I have heard this both as a question — “Has law enforcement changed?” — and as a statement — “Law enforcement has changed!” Generally speaking, the question comes from the outside observer who is genuinely wondering whether law enforcement has changed for better or for worse. Conversely, the statement comes from the insider who feels uncomfortable with change.

As a retiree, I am an insider who is now observing from the outside. The answer is yes, law enforcement has changed, and change is good, even if it is hard.

I spent over 30 years with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and the majority of my career was as a detective. I retired as a lieutenant in charge of a group of detectives who specialized in child abuse investigations.

The old days

I recall at the start of my career some of the “old-timers” commenting that “police work isn’t like it used to be” and “I’m glad I’m not starting now.” I would agree that police work changed between the 1970s and 1990, when I started. The LAPD of the 1970s was the “Adam-12” era. The Adam-12 television series reflected a strong paramilitary culture that was dominated by white males. A retired policewoman I’ve spoken with, who worked at the LAPD during that era, recounts workplace harassment and sexism. However, she said she did see “change” and acceptance during her career and that she loved her career.

My predecessors saw changes in many areas of policing, especially improvements in communication. The era of the “call box” had already shifted to the use of an in-car radio, and would improve again with the use of a portable radio carried by each officer — a momentous change that improved officer safety.

Significant incidents also led to changes in tactics for the LAPD. In the 1960s, an incident that became known as the “Onion Field,” in which two officers were kidnapped and one was killed, changed how officers were taught to never surrender their weapons, strongly encouraged them to carry a backup weapon and led to revisions in traffic stop tactics. In the 1970s, LAPD officers were involved in a violent shootout with members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). During the shootout, hundreds of officers were involved, and thousands of rounds were fired. The SLA fired automatic weapons at officers who were armed with revolvers and shotguns. Tear gas was deployed, and ultimately six SLA members were killed, and the house where they were hiding was burned to the ground because dozens of tear gas cannisters started fires. The aftermath of the SLA shootout led to the LAPD creating the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team.

Police departments and officers across the nation benefited from the changes made because of those two tragic events involving the LAPD, changes aimed at officer and community safety.

Technology is being leveraged in every aspect of policing to the benefit of both the community and the officers.

Changing times

In my era, I saw the mobile digital terminals (MDT) in the police car evolve into the mobile digital computer (MDC). With the implementation of MDTs, officers would say that supervision didn’t trust them and that the MDT was a leash to keep track of officers. Yes, the MDT was a way to track officers, but the type of tracking that could be done at that time would make an Onion Field–type incident less likely. The MDT also gave officers more information about their calls for service. It was an extra resource and a way to communicate without broadcasting on the radio.

Other significant events in Los Angeles, such as the video-recorded arrest of Rodney King, the 1992 Los Angeles Riots and the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery shootout, prompted changes in tactics, tools and weapon systems used by officers.

I worked homicide through the evolution of how detectives audio-recorded interviews with suspects and witnesses. The first recorder I purchased used a standard-sized cassette tape and was considered the newest thing because the overall size of the recorder was not much bigger than the cassette itself. Not long after, the microcassette recorder I purchased wasn’t much bigger than many modern-day cellphones. The last audio recorder I purchased was digital. It was small enough to fit into the pocket of my notebook and made recording people in the field very convenient. Younger detectives would snicker at my collection of recorders until they started reviewing a homicide cold case and needed an “old school” device to listen to a recorded interview from the original media form.

My first year working as a homicide detective was 1997. I would work in homicide for a total of 10 years between 1997 and 2012, with a couple of other detective assignments mixed in between. In 1997, not every interview was recorded, even though the interviews of witnesses, associates of a suspect and the suspect often formed the backbone of the case, supported by physical evidence, most often ballistics.

As time went on, the district attorneys wouldn’t even consider filing a case if every interview wasn’t recorded, and video became the preferred method over just audio. With everything being recorded, I made an effort to use fewer curse words during interviews that would end up in front of a jury. One such effort to avoid cursing during the interview of a suspect led to the use of the word “cockamamy,” which I’m not even sure I knew how to spell until I read it in the transcript prepared prior to trial.

As the years marched on, science and technology played bigger roles in my homicide investigations. The search for fingerprints turned into the search for DNA, and the proliferation of cellphone use ushered in a whole new era of investigative techniques and searches for data. No longer would an investigator search through stacks and files of field interview cards in hopes of connecting a suspect to an area or an associate. Cell tower data, IP addresses and geofencing data have become the backbone of a case. Today’s homicide detective must be more tech-savvy and is far less reliant on the art of the interview.

Change is good

So, has law enforcement changed? Yes. Most departments are a reflection of their community, employing many more women and people of all races and ethnic backgrounds. Technology is leveraged in every aspect of policing to the benefit of both the community and the officers.

The way officers are taught in the academy continues to evolve, relying far less on the paramilitary style of discipline and focusing more on principles of adult learning. I have heard comments about officers being “soft” or overweight because the police academy does not emphasize discipline. I would argue that teaching officers to be more reliant on de-escalating confrontations versus resorting to physical force is an improvement to officer safety. Officer safety is a broad term that must include protecting an officer’s long-term physical and mental health along with job security. Yes, physical fitness is a concern for longevity, but that is a topic for another discussion.

Many people, including police officers, are reluctant to change, and police departments as a whole can be slow to change. The LAPD of today is far different from the department it was during the 1970s or the 1990s because the city has changed, and the officers who wear the uniform have much different lived experiences than myself or my predecessors. Change can be disconcerting and uncomfortable when you are in the midst of it. However, change is inevitable, and ultimately, change is good.