LAPOLICE HISTORY

START DATE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

The source of information for this study comes directly from the City Archives of Los Angeles. This was accomplished by combing through the eight volumes of Los Angeles City Council Minutes from 1850 to 1876 and an additional sixteen years of Los Angeles City Council minutes prior to 1850. The City Council Minutes recorded in this study are the actual entries found in the minute ledgers which are hand written and are found in the Los Angeles City Archives

The material for this article is original and as it relates to law enforcement, never before documented. I have kept the entries from the council meetings from 1850 to 1876 in chronological order along with Los Angeles County Court Dockets in the same order. The County Court dockets are located in the Los Angeles County Sever Center History Museum and the Huntington Library. The second source of information is from newspaper accounts of the day, mainly the Los Angeles Star and the Southern Californian. This compliments the City Council minutes and fills in the events of the each year, sometimes explaining why the City Council reacted a certain way.

Lastly, the early history and customs of the city comes from personal diaries and written accounts of early Los Angeles citizens. Some references are from Bancroft’s Study of California, which comprises seven volumes.

The City Council entries that are included at the end of this article are condensed version of the full work I completed several years ago and only include the entries to support this particular article

OFFICE OF CHIEF OF POLICE

In the years from 1846 to 1850, while the State of California was in a transition from Mexico to the U.S., the Los Angeles city government tried to establish a police department. In the Los Angeles City archives we find the following entry dated January 5, 1850: “for the purposes of enforcing the foregoing ordinances, a police force consisting of not less than 12 men shall be created to, whose service shall be paid for out of the City fund and who shall in all respects remain subject to the orders and instructions of the local authorities.” This was agreed to by the City Council members prior to the incorporation of the city. The jail at the time was a house that was rented by the city. On January 19, 1850, twelve men were appointed to assist with police work. In addition, a man by the name of F. Earl was named as “Chief of Police” which we find in an entry dated February 9, 1850. However, by the end of February this newly created police force began to lose confidence from the citizens for an incident involving a runaway slave along with a few other mishandled events. This resulted in a crisis over the newly formed police force that prompted a special meeting by the City Council which occurred on March 18, 1850. At this meeting, they “met to discuss the lack of respect shown to the authorities who… are defiled and threatened at every step.” After a long morning session, they broke for lunch and upon returning in the afternoon, they recommended and approved the immediate dissolvent of the police force. The City Council minutes states: “that from this day on the Police Force be disbanded, leaving only one or two men in charge of the prisoners, but that those men must be persons enjoying the confidence of the authorities.”

Exactly when did the position of Chief of Police come about in Los Angeles and when was the very first paid police and actual start date of the Police Department? A simple question, yet there are so many different versions that make it a confusing proposition to come up with a definitive answer. What adds to the confusion is the fact that the City of Los Angeles was under three separate governments. Originally, the city was established under Spanish rule, taken over by Mexico and finally became an American City. In the process, there were three separate forms of policing within the city, each with its own set of laws and government. In addition, at the end of the war with Mexico, there were several years of transition before the city was incorporated and became the city as we know it. During that transition, there was an active law enforcement program in place and a police department established.

Fortunately for us, we have official city records, specifically the Los Angeles City Council minutes that provide us with timelines, appointment dates, duties assigned, and names of individual involved with policing along with the mention of significant events that formed the police department. Secondly, we have the State of California historical records, which account for the appointment of reserve volunteer police units for Los Angeles area. These records include petitions for weapons, ammunition, and muster roles of members in the volunteer units. Finally, we have the Sever Center History Museum and Huntington Library where many of the early Los Angeles County Court Dockets are held.

To answer our questions on the early development of the police department, we need to acknowledge the following facts: first, the City of Los Angeles was incorporated on July 12, 1850, therefore that will be our starting date. Secondly, the Office of Marshal and Chief of Police was created together in the original two City Charters. Third, there were volunteer police and paid police. The volunteer police involved the Los Angeles City Guard whose purpose was to assist law enforcement within the city limits. The second volunteer unit was the Los Angeles Rangers whose primary duties were to assist with law enforcement outside the city limits. To clarify their authority, the City Guards were commissioned by the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angles Rangers were commissioned, paid and equipped by the State of California.

In 1850, when the city was incorporated, a City Charter was enacted. The charter provided the rules to govern the city and included a description of all of the city offices along with their duties. For the office of City Marshal, the 1850 City Charter Ordinance #25 states: “the 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.” As time went on, the Marshal was tasked with regulating the alignment of the residences, resolve property rights disputes, and “attend to everything regarding the health comfort and safety of the citizens.” This included regulating the slaughter of cattle, sheep and later to include impounding stray dogs, horses and animals, along with burying dead Indians and animals left in the roadway. On March 22, 1851, the Marshal was given the responsibility of cleaning the streets. Although no physical police force was created, the city ordinance also gave the Marshal a supervisory role over a soon to be established police force. Specifically, it state the Marshal “shall possess superintending control over the city police.”

The first attempt at establishing a city police force under the new incorporated city was on its first anniversary, July 12, 1851. In the Common Council meeting, the Mayor recommended Mr. A.W. Hope, a very popular business man that owned a drug store, to become the volunteer Chief of Police. The duties of the police department were simply “watch over the security of the citizens.” To identify these volunteer police officers, they would wear a ribbon inscribed with the following in English and Spanish: “City Police, Organized by the Common Council, July 12, 1851.” While we do not know the exact number of officers that were appointed as volunteer police officers, we do know that a hundred ribbons were ordered. The first appointed officers were volunteers along with Chief A.W. Hope and were not compensated for their services by the city. This newly organized police department experienced a few minor problems as would be expected. Since there were no manuals or formal training, the officers who reported to work did not know how to perform their basic duties. It was reported that the officers 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. After two months, Mr. Hope resigned to run for State Senator and W.T. B. Stanford was chosen as the new Volunteer Chief. No further mentions of the volunteer Chief or his officers are mentioned in the City Council Minutes.

The very first payroll recorded for three policemen was on October 13, 1854. Alexander Gibson, John Brannan and H. Lewis were paid $30 for services as police officers, which amounted to $10.00 each. This specific entry in the Common Council Minutes does not constitute the actual beginnings of a police department, rather the temporary appointment of individuals to assist the Marshal for specific duties. In this case, they were paid for a day’s duty only. It was not uncommon for the City Council to hire individuals as police officers on an as needed basis. Throughout the City Council Minutes, we find mention of individuals being paid for various “special” duties to assist the City Marshal. One duty for example was to help the Marshal during Election Day.

In order to develop and supervise a police force, the City Council decided to form a Police Committee consisting of three City Council Members to draft a City Ordinance to formally establish a police force and to develop rules and regulations. Most importantly, they were to decide how many officers were to be appointed and how much to pay them.

On November 4, 1854, the City Council temporarily postponed drafting a City Ordinance for a full time police force. This was mainly due to the cost involved in setting up the police department and paying officers a full time salary. This decision was immediately met with sharp criticism from the public and with the local newspapers. The Editor of the Los Angeles Star Newspaper for example, cited the urgent need for a full time police department based on the numerous murders occurring in the city. The importance and urgency of establishing a police department was also reflected in a citizen letter to the editor 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 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.”

A few weeks later, on November 16, 1854, the City Council voted to allow the Mayor the authority to appoint, subject to the Council approval, four police officers who would be paid $100 per month. Again, the appointments were only temporary. Accordingly, Alexander Gibson, Thomas Gordon and Thomas Aguilar were appointed as police officers.

This appeared to satisfy everyone for about eight months until the subject of organizing and implementing a permanent and full time police force again became a topic of concern. With mounting public pressure, the City Council met on July 31, 1855, for the specific purpose of amending the City Charter to include a police force. During this meeting, the Council passed and approved the Revised Ordinances of the City of Los Angeles. A significant change was made to the City Charter which began the development of a police department as they finally established the office of the Chief of Police within the city organization. The Revised 1855 City Ordinance, page 5, section 7 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 it states that the “Marshal was to have superintending role over the police”.

With this small change in the City Charter, the City Council now had a Chief of Police at no extra cost by using the existing City Marshal to perform police duties. While this was a first step in developing the desired police department, the City Marshal in reality had no power to regulate the police department. The Council, under the direction of the Police Committee maintained direct authority over the police officers.

This would continue until December 26, 1872 when another ordinance was introduced to the City Council defining the duties and powers of the City Marshal as the Chief of Police. This ordinance was initially referred to the Police Committee and the City Attorney for review and approval. This ordinance would be known as “Ordinance for the Chief of Police.” In the new ordinance, the power of the Marshal as Chief of Police was expanded to include line supervision of the police department and its officers. The Marshal was given the authority to suspend or fire any officer in dereliction of his duties or performance of any act unbecoming of an officer. When the officer was accused of the offence, the Marshal had the authority to place the officer on suspension and collect his badge pending the decision of the Police Committee. Once suspended, the officer was to await the decision of the Police Committee who reviewed the complaint. If the Police Committee determined the officer was guilty of the offence, he was suspended or fired.

1869

And what about the date of 1869 and what is the significance of that date to the establishment of the Los Angeles Police Department? Why is this date noted as the actual start date of the department? The fact is, there is no recorded information or direction to the development of the police department in the 1860’s. We do have an active police force which was in place from the early 1860’s that was under the direction and supervision of the City Marshal. This came about on February 21, 1862 when the City Council voted to increase the police force at the request of the Mayor.

However, what is a fact is the establishment of an organized formal police force beginning in

December 26, 1872 when an ordinance was presented and read in the city council meeting defining the duties and powers of the City Marshal as Chief of Police. The ordinance was approved by the City Council and referred to the Police Committee and City Attorney for final approval. By January 1873 the new ordinance establishing the Office of Chief of Police was published and became the starting point of a formal police department, phasing out of the office of City Marshal. With this new ordinance the office of Chief of Police was to replace the City Marshal’s position and primarily focus on managing a police force. It also eliminated all of the miscellaneous duties accumulated under the office of Marshal, which included tax collecting. From this point on, collections of taxes would be the responsibility of the newly created City Tax Collector.

Here is the actual city ordinance for the office Chief of Police:

January 9, 1873, City Council Minutes we find the following:

ORDINANCE FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE:

The Chief of Police shall have the entire control and management of the police force of the city.

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.

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.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.

This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage approved and to be published.

Later in the year of 1873, the city published the “Charter and Revised Ordinances of the City of Los Angeles” On page 165, the new City Charter includes, for the first time, the “Rules of the Police Department” which was originally written by Marshal William C. Warren. Marshal Warren was assigned the position of Chief of Police, and was killed in the line of duty in 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 in the 1874 City Charter page 174 and 175, giving the Office of Chief 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 the City Charter of 1878, where on page 456 it 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.”

From this point on the development of the police department accelerated. On December 31, 1874 a detective unit is selected, and the Marshal, Juan J. Carrillo, saving the expense of hiring a regular full time detective selected one of the police officers already on payroll to be the detective.

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 with one detective. The newly appointed detective would have dual status, as he would still be required to perform regular police duties from time to time and be under the direction of the Marshal. Unfortunately, during this City Council meeting, the Mayor proposed to disband the mounted horse detail, which consisted of two officers, however, although the idea was not initially accepted, it was later approved and the horse detail was briefly disbanded.

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 or “Special Police Officers” as they were called. According to the City Council Minutes of March 25, 1875, the Marshal/Chief received $1,200.00 per year, while police officers received a monthly salary of $75.00 a month, officers on the horse detail received $960.00 a year and the newly appointed department 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 Juan J. Carrillo. As late as 1870, the Los Angeles Star Newspaper reported on April 7, 1870 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 that 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 creation and design of the uniform and badge occurred on January 21, 1875 when the City Council directed Chief Juan Carrillo to adopt a uniform for the police officers and instructed him to work on the size and design of the badge which they wanted to be a uniform size. Up to this point, the badge was in the shape of a star which was worn on the outside of the officer’s shirt or coat and was individually made when officers were hired and were not uniform in size and design. On January 28, 1875 the City Council directs Chief Carrillo to contact the San Francisco Police Department and design a badge and uniform of similar design. As a result, the first uniform and badge for the Los Angeles Police Department was designed.

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 on one side of the street and the other officer on the other side of the street, unless handling a call for service.

The foot 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 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 concerned citizens the horse detail was reinstated. The concerned citizens testified before the City Council of the importance and need for the unit. Carrillo also testified before the City Council on the need for the horse detail and noted an example of the Horse Details effectiveness of an incident involving Officer Bilderian, who was on the horse detail prior to it being disbanded. Officer Bilderian was always in his area and as a result the citizens were according to Carrillo, “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. Consequently, on March 25, 1875, the City Council decided, after listing to numerous complaints 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 officers were assigned a foot beat, the horse unit was used as a quick response unit to back up the officers on foot, should a crime be in progress or assistance was needed. The horse detail also handled special problems within the city limits. For example, an ordinance was established 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 the detail. The horse detail was very effective and expanded 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 resulted in the unsatisfactory conduct and work performance by department personnel. Carrillo inherited a department that was undisciplined and ineffective. In fact, the City Council was in favor of discharging ineffective policemen but until formal charges were made against the officers, the City Council decided to retain the present force. This occurred only fifteen days after Carrillo was elected to the City Marshal position. To improve the image of the police department, Carrillo immediately instituted several 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 disagreed with the bond idea took up this issue with the City Council. He argued that the officers are considered pay labors that can be terminated by the City Council at any time. Requiring them to post a bond, would be an inconvenience and might discourage them from staying on as police officers, not to mention deter future applicants from joining the force. As 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 complaint was the responsibility of the Police Commission. They heard and investigated all complaints against police officers by citizens. 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. Initially 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 by the Police Committee. Thomas followed the disciplinary procedures and petitioned the City Council to overturn his termination which he felt was obviously unfair, since his original investigation was dropped. Thomas 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.

CONCLUSION

If we were to assign an actual start date for the modern Los Angeles Police Department, it would most likely be January 9, 1873 when the City Council formally adapts a city ordinance for the Office of Chief of Police which includes the regulation of the police department. The revised City Charter for 1873 also includes for the first time, a section titled “Rules of the Police Department.” The uniform and first badge was designed after this date as we clearly see in the City Council minutes. While we have a police presence and paid police during the 1860’s, it is not until this later date that the formal organization of the department takes shape.

On the other hand, if we acknowledge the office of City Marshal as law enforcement for the city, then we can conclude the start date of the Los Angeles Police Department occurred on July 12, 1850 when the City of Los Angeles was incorporated under American rule.

The history of early Los Angeles from 1850 to 1876 is filled with outstanding lawmen who wore the badge of Marshal for the city. They are part of our history and should be recognized for their efforts in bringing law and order to this city.

NOTES

The following entries are condensed version of the full work that I completed several years ago and only include the entries to support this particular article. The exception is the decade of 1860, specifically 1869 which I have included entire year of City Council minutes. As you will see, 1869 has very few entries relating to the development of the police department and no instructions or ordinances outlining the duties of the Chief of Police or regulating the police department. This is in sharp contrast to the year 1873 through 1875 when the City Council minutes are filled with specific direction establishing the police department as we know it today.

February 4, 1861, City Council Minutes:

It was recommended by the Mayor to appoint a Special Police Officer to assist the Marshal in his duties. The council approved the motion and authorized the Mayor to appoint and employ a Special Police Officer with a paid salary of no more than $60.00 per month. The officer was to be under the direction of the Mayor and be subject to the Mayor and could be removed at any time. The Mayor had the authority to hire and fire at will. With this position approved, Robert H. Hester was appointed to this position. Hester stays in this position until October 7, 1861, when he was replaced by John Garrison.

February 19, 1862, City Council Minutes:

The position of night policeman was established and once again, Robert H. Hester was appointed to the new position. In addition, the Mayor was authorized to appoint a second person to his position. This new position was not a paid position.

February 21, 1862, City Council Minutes:

The Mayor and the Marshal gave a presentation to the council on the need for more police officers. They initially decided to hire officers on an as needed basis and asked for permission to appoint and pay as needed for their services. This was done to pay for the services of Hester and others.

February 21, 1862, City Council Minutes:

Mayor requests to take measures for the better regulation of the police of the city. Also, recommends the appointment of extra polices in connection therewith the Marshal makes remarks and agrees with the proposal.
It was consequently resolved that the Mayor appoint such number of policemen as in his discretion he shall deem necessary for the peace and quiet of the city. And that he be authorized to contract with such specially appointed policemen as the amount of compensation such policemen shall receive for each day on night of service which he may be required to serve.
Cornel J. H. Garreton is asked to quiet his troops.

March 5, 1862, City Council Minutes:

The police department had Marshal Trafford with $60.00 a month salary. Two special police officers Garrison and John Warren were paid $30.00 each. Three special police officers who were not paid salary but received a fee for services performed were Robert Hester and Jose A Lopez and John Scanty. This was the police roster until the end of the year.

September 15, 1862, City Council Minutes:

The duties of Tax Collector were reinstated to the Marshal’s Office.

May 23, 1863, City Council Minutes:

The Pound Keeper is established and the Marshal and his Deputies will receive a fee of $1.00 for each animal impounded.

January 1, 1864, City Council Minutes:

The police force seemed to have changed with the replacement of officers with the following: Mr. Boone, L. Banello as special police offices. Later in the year Jose Carrillo was added and all received fees for duties performed but no salary. H. Rhodes received $60.00 as city jailer. Hester continues as special police officer and is also overseer of the chain gang.

Finance Committee repots upon the financial condition of the city and after some discussion it was resolved to dismiss, on the first day of September, the present police force and also the Chain Gang Overseer.
Streetlights were installed.

1869

This is the entire year’s City Council notes in reference to the police department for the year of 1869.

January 18, 1869, City Council Minutes:

The pay for four policemen was $75.00 per month, $3,600 for the year and $1, 00.00 for the year for the Marshall.

February 1, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Motion to increase police officer salary to $100.00 from the current $75.00.

March 22, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Petition by citizens against Officer Dobson and J. E. Reese. Citizens witness officers using cruel conduct against an intoxicated Squaw. The mater was deferred to the chief.

April 15, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Warren provides the council for a bill of $266.72, which was paid.

June 10, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Taxes collected by Marshal was $635.00

July 1, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Warren requests leave of absence to an additional month. Taxes collected were $624.00.

August 6, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Police Committee reports that there was no need to add another Policeman to the force.

August 13, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Finance Committee repots upon the financial condition of the city and after some discussion it was resolved to dismiss, on the first day of September, the present police force and also the chain gang overseer.

September 1869, City Council Minutes:

The city is organized into wards. The first ward is everything north of First Street to city limits and the second ward is everything to the south of First Street.

November 25, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Ramon Benito Alvarado is added to the police force.

December 23, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Streetlights were installed.

December 23, 1869, City Council Minutes:

Marshal Warren is paid $166.00; police officers, Bryant, Dobson, Hamilton, Dye, and Alvarado are paid $75.00 each. F, Baker, Deputy Marshal is paid $150.00 for three months’ salary.

1870

December 15, 1870, City Council Minutes:

Committee on the Police shall with the Chief of Police constitute a Board of Police Commissioners. Said Board shall have the appointing, regulating, and entire control of the Police Force of the City and all complaints against Officers shall be heard before the said Board who shall be empowered to decide concerning such complaints and discharge, suspend or retain said Officer.

All police positions on and after December 31, 1870 shall be vacant.

City Council makes the below appointment official. They also establish that the Committee on Police, which would include the Chief of Police, will constitute a Board of Police Commissioners. They shall have control and regular the police force subject to Council approval.

The Marshal reported that at present, there were five policemen on the force, also a special policeman, which is paid by the citizens all of whom are appointed on the approval of the Council.

Two Policemen should be appointed for each Ward with a monthly salary of $100.00, to be under the control of the Chief of Police and appointed as before provided.

The Mayor motioned that he wanted to be on the Police Board; however, the City Attorney suggested that the Mayor could not be on the Board, the motion was withdrawn.

December 26, 1872, City Council Minutes:

An 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.

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 Gard $26.66

ORDINANCE FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE:

The Chief of Police shall have the entire control and management of the police force of the city.

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.

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.

All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.

This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage approved and to be published.

Council Minutes continued:

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.

February 6, 1873, City Council Minutes:

$1,553.00 in collected taxes for the month of January.

The Marshal is requested to keep a record of the number of arrests made each month and by whom made and that he report the same to the Council at the first meeting in every month.

March 20, 1873, City Council Minutes:

Marshal presents his police report for the month of February.

December 31, 1874, City Council Minutes:

The following persons were nominated for the police officer position for foot patrol: Deputies, James Gorman, J.J. Thomas, F. Carpenter, T. Bedford, J.P. Gabriel, A.J. Bowman, Ed Ryan, and for Mounted Unit, Carlos Cruz, and Ramon Benites.
In addition, that a uniform be adopted for the police officers and that the star is of uniform size. When a detective unit is selected, the Marshal, saving the expense of keeping a regular detective shall select him from the force. The council members were in favor of discharging ineffective policemen but until charges were preferred, they were in favor of retaining the present force.

1875

January 21, 1875, City Council Minutes:

The Marshal was instructed that a uniform worn by the police force and that the police star worn on the uniform be of a proper size.

January 28, 1875, City Council Minutes:

Also, the Marshal was instructed to contact the San Francisco Police Department and design a badge and uniform of similar design.

January 21, 1875, City Council Minutes:

Mayor noted numerous drunks wandering around the streets so they can be jailed and feed for the night.
With Officer Ryan resigning, Carlos Cruz is appointed as replacement.
Because of the growth of the city, the Marshal requests two additional officers to the force. J. J. Thomas and B. Turney were selected.
The Marshal was instructed that a uniform worn by the police force and that the police star worn on the uniform be of a proper size.
P Gabriel was nominated by Workman was Police Officer; however a majority vote made J.J. Thomas a Police Officer.
It was motioned that each police officer provides a bond in the amount of $2, 000.00 for the faithful performance of their duties.

January 28, 1875, City Council Minutes:

Marshal argued that the Police bond issue was not a good idea. Mainly because police are considered pay labor and are able to be discharged by the council at any time, and requiring to so something so unnecessary, as to give a bond is a great inconvenience and might turn them out of employment.
Also, the Marshal was instructed to contact the San Francisco Police Department and design a badge and uniform of similar design.

1876

July 6, 1876, City Council Minutes:

Thomas Couley is appointed as Driver of the City Cart and acts as a Special Police Officer.
City Marshal reports that he has been authorized by the Board of Police Commissioners, under his office as Chief of Police to appoint ten Special Police Officers to serve on the Fourth of July, which he did and requests $50.00 to pay them, approved.

December 8, 1876, City Council Minutes:

Election returns with J.J. Carrillo receiving 1083 votes as City Tax Collector. The Office of Marshal is no longer listed as a voting office.

December 14, 1876, City Council Minutes:

Marshal gives his last report of tax collection of $2, 0154.77. Also $15.00 for hiring three Special Police Officers on Election Day.

December 15, 1876, Mayor Prudent Beaudry:

“A natural and inevitable consequences of our growth as a city is an increase of crime. That class which requires the surveillance of the police is certain to drift towards all prosperous and growing cities. In our case it is fast becoming disproportionate to the rest of the community and too large to be controlled by the small police force, which is charged with preserving the order of the city.

This is shown by the alarming increase in the number and boldness of the burglaries and thefts that have been committed. Lately, it is strange however; that even with the small force employed at present is so few, of the perpetrators of these crimes have been discovered.” Los Angeles Star Newspaper

December 18, 1876, City Council Minutes: Mayor Prudent Beaudry:

“Under the new City Charter the Council has now to elect a Police Judge and a Chief of Police. In selecting the later, great care should be taken to secure a man of acknowledged experience and determination, one that knows the law and will that see that it is enforced. The number of burglaries committed in the last few months affirms conclusive evidence that we have an unusual number of the criminal class in our midst. Complaints of outrage committed in outlying portions of the city have also been very numerous of late, and citizens living away from the immediate center answer that policeman are seldom seen in their neighborhoods. If not large enough, the force should be increased and nothing spared to make it thoroughly efficient so that protection maybe afforded to residents in all parts of the city. It should be part of the policeman’s duty to report when street lamps are not kept lighted at proper times, and no dereliction of duty should be overlooked.”

At this meeting, the appointment of Chief was done by casting ballots from Councilmen. The following persons were nominated: E. Harris, J. Gerkins, J.F. Burns, and D. Walden. Gerkins won a close first on the third ballot; Harris received four votes, Gerkins six votes.

At this time Gerkins tendered his resignation as a Councilman of the first ward.

December 21, 1876, City Council Minutes:

Marshal presented a communication asking the Council to appropriate a sufficient amount of money to the salary fund to place him on a cash basis.

1877

January 15, 1877, City Council Minutes:

Resolution was passed prohibiting the wearing of a policeman’s badge, “all persons not policemen of this city or the duty authorized by law are hereby prohibited from wearing the star or badges of a policeman of the City of Los Angeles. Violation is a misdemeanor with a $100.00 fine or jail not to exceed 60 days.

One of the duties of the Marshal was to provide a monthly report on the status of the police department. The report includes its activities and recap of crimes committed. Some of the unusual ordinances enforced are for unhitched teams, attempt to Garrote and selling liquor to an Indian.

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;Ttrespass, 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 Kill, 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.