Over the past decade, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has received thousands of complaints alleging that officers engaged in biased policing by targeting individuals based on race, ethnicity, or appearance. Despite the high volume of claims, disciplinary actions resulting in termination have been exceedingly rare, with only one officer fired for such conduct during this period.

The officer in question, Edgar Garcia Cancino, served in a San Fernando Valley anti-gang unit known as the Mission Division. He was dismissed following an internal investigation that uncovered a pattern of intentional policy violations, including numerous undocumented stops and failures to activate body and dashboard cameras. The department’s case largely focused on two specific incidents: one involving a traffic stop of a speeding motorist with tinted windows and an expired vehicle registration, and another concerning a pedestrian who subsequently filed a profiling complaint. The motorist reportedly told investigators that Cancino stopped him because he “looked like a G,” suggesting profiling based on appearance.

Cancino and his attorney dispute the allegations. His legal representative, Nicole Castronovo, contended that he did not unfairly target individuals and suggested that the department selectively pursued cases against Cancino while ignoring similar conduct by other officers in his unit. Castronovo also argued that Cancino and another fired officer were denied a fair disciplinary process due to conflicts of interest involving union-appointed lawyers representing witnesses against them. A Los Angeles County judge rejected their appeal, affirming the department’s decision to uphold the termination.

According to data from the California Department of Justice, nearly 4,900 allegations of bias were lodged against LAPD officers from 2016 to 2025, but only three complaints were substantiated. This low rate of sustained findings aligns with patterns seen in other law enforcement agencies within the state, such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which reported slightly fewer complaints but twice as many sustained cases during the same timeframe.

Despite repeated reforms and calls for stricter oversight, accusations of biased policing persist, particularly affecting Black and Latino communities. A 2025 report from the advocacy group Catalyst California highlighted that Black residents, who represent approximately 8% of Los Angeles’ population, accounted for nearly a third of minor traffic stops that year. Latinos, making up about 47% of the city’s population, were subject to 58% of all traffic stops. The study also found that Black and Latino individuals were disproportionately subjected to consent searches, although fewer than 10% of those stops led to the discovery of contraband such as drugs or weapons.

LAPD officials have challenged these findings, citing complexities in interpreting raw demographic data and emphasizing factors like neighborhood composition and arrest outcomes that can influence stop statistics. They also point to the use of body cameras as a tool that has helped disprove some baseless complaints.

In May 2023, the Los Angeles City Council voted to curb the practice of “pretextual” stops, whereby officers pull over drivers for minor infractions as a means to investigate unrelated suspected crimes. The council urged the Police Commission to address this tactic amid concerns it facilitates racial discrimination.

Civil rights advocates argue the LAPD’s refusal to acknowledge widespread biased policing and reluctance to impose stringent consequences undermine community trust. Peter Bibring, an attorney specializing in police practices, criticized the department for repeatedly denying systemic issues and questioned the commitment to addressing residents’ concerns.

During legal proceedings related to a 2019 racial profiling lawsuit, an LAPD official indicated that even extensive data indicating racial disparities in stops would not necessarily be sufficient to prove biased policing, underscoring the ongoing contentious debate over accountability and reform within the department.