeles Historical Society newsletter called the “Link.”
The Carrillo manuscript received little attention until the summer of 2006 when the President of the Los Angeles Police Latin Association (La Ley), Art Plascencia reviewed the manuscript and decided to verify the information and determine, if in fact Juan J. Carrillo was a legitimate Chief of Police for Los Angeles. He contacted Ms. Yolanda Retter, PhD of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center and Archive, and asked her to research the manuscript and verify if in fact Juan J. Carrillo was indeed a Chief of Police for Los Angeles. After several months of investigation, with the assistance of Ms. Cheryl Kelly, Esq. Ms. Retter was able to confirm without a doubt that Juan J. Carrillo was a Chief of Police for Los Angeles. Although not he was not the first Chief, indeed, there are three others before him, he was and is the only Hispanic holding the title of Chief of Police of Los Angeles.
Juan J. Carrillo
Los Angeles City Marshal and Chief of Police
Juan J. Carrillo was one of Los Angeles’s most prominent and respected men to occupy the office of City Marshal and Chief of Police. Carrillo who is a direct descendent of Jose Raymundo Carrillo, and was born in Santa Barbara California on September 8, 1842. When Carrillo was ten years old, he along with twelve other boys from Southern California was sent to New York City for a formal education. The boys traveled via Panama in the care of a priest. Once in New York, the woman who was charged with the care of the boys proved to be a fraud and mistreated them. Luckily, an old friend of Carrillo’s father found them and took Juan and his brother to Worcester, Mass., near Boston and enrolled them at the College of the Holy Cross. They graduated after attending the school for six years and returned to California with a higher degree of education than was available in the west . This experience instilled a lifelong desire to learn and as a result, Carrillo learned to fluently speak four languages.
In 1864 Juan Carrillo moved from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles and acquired a job as a clerk for the Caswell, Ellis and Wright Company, which was one of the largest merchandise companies in the State of California. Located at 80 and 82 Main Street, Caswell and Ellis sold general merchandise, which included groceries and liquor.
On January 8, 1872, Carrillo opened his own general merchandising store, located at No. 1 Arcadia Block, on the corner of present-day Los Angeles Street and Arcadia Street near Olveria Street. He advertised his business as a “choice family groceries” store, selling wines, provisions, paints, oils and General County produce. On January 4, 1872, the Los Angeles Star Newspaper took note of Carrillo’s business venture commenting: “Mr. John Carrillo has rented the building formerly occupied by Messrs. Caswell and Ellis, and will open it on Monday, with a large stock of furnishing goods and groceries. Mr. Carrillo is well known throughout the county, as a gentleman, possessing first class business qualifications, and will no doubt give satisfaction, to his patrons.”
Carrillo raised his family in downtown Los Angeles, what was known as Bell Block, which was a long row of adobe dwellings, mostly one story, running along the east side of Los Angeles Street from Aliso to First Street. His family consisted of his first wife and five children. One of his sons was Leo Carrillo, the famous actor known as “Pancho” in the popular 1950’s Cisco Kid television series.
City Marshal Election
Juan Carrillo took office on December 10, 1874 after receiving 569 votes defeating Los Angeles Star Newspaper favorite E. Harris. Carrillo served as Marshal and later as Chief of Police for the City until June 8, 1876, when he was appointed to the Board of Police Commissioners of the Los Angeles City Council. Afterwards, he served as City Tax Collector from January 1877 to 1878.
Running for City Marshal was no easy task for Carrillo as he faced strong competition against famed lawman Emil Harris, whose distinguishing career was well known throughout the State. Harris also had the endorsement of the popular Los Angeles Star Newspaper.
In fact, shortly before the elections, Harris was predicted a sure winner. The Los Angeles Star Newspaper commented on the elections: No event of the coming election seems to be so certain as that of the election of Emil Harris to the city Marshalship. And, in our opinion this exactly as it should be. There is not in the State a cooler, braver, more self-possessed officer than Mr. Harris.” This became a stronger sentiment when Councilman Gerkins withdrew his name from the race. It was concluded that he did this to help Harris win by taking Gerkins votes. It is interesting to note that both Gerkins and Harris would be appointed future Chiefs of Police for the City of Los Angeles.
The San Francisco Examiner also endorsed Harris, stating, “He has every requisite qualification for the position he seeks.” However, on December 8, 1874, Carrillo, a Republican who received endorsement from the Farmers Ticket, won by 23 votes. He ran against Emil Harris and Mr. Hartlee, both current Los Angeles Police Officers.
On December 11, 1874, a few days after the election, a victory celebration was held with Carrillo’s close friends and family. Among the guests were District Attorney V.E. Howard, Carrillo’s father, Mr. Harris (Carrillo’s opponent), S. Gates, V. J. Welch and Mr. Rodgers. They met in the clubroom of the Fashion Hotel at 7 P.M. During the celebration, Emil Harris interrupted the celebration and after having everyone’s attention, made the following conceding statement, “Sir, I very seldom make a public speech, but this evening I cannot refrain from asking you to accept this pistol as a token of esteem and friendship upon the part of myself and friends, who desire in this manner to express our good feelings toward you, and to signify that we bear no ill will because of our defeat in the last campaign. If we were opponents then, we are friends now.” Afterwards, Carrillo responded in kind and accepted as a gift, a beautiful silver mounted six shooter pistol. It was a self-cocker, P. Webley and Son and carried a half ounce rifled ball and cartridge. Another toast was made after which Carrillo’s father, Pedro, stood up and thanked everyone for the token of good will toward his son. A second toast followed this after which, the celebration continued.
Office of Chief of Police Established
Although initially elected as City Marshal, Carrillo was the first to work under the newly enacted city ordinance #322 and # 323, which, for the first time, gave the Chief of Police the power to suspend or discipline his officers. Carrillo’s term as Marshal ended at this point and he became the first working full time Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles. This change would give the officeholder an ability to focus his attention on the crime in the city and not have to worry about fund-raising and campaigning for office each year. In addition, collecting taxes would also be removed from the list of responsibilities, which occupied most of the Marshal’s time. Carrillo was the last to serve with both titles of City Marshal and Chief of Police. Thereafter, City Marshal was removed and the title “Chief of Police” was assigned to the top position of the Los Angeles Police Department.
The development of the Los Angeles Police Department occurred over a period of 24 years, with the Marshall being the principle enforcer of the law. In 1850, when the city was small and the population was roughly 1500 people, the responsibilities assigned to the City Marshal’s responsibilities were few. For example, in the original 1850 city ordinance #25, the City Marshal “was to attend the Recorder’s Court, arrest all persons guilty of breach of city ordinances, keep the council room orderly, and collect taxes.” The city ordinance clearly stated the Marshal “shall possess superintending control over the city police.” Superintending did not include the hiring and disciplining of police officers, this was kept with the office of the Mayor and later to the Common Council, who voted for each change. In addition, the deployment of officers and their specific responsibilities were all controlled by the Common Council. Although the Marshal was able to appoint the Deputy Marshal, he would have to report it to the council for review and await its approval.
The first attempt at establishing a city police force was July 12, 1851. In the common council meeting, the Mayor recommended A.W. Hope, a druggist, to become the Chief of Police in a volunteer capacity along with volunteer police officers. The duties of the volunteer police department were to “watch over the security of the citizens.’ This volunteer police force wore for a badge, a ribbon inscribed with the “City Police, Organized by the Common Council, July 12, 1851.” While we do not know the exact number of volunteer officers, we do know that a hundred ribbons were ordered. This attempt to create a police force was short lived, mainly because of the lack of structure and policy and procedures for the officers to follow. The officers for example, sometimes would not be armed while on duty, were not familiar with what their rights were in case of resistance, or where to detain a prisoner. All of this of course, led to the resignation of Mr. Hope, just two months after being organized.
the city council again took steps to create a full time police department by approving four paid full time positions. The four would be appointed by the Mayor and subject to Council approval. Each appointed individual would receive $100.00 a month. Although this was an attempt to create a full time paid police department, these appointments were to be a temporary assignment subject to funding sources. Alexander Gibson, Thomas Gordon and Thomas Aguirre were initially appointed as police officers, but this changed and two others were added with Gibson staying on the police force. The very first payroll recorded for three policemen was on October 13, 1854, where the city council notes state they paid $30.00 to Alexander Gibson, John Brannan and H. Lewis for services as police officers.
With the hiring of these officers, it was proposed that a committee consisting of three members from the city council be appointed in order to draft general regulations for the police officers. This would be the first development of a Police Commission. However, despite the urgent need for a police force, the City Council temporarily postponed drafting a city ordinance to establish a police force. This decision was immediately met with sharp criticism from the community. The editor of the Los Angeles Star Newspaper for example, cited the urgent need for a police department based on the numerous murders occurring on a daily basis in the city. A letter to the editor by a concerned citizen expressed a typical citizen concern stating “it appears strange to me as it must to every member of this community that the frequent calls of citizens upon the common council for a police, should be entirely disregarded and should be entirely disregarded and treated with perfect indifference…the council have it in their power to organize a police …and their every argument has been met with the cry of “poverty, no money in the treasury.”
With pressure to establish a police department, the city council changed the wording on its next city charter to expand the office of the City Marshal to include the eventual development of a full time police department. Therefore, on July 31, 1855, the revised ordinances of the City of Los Angeles was passed and approved with the addition of at least a “Chief of Police” position. On page 5, Section 7, of the city charter, it states, “The Marshal is also Chief of Police, which is hereby established.” This is in contrast to the original city ordinance, written just five years earlier, where the Marshal was to have a “superintending role over the police.” During this time period, the City Marshal in reality had no power to regulate this police department. The city council maintained control of the police department, including its appointments, discipline and regulations. With this small change in the city charter, the city council now had a Chief of Police by name only, at no extra cost by adding this duty to the Office of the City Marshal. The next step would be to find the money to pay for a full time police force.
The actual development of the department would be spread out over the course of the next fifteen years with the 1860’s seeing the most progress. The department would be developed with the hiring of the police officers first and the last would be the addition of the Chief of Police as a permanent position. The office of Chief of Police, in order to be effective, would require specific rules and regulations and the authority in the city charter to manage the police force. In 1870, City Marshall William C. Warren was tasked with defining the duties of the police department and the creation of the Chief’s Position. However, with the unfortunate untimely death of Warren in October 1870, the office of Chief was delayed for a few more years. This occurred despite the infamous Chinese Massacre which took place a few months after drafting the police ordinance.
On December 26, 1872, City Council Minutes notes: n ordinance was presented and read defining the duties and powers of the City Marshal as Chief of Police. The ordinance was referred to the Police Committee and City Attorney.” On January 9, 1873, in the City Council Minutes, we find the following:
ORDINANCE FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE:
1. The Chief of Police shall have the entire control and management of the police force of the city.
2. In case of dereliction of duty in the performance of any act unbecoming of an officer, the other shall have the power to at once deprive such officer of his Star or Badge of office and suspend him from duty until a meeting of the Police Committee be called where the complaint shall be laid before the Board and if in their opinion such officer is guilty of the offence, as charged, he shall at once be discharged from the force or reprimanded as the Board may decide.
3. The decision of the Board in case of an officer shall be final and the appointment of an officer by the Board shall be subject to the approval of the Council.
4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
5. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage approved and to be published.
The city published the “Charter and Revised Ordinances of the City of Los Angeles” which included for the first time the “Rules of the Police Department” written by Marshal William C. Warren. Marshal Warren was assigned the position of Chief of Police In December of 1869, but was killed in the line of duty in January 1870. The 1873 City Charter states “The Marshall is Chief of Police, and shall have the entire management and control of the police, both regular and special.” In the following year the office of Chief of Police is strengthened by the addition of an ordinance giving the Chief of Police more power to deal with dereliction of duty on the part of the officers. This would be the final step to the establishment of the police department. The last thing to do was to repeal the word “Marshal” which was continued to be used interchangeably until 1878, where on the City Charter states , “the Mayor and Council of the City of Los Angeles do ordain as follows: Section 1. Sec. 103 of chapter VII of the Revised Ordinances of the city of Los Angeles, as revised by William McPherson, is hereby amended by striking out the word “Marshal,” and inserting in place thereof the words “Chief of Police.”
Two major municipal law changes occurred during Carrillo’s term, which changed the city for good and made it easier for the police to clean up the streets. First, prostitution was outlawed on May 25, 1874, and then unlicensed drinking saloons were outlawed.
The Los Angeles Police Department really began to take its modern shape under the Carrillo administration. The city population was estimated at 13,000 with 18 schools and four parks. By 1874, Los Angeles was no longer a small town with adobe houses and dirt streets. The city needed to keep up with the growing population and the increase of crime as the result of its growth. This required an organized, disciplined and uniformed police department. The rising crime rate and dealing with the criminal element would increasingly consume Carrillo’s time when, he would complain to the city council that “his duties in behalf of the Police Department occupied so much of his time that he was unable to give his personal attention to the collection of the numerous street assessments that would be placed in his hands and asked that he may be allowed to appoint an assistant for that purpose at the expense of the city.” The alternative would be to increase his pay by a percentage as compensation for the additional work he would perform on an overtime basis.
First Full Time Detective Unit
Under the Carrillo administration, the first change to take place was the addition of a Detective unit. With the support of Mayor Beaudry, Carrillo successfully lobbied the city council for a detective and on December 21, 1874, the unit was established starting with one detective. The newly appointed detective would have dual status, as he would be required to perform regular police duties from time to time. During this same council meeting, the Mayor proposed to disband the mounted horse detail, which consisted of two officers. Although the idea was not initially accepted by the city council, it was later approved.
The Police Department had 15 full time paid police officers, which included one detective, two officers on horse detail and the Marshal. The mounted horse detail was later expanded to four officers. In addition, there were 6 reserve officers that were referred to as “special police officers.” The Marshal/Chief received $1,200.00 per year, police officers received $75.00 a month, officers on the horse detail received $960.00 a year and the newly appointed detective received $1,140.00 a year. Special Police Officers received $5.00 a month for their part time services. In addition to the base salary, police officers were paid an additional $2.00 for each arrest made, which was discontinued on March 16, 1876. The mounted unit received an extra $1.00 for each animal that they “impounded.”
Police Badge and Uniform Designed
The development of the police uniform as we know it today was designed by Carrillo. As late as 1870, the Los Angeles Star Newspaper reported that the city was deficient in various items, including a uniformed Police Force. The Police uniform was discussed in the city council meetings and it was decided, for the first time, Los Angeles police officers were to wear a uniform while patrolling the streets. Along with the uniform, an appropriate badge was designed that would be of uniform size and shape. The badge that the officers wore at the time, was a star, which was not the same size as each other, was placed on the outside of the police officer’s shirts or coats. Therefore, Marshal Carrillo was instructed by the City Council to contact the San Francisco Police Department and use their uniform as an example in designing a badge and uniform for the Los Angeles Police Department.
Foot beats Established
In order to provide better patrol coverage throughout the city, Carrillo established a foot beat system. This involved sectioning the city into three areas, which were called “Wards.” The three Wards boundaries would, in modern times be reduced to smaller areas called Reporting Districts. The “First Ward” started at the intersection of Los Angeles Street and Commercial to Main Street. The “Second Ward” would go south to Third Street to the western edge of town. The “Third Ward” would be everything south of Third Street. Each Ward was assigned two police officers to walk a foot beat. If two officers were walking together down the same street, one was to walk down one side of the street and the other on the opposite side of the street, unless handling a call for service.
The beats of policemen were changed every week so that each policeman would, on every alternate week be on duty in a different part of the city. A night supervisor was created to ensure that the officers working the night shift showed up for work and were complying with the rules and regulations of the department. The night supervisor worked from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. Any deficiencies by the officers were reported directly to the Police Commissioners. To assist the regular full time police officers, two “special police officers” or reserve officers as we now call them, were assigned to each Ward, for a total of six special officers on the department.
First Full Time Horse Detail
The horse detail was briefly disbanded at the request of the Mayor who was not a big fan of the unit. However, after several petitions from citizens the detail was reinstated. The concerned citizens testified to the city council of the need for the unit and testified that Officer Bilderian, who was on the horse detail prior to it being disbanded, was always in his area and as a result the citizens were “frequently meeting him in their activities while in the discharge of his duties.” In addition, Carrillo argued that without the horse detail, the small police department could not protect the citizens on the outskirts of the city and that the present size of the department was too small to do an adequate job. As a result, on March 25, 1875, the city council decided to reinstate the horse detail. The unit was used to patrol on the outskirts of the city limits, which would include checking in on the outlying ranches. Since the other officers were assigned a foot beat, the horse unit was used as a quick response unit, to respond to crimes in progress. Although the horse detail was primarily responsible for the outlying areas of the city limits, they did handle special problems within the city limits. One example was an ordinance to prohibit the dumping of waste material into the river located between Aliso and First Street. To enforce the ordinance, the mounted unit assigned two of the officers to monitor and enforce the new city code. The horse detail was very effective and was expanded from two officers to a total of four officers during Carrillo’s administration.
Disciplinary Procedures Established
The conduct of the officers, both on duty and off duty was not clearly defined prior to Carrillo’s term, which sometimes resulted in the unsatisfactory conduct and work performance by department personnel. Carrillo inherited a department that was undisciplined and at times, ineffective. In fact, the city council was in favor of discharging the ineffective policemen, basically starting over, but until formal charges were made against the officers, the council decided to retain the present force. This crisis occurred only fifteen days after Carrillo was elected to the Marshal position and, to improve the image of the police department, Carrillo immediately instituted several disciplinary guidelines, most of which resulted in termination if found guilty. The city council, in the meantime, came up with the idea of requiring police officers to provide a bond of $2,000.00 for the “faithful performance of their duties.” This meant if they did not do a satisfactory job, they would lose their jobs and forfeit the bond money. Carrillo felt requiring a bond from the officers was a bad idea took up this issue with the city council. He argued that the officers are considered pay labors, not elected officials and as a result, they can be terminated by the council at any time. Requiring officers to post a bond, would be an inconvenience and might discourage the present officers from staying on as police officers, not to mention deter future applicants from joining the force. Carrillo’s reasoning prevailed and a result, police officers were not required to pay a bond for the assurance of “faithful performance of their duties.”
Although the Chief of Police had the authority to fire or discipline an officer, the review of disciplinary action against officers by a citizen was the responsibility of the Police Commission, which heard all complaints against police officers. Upon receiving a complaint, they would investigate the incident and report their findings and penalties to the city council. If an officer did not agree with the results, he was able to petition the city council directly and plead his case.
One disciplinary case at the time was against an officer named J.J. Thomas, who was accused of allegedly sitting in a saloon on duty and playing cards and drinking for an hour or more. The charges were dropped after being investigated by the Police Committee for lack of proof.
However, during a different investigation against another officer named Cruz, they found that officer Thomas was indeed playing cards in a saloon and drinking while on duty. He was immediately terminated. Thomas used the complaint process established by Carrillo and directly addressed the city council explaining his position that his termination was obviously unfair, since his original investigation was dropped for lack of proof, and asked to be reinstated. No record is found of the outcome, however, as a result of this incident, the department ordered that if any officer, while on duty, is found in any drinking saloon for more than five minutes at one time, except on business, or if an officer is found intoxicated while on duty, he would be terminated.
Chinese Massacre
Prior to becoming the Chief of Police for Los Angeles, Carrillo was called upon to assist with arrests during the Chinese massacre, which occurred, in the heart of Los Angeles near the street called “Negro Alley.” It was well known at the time that villainous Chinese heavily padded their clothes where they carried knives and hatches. They were experts at hiding these hatches by folding their arms with their hands inside the wide sleeves. This would allow them to instantly lash out with their weapons.
When hostilities flared up, J. Carrillo went to arrest one of the ringleaders. All law officers knew about the hatches and other weapons that the Chinese used. Carrillo was extra cautious as he went down one of the long dark halls in a house in search of a suspect. As he reached the far end of the hall, he found the door locked, so he lunged toward the door and was able to kick in the door, but once inside, he saw no one and the room appeared to be empty. Then, on a hunch, he pulled up a filthy mattress from an old iron bed, which was in the room. There, underneath the mattress was a Chinese man who sprang up and lashed out with a two-foot long knife, trying to cut off Carrillo’s head. Carrillo reacted quickly and struck the assailant’s arm with his heavy stick, paralyzing the man’s arm and caused the knife to drop to the floor which Carrillo quickly stepped on and arrested his suspect.
J. Carrillo was also an expert horse rider as was evident when he saved the lives of a mother and her child when they lost control of their horse drawn wagon. Carrillo observed the incident as the wagon raced through town. Carrillo quickly mounted his horse and overtook the wagon, stopping the horses in a feat of skillful horsemanship.
Carrillo joined several charitable organizations in his lifetime with the idea of helping others. One such organization was the Spanish American Benevolent Society, which was organized on June 1, 1875. Carrillo was elected as its first officer and served for a number of years. Although the society was called Spanish American, one’s nationality was no bar to membership, which had 128 members. The society worked in conjunction with the sister’s informatory at the French hospital in order to care for the needy.
1878 Cinco de Mayo Parade
Carrillo became a well-known and influential Hispanic in the city of Los Angeles, which became apparent during the 1878 Cinco de Mayo Parade. Traditionally, the Cinco de Mayo parade in Los Angeles showcased Mexican culture with strong religious overtones. However, as the city became more Anglo-controlled, Mexicans felt it more important to emphasize their political ideology and ethnic origin. This became evident during the 1878 Cinco de Mayo Parade. Carrillo served as the Grand Marshall, along with two respected orators of the time, which were Reginaldo Del Valle and Eulegio de Celis (president of an organization called La Junta). The three rode together as a show of force, along with several other organizations representing various Mexican social or political organizations. This display symbolized a profound shift in the city’s Mexican community, whose loyalties shifted from the church and landowners toward idealistic sentiment of Mexican nationalism.
Mayor of Santa Monica
In 1881, Carrillo decided to move his growing family to the city of Santa Monica and built a house located at 1228 Fifth Street. Here Carrillo cared for his elderly father, Pedro, until his father’s death on May 28th, 1888.
In 1888, Carrillo was elected as City Trustee for the City of Santa Monica, which is equivalent to the position of Mayor. This was prior to the incorporation of the city of Santa Monica. During the next twelve years Carrillo was re-elected as President of the Board, serving in that capacity longer than anyone else, which spanned from 1890 to 1897.
One of his achievements as Board President was the fight against the proposed outfall sewer of Los Angeles, which would discharge directly onto the beach between Pier Ave and Venice Beach. Carrillo personally canvassed the Ballona district and secured enough signatures of property owners to stop the sewer proposal. Also, while serving on the Board, he secured a Wharf that is still in use today, a sewer system for the city of Santa Monica, and became a strong advocate for good roads and parks. One roadway project that he succeeded in obtaining was a road from Santa Monica to Calabasas, which was completed in January 1897. Upon retiring from the council, he served an additional two years from 1904 to 1906 as Superintendent of Streets.
While serving on the Santa Monica City Trustee Board, Carrillo also served on the First Board of Trade as secretary, which was organized in 1888, a position he held for seven years.
Carrillo’s achievements in public life however did not ease his personal suffering as he endured the death of his father in 1888, the death of his first wife on March 2nd 1897 and the death of one of his sons, Charles, who died in Santa Monica, on April 1, 1905.
Carrillo remarried again in 1904 to a Mrs. Eva Fellner and continued to serve as the Santa Monica Police Judge. He also remained an active member of the Santa Monica Elks Lodge assisting the organization when he could. Upon his retirement from public office, Carrillo traveled throughout the State, visiting relatives and friends. Carrillo retired to his home in Santa Monica and after a short illness of two weeks that resulted in his death, Carrillo died at 74 years of age on April 3, 1916. At his funeral, thousands turned out to pay tribute to him, the local newspaper commented:
“With a municipal half-holiday and the biggest assembly of officials and citizens at funeral services in years, Santa Monica paid tribute this morning to the late Judge Juan J. Carrillo, former Mayor, Police Judge, and foremost citizen for more than a quarter of a century.”
Sensing Carrillo’s grave condition, the members of the Santa Monica Elks Lodge demonstrated their esteem and admiration for him by adopting the following resolution just prior to his death:
“The older people among us realize that shafts of marble and tablets of bronze, raised to men and works of men, are like shafts of sand and tablets of snow compared with the greatest of these, the tablets of reverence and respect that memory writes with a pen of love into the hearts of men. Such a monument of love and respect has always been yours, not in one place where men may come, look and pass by, but in the many places in the hearts of thousands on men, where all humanity may be made the better for it.”
And so ended the life of one of the great Hispanic Law Officers who served, for decades, the City of Los Angeles as well as the City of Santa Monica. He was a native son, who belonged to one of the oldest and best-known families of California. He was, after all, a descendent of Jose Raymundo Carrillo, a native of Loreto, who came to California in 1769.
“In personal appearance and in character, Mr. Carrillo is a worthy son of his ancestors; indeed, the description of his grandfather might apply with equal truth to himself. Honorable in all his dealings, generous to a fault and kindhearted to, even to his enemies, probably no man in Santa Monica commands a more sincere regard.”
By: Roberto Alaniz
11/26/1997
Speech and Report of the Los Angeles Police Department to the City Council
May 21, 1876.
The year was 1869. Los Angeles was a small city and although California was a State for the past 19 years and free of Mexico’s rule, it was still very influenced by the Spanish culture that had dominated the region for so long. The City created the position of “City Marshall, Tax & License Collector” for its primary law enforcement endeavors. As the city grew, this position would become three separate jobs. Tax and License Collector would be removed as responsibilities and the title “Chief of Police,” added to the City Marshal title. This occurred in 18709. The new designated Chief of Police was William C. Warren who held the position for a few months until he was murdered by one of his own officers
This was a time in which law enforcement in Los Angeles was often overwhelmed by erratic civic behavior that ran the full range between ordinary rowdiness and outright criminality. For many years after California became a State, Los Angeles reeled under the impact of an arriving population for which it was totally unprepared. Hundreds of families of law-abiding farmers, ranchers, and storekeepers settled here, but so did gamblers, disillusioned miners from the Sierra foothills, saloonkeepers, horse thieves, and renegades. The Wild West indeed was never wilder.
These were formative years for the fledgling police department. In 1875 the first horse patrol trotted down the unpaved streets. Officers working the horse detail were paid $95 a month for their services, which was $5 more than the foot patrolmen and only $10 less than the City Marshal. A uniform with a star badge, known as the series one badge was designed and issued to the officers.
Until 1876, the Chief of Police, along with his other duties, was elected by popular vote. The fourth person to be elected to the job was Juan Jose Carrillo. Carrillo served two one-year terms. In 1876, the positions of Chief of Police and Tax Collector were separated, with the Chief of Police becoming a Council appointee rather than an elected position.
During Carrillo’s term in office, tranquility was something wished for but rarely attained. Increased violence went hand in hand with increased prosperity. There were laws on the books that were not or could not be enforced. A population of 5,614 patronized 285 businesses, of which 110, almost half of the businesses, were saloons.
Until recently, little was known about Mr. Carrillo’s background or most importantly, of his service to the City of Los Angeles as the first Latino Chief of Police for Los Angeles. The following is his last speech he gave to the Los Angeles City Council on the state of the police department and crime for the city:
J.J. Carrillo’s speech and report of the Los Angeles Police Department to the City Council on May 21, 1876.
GENTLEMEN: I hereby submit to your honorable Board the following report of the different crimes committed and the number of arrests made, monthly by the Police Department of the City of Los Angeles. In the months of January, February and March, 1875, I do not keep an account of the various crimes committed only the number of arrests, which amounted to one hundred and fifty five:
April, 1875-Violation of 12 o’clock ordinance, 2, Drunk, 44; Grand Larceny, 1; Disorderly, 1; Drunk and Disorderly, 25; Resisting an Officer, 1; Threatening to Kill 1; Assault and Battery, 10; Insane, 1; Nuisance, 3; Petite Larceny, 7; Trespass, 1; Total 99.
May, 1875-Murder, 1; Exposing Person, 1; Misdemeanor, 2; Unhitched Teams, 7; Fast Driving, 1; Soliciting Prostitution, 2; Malicious Mischief, 1; Drunk, 63; Grand Larceny, 1; Disorderly, 2; Drunk and Disorderly, 17; Resisting an Officer, 2; Assault and Battery, 16; Nuisance, 1; Housebreaking, 4; Trespass, 1; Vagrancy, 1; Total: 123
June, 1875-Grand Larceny, 2; Disorderly, 2; Drunk and Disorderly, 11; Threatening to Kill, 2; Assault, and Battery, 11;Petit Larceny, 3; Soliciting Prostitution, 3; Drunk, 63; Indecent Exposure, 2; Total:115
July, 1875- Drunk, 89; Grand Larceny, 11; Disorderly, 2; Drunk and Disorderly, 10; Resisting an Officer, 1; Threatening to Kill, 4; Assault and Battery, 9; Petit Larceny, 1; Trespass, 7; Misdemeanor, 1; Discharging Firearms, 1; Total: 148.
August, 1875- Drunk, 67; Grand Larceny, 1; Disorderly, 5; Drunk and Disorderly, 17; Threatening to Kill, 6; Assault and Battery, 15; Insane, 1; Petit Larceny, 5; Trespass, 4; Indecent Exposure, 6; Discharging Firearm, 1; Driving on Sidewalk, 1. Total: 136
September, 1875- Drunk, 41; Grand Larceny, 2, Disorderly, 5; Drunk and Disorderly, 32; Threatening to Kill, 2; Assault and Battery, 19; Insane, 2; Petit Larceny, 3; Trespass, 1; Vagrancy, 1. Total: 115.
October, 1875- Drunk, 43, Disorderly, 17; Drunk and Disorderly, 12; Threatening to Kill, 3; Assault and Battery, 16; Insane, 1; Petit Larceny, 2; Attempt to Garrote, 1; Peddling without License, 1; Vagrancy, 5; Total:101.
November, 1875- Drunk, 37; Grand Larceny, 1; Disorderly, 3; Drunk and Disorderly, 23; Resisting an Officer, 1; Threatening to Till, 1; Assault and Battery, 6; Petit Larceny, 2. Total: 73
December, 1875-Drunk, 39; Grand Larceny, 5; Disorderly, 1; Drunk and Disorderly, 12; Assault and Battery, 9; Petit Larceny, 5; Soliciting Prostitution, 6. Total: 77
January, 1876-Drunk, 29; Grand Larceny, 2; Disorderly, 1; Drunk and Disorderly, 5; Resisting an Officer, 3; Threatening to Kill, 3, Assault and Battery, 13; Petit Larceny, 5; Vagrancy, 1. Total: 55
February, 1876-Drunk, 28; Disorderly, 6 ; Drunk and Disorderly, 4; Resisting an Officer, 2; Petit Larceny, 6; Selling Liquor to Indians, 2; Fast Driving, 1; Assault and Battery, 5; Vagrancy, 1; False Pretenders, 1. Total: 59
March, 1876-Stabbing, 1; Drunk, 31; Grand Larceny, 2; Disorderly, 8; Threatening to Kill, 1; Assault and Battery, 5; Trespass, 2; Vagrancy, 9; Indecent Exposure, 3; Murder, 1; Soliciting Prostitution, 2; Total: 70.
April, 1876- Drunks, 31; Grand Larceny, 1; Disorderly, 8; Drunk and Disorderly, 8, Threatening to Kill, 2; Assault and Battery, 6; Petit Larceny, 9;Trespass, 2; Violation of Fire Ordinance, 7; Soliciting Prostitution, 2; Indecent Exposure, 1, Total: 75
Making a total in the space of a little over a year of one thousand four hundred and fourteen arrests, I also submit my books, which show for themselves all the workings of the Police Department.
His Honor the Mayor complains of the inefficiency of the police in some cases which he mentioned to your Honorable body at your last meeting. For example, he complains about Mr. Murdock being knocked down near the Pico House and robbed. I venture to say that such was not the case “near the Pico House.” He was “rolled” while intoxicated, about 200 yards this side of his Honor’s water works, on Alameda Street, and not near the Pico House, as he stated. I recovered some of his things, which I can prove by Mr. J.R. Summers, on Main Street, and yet his Honor says to your Honorable Board and the public in general that nothing was done.
I really believe that most of the safe robbers were for a few days under arrest, but the courts want too evident proof to convict. An officer must, it seems, see the act committed before punishment can be inflicted.
In the case of the robbery at the Capital store, every effort was made to secure the property stolen. I had my suspicions that the parties started on the steamer for San Francisco, and had a telegram sent to the Chief of Police to search the suspected parties on the steamer, which was done, but nothing could be found. I submit a letter from the Chief of Police of San Francisco, to show you that something was done, and the matter not passed over, as his honor asserts.
In many cases before the Mayor, if we had been sustained and treated like officers of the law, things would have taken a better course in Police matters. I will introduce a little instance in the case of David Crockett: He was arrested on suspicion of arson, and discharged; rearrested for breaking into a schoolhouse and stealing a clock and books, and imprisoned for fifteen days; again arrested for stealing a revolver, and the officer advised by his Honor not to prosecute, as it was desired to send him out of the county.
This, Gentlemen, is the kind of protection the law has by its higher officers of magistrates. It is not the fault of the Police Department in all cases, but still the poor Policemen is blamed for every little matter by those who do not look to the fountain head.
J.J. Carrillo, City Marshal.
January 9, 1873, City Council Minutes:
• $1,465.50 in taxes collected. Salaries are listed as same as last month except Ramon Benites receiving $42.56 and George Guard $26.66
ORDINANCE FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE:
1. The Chief of Police shall have the entire control and management of the police force of the city.
2. In case of dereliction of duty in the performance of any act unbecoming of an officer, the other shall have the power to at once deprive such officer of his Star or Badge of office and suspend him from duty until a meeting of the police committee be called where the complaint shall be laid before the Board and if in their opinion such officer is guilty of the offence, as charged, he shall at once be discharged from the force or reprimanded as the Board may decide.
3. The decision of the Board in case of an officer shall be final and the appointment of an officer by the Board shall be subject to the approval of the Council.
4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
5. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage approved and to be published.
• Robert Dobson gave his resignation as Pound Keeper.
• Committee on Police advises that there is no vacancy in the Police Department to accept the petitions of Lowly and Graff as members to the force.
• Jose Redonda asked for appointment to the Police Force.
• Mr. Long called attention of the council to the prevalent nuisance of throwing filth and garbage and rubbish in the streets. He states that although such a state of things is strictly prohibited by ordinance with penalties for the offence, the police have neglected their duty and so far as he knew there has not been a single conviction for the violation of the offence he thought the council should compel the police to prosecute all offenders, that members of the Board and citizens generally should make complaints to the City Marshal for all such nuisances. Motion carried.
THE 1873 CITY CHARTER AND REVISED ORDINANCES ARE PUBLISHED WITH THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS ADDED WHICH PERTAIN TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT:
PAGE 165- RULES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
1ST. The Marshal is Chief of Police, and shall have the entire management and control of the police, both regular and special.
2nd. If any officer shall refuse to obey any order, or follow the instructions given by the chief, or commit any misdemeanor, the chief shall suspend him from duty until the next regular meeting of the Council, when the charge shall be preferred against him; and if found guilty, shall be discharged from the force.
3rd. All members of the department shall devote their whole time and attention to the business of the department, and not follow any other calling; and although certain hours are allotted to each man’s duty, on ordinary occasions, yet all the membe3rs must be prepared to act at a moment’s notice, whenever their services may be required.
4th. Punctual attendance shall be rendered of every officer on all occasions; sickness and disability only shall be an excuse for absence from duty; and while unable to attend to this duty, the chief can appoint some suitable person in his place, to be paid at the same rate as he himself receives from the city.
5th If any officer wishes to be absent from duty, he shall first obtain permission from the Chief, who shall place another in his place, as in Sec. 4th.
6th. Police Officers, while on duty, shall not sit down or enter any house to exceed five minutes at any one time, and shall examine the yards and corrals on their beats, at least one week and see that they are kept in a clean and healthy condition.
7th. Each and every police officer (unless ordered or detective or special duty) shall wear, when on duty, his star conspicuously placed on the left breast of the outer garment; and it shall be unlawful for any officer except the chief, his deputy, and police officers, to wear stars.
8th. Regular officers, when duty, shall carry, a revolver, and also a suitable whistle.
9th. Officers are specially cautioned against using pistols, except in cases of emergency.
10th Officers cognizant of the commission of any crime shall immediately report the same to the chief of police; they shall also report all circumstances which may come to their knowledge that will tend to the arrest of criminals, or the prevention of crime.
11th. Policemen, whether regular or special, are prohibited from arresting persons charged with being deserters from the U.S. Army or navy, without a warrant.
12th. Policemen are prohibited from lending money to prisoners, on deposit of any articles in their possession, or from purchasing any property in the possession of prisoners, while they are under arrest.
13th . Officers on street duty are required to perambulate their beats constantly during their tour of duty, keeping a vigilant watch for fires and offences against persons and property, and against the public peace; and in no case shall they leave their beat without permission, except in pursuit of objects of official duty of pressing importance or necessity arising during their tour of duty, and not affording time to ask permission.
14th. Officers who make arrests are directed to be prompt in attendance at the next session of the Mayor’s Court. It is also the duty of the arresting officer to see that the necessary affidavits are made, and witness subpoenas at the opening of the Court.
15th. Officers will not be allowed to leave their beats for the purpose of attending balls, places of amusement, etc., without the permission of the chief. No special policeman shall discharge any police duty unless his star is prominently in view, under perjury of having his warrant revoked,
16th. On the occurrence of fire in the city, all the officers on duty are to repair immediately to the scene of conflagration and report to the Chief of Police and aid in preserving order, engaging in extinguishing the flames, and in guarding property, and arresting all persons caught stealing of committing other depredations.
17th Police Officers shall take cognizance of the small boys who roam the street at night, and if any are found without parents or guardians leading idle and dissolute lives, to bring them before the Mayor for examination.
18th. Members of the department must be civil and respectful to the public, and upon all occasions perform their duties with good temper, discretion, and firmness.
Forbearance under provocation and a temperate though firm deportment is what is needed. Every policeman must recollect that, in making an arrest, he is not justified in using more force than is actually necessary for the safe custody of the parties until he conveys them to their proper destination.
It is the duty of a policeman to keep prisoners; but he has no right to punish him and he must not even use language calculated to offend or provoke them. A policeman must be cautious never to interfere unnecessarily; but when requested to act, he should do so with discretion, decision, and boldness; and he may arrest anyone who opposes him in the execution of his duty.
Arranged by:
Wm. C. WARREN,
Chief of Police
Note: William Warren was killed in the line of duty on October 31, 1870. He was probably tasked with drafting, prior to his untimely death, written direction for the police force and changing his office from Marshall to Chief of Police. However, it appears that the actual ordinance for the office of Chief of Police did not occur until three years later, when on December 27, 1872 during the city council meeting this ordinance was presented for ratification.
UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Library and Archive.
Date: December 15, 2006.
Re: Juan José Carrillo (1842-1916)
Issue: Whether Juan José Carrillo (1842-1916), was the first full time Chief of Police for the City of Los Angeles.
Short Answer: Carrillo held the title of Chief of Police simultaneously with the titles City Marshal and Tax and License Collector, for two terms between 1874 and 1876. However, he was not the first to hold these three titles. Three men before him also held the triple office of “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police.” Immediately after Carrillo’s two terms as “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police” in 1876, the position of City Marshal was discontinued, and the positions of “Tax and License Collector” and “Chief of Police” were separated from one another. Jacob F. Gherkins was appointed “Chief of Police” and Carrillo held the office of Tax and License Collector (See Summary
Chart below).
While it appears that Carrillo was not the first person to hold the office of Chief of Police, if Carrillo’s three predecessors were not of Latino/Hispanic descent, then it could be said that Juan José Carrillo was the first Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles of Latino/Hispanic descent.
Analysis:
Before the City of Los Angeles 1869-70 term of office, there was no chief of police, instead one man was elected to the dual position of “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector” each term. William C. Warren was the last man to hold that dual office in 1869. In the election for 1869-70, the dual office was changed to a triple office, “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector, and Chief of Police,” and William C. Warren was elected to hold that office for the term. He died before his term was over and Francis Baker served in the triple position for the remainder of the term. Baker was elected for 2 more terms in the triple position, after which R.J. Wolf was elected for 2 terms. Finally, in 1874, Carrillo was elected to the triple office for the 1874-75 term and was reelected to a second term for 1875-76. After Carrillo’s 2 terms, in the election of 1876, the triple office was dismantled. Voters were given the option to elect the city’s “Tax & License Collector,” and Carrillo was elected to that post. The former position of “City Marshal” was completely removed, and the position of “Chief of Police” became an appointed position. Jacob F. Gherkins was appointed Los Angeles Chief of Police on December 18, 1876.
On December 18, 1876, ten days after the election in which the position of City Marshal was no longer listed, and Carrillo was elected City Tax and License Collector, the Mayor announced during the City Council meeting that, due to a requirement in the new city charter, the council must elect a Chief of Police. There is no conclusive evidence showing why the new city charter changed the triple position after Carrillo’s last term, but there is some circumstantial evidence. During Carrillo’s last term in the triple office of “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector, and Chief of Police,” he approached the City Council on March 9, to explain that his police department duties left him without enough time to collect street assessments. He requested an increase in his percentage taken from collections so that he could hire an assistant to collect street assessments. This request was passed on to the finance committee. A week later, the finance committee reported that Carrillo would get a one percent increase from collections and assessments to hire an assistant.
This circumstantial evidence may suggest to some that Carrillo did not actually finish his term in the triple office, but hired an assistant and quit the Tax Collector position before the term ended in order to act as a full time Chief of Police. In fact, Carrillo was appointed to a three person Board of Police Commissioners, on June 8, three months after he requested help with collecting assessments. Also appointed to the Board were Mayor Prudent Beaudry as President, and Horace Burdick as Secretary. However, neither Carrillo’s presumed hiring of an assistant nor his appointment as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners proves that he dropped the Marshal or Tax Collector part of his title to become solely Chief of Police.
Instead, there is evidence in the City Council minutes that throughout Carrillo’s last term, the Marshal (presumably Carrillo) continued to give reports about tax and license collections, until four days before Gherkins was appointed Chief of Police. This suggests that Carrillo had not given up the Tax Collector post to become a full time Chief of Police. Further, there is evidence that when official city positions had been vacated in the past, official records were kept as to the date of a resignation, date when an office was declared vacant, and date when a successor was appointed. For example, the office of City Surveyor in 1875 went through two such resignations and successor appointments. If Carrillo had left or resigned the office of Tax Collector in order to become the first full time Chief of Police at some time in 1876, there would have been a record of his resignation and successor, but there is no such record. It seems unlikely that Carrillo would have resigned from the position of Tax Collector only a few months before the end of his term only to run for re-election to the same office for the next term. Carrillo ran for re-election to the office of Tax Collector at the end of 1876 and was reelected for two more years.
Additional evidence is available in various City Ordinances and City Charter Amendments. First, in the City Ordinances revised by Wm. McPherson in 1873, is printed a set of Rules of the Police Department, arranged by Wm. C. Warren, Chief of Police sometime before his death in 1870. These state that “The Marshal is chief of police.” Warren (not Carrillo), was the first Marshal to be chief of police under these rules, Baker the second, R.J. Wolf the third, and Carrillo the fourth. Second, City Ordinances #322 and #323 were passed on January 9 and approved on January 10, 1873, giving the Chief of Police the entire control and management of the police force and the power to suspend or discipline officers. However, R.J. Wolf held the triple position from December of 1872 to December of 1874, meaning that Wolf was the chief of police for nearly 2 years after these ordinances were passed and enacted, and presumably was the first to use these new powers. Further, it was not until May 1877 that the City Council adopted an ordinance correcting McPherson’s City Charter by striking out the word “Marshal” and replacing it with the words “Chief of Police.” At that time, Gherkins was already 5 months into his term as Chief of Police, suggesting that during the time period before the City Council revised its official documents, Gherkins held the office of Chief of Police.
Conclusion: Carrillo was not the first person to hold the title of Chief of Police. William C. Warren was the first in 1869. Carrillo was also not the first person to be elected or appointed to the sole position of full-time working Chief of Police. Jacob F. Gherkins was the first in 1876. While it is possible that just before Gherkins was appointed, Carrillo dropped his elected position of Tax and License Collector in 1876 in order to spend 100% of his time on Chief of Police duties, there is much circumstantial evidence to contradict this possibility, making it highly unlikely.
Summary Chart compiled using the “Chronological Record of Los Angeles City Officials 1850-1938”
1868-69 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector”
William C. Warren
1869-70 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
William C. Warren (Dec. 11/1/70)
Francis Baker
1870-71 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
Francis Baker
1871-72 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
Francis Baker
1872-73 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
R.J. Wolf
1873-74 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
R.J. Wolf
1874-75 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
Juan J. Carrillo
1875-76 “City Marshal, Tax & License Collector and Chief of Police”
Juan J. Carrillo
1876-77 “City Marshal”
[position is removed]
“Tax & License Collector”
Juan J. Carrillo
“Chief of Police”
Jacob F. Gherkins (appointed 12/18/76)
Research provided by Roberto Alaniz. Analysis and report prepared by Cheryl Kelly, Esq. in consultation with Yolanda Retter Vargas, PhD. UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Library and Archive. Date: December 15, 2006.