Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton on Wednesday pledged to conduct an internal investigation to determine if police violated policy by using force to quell pro-immigration protesters.

Bratton said he had seen news footage showing a number of officers in riot gear striking protesters and some members of the media to the ground with batons, and others firing foam bullets into the crowd.

The incidents happened during a Tuesday rally in downtown Los Angeles.

"I regret and am, as are all of you, disturbed by the events so vividly depicted in the various news videos," Bratton told a press conference at the city hall.

"Police use of force in any context is always visibly and emotionally upsetting, even when necessary and lawful," the chief said.

"Our challenge in reviewing and investigating the actions of the police department ... and that of the public is to determine if that use of force was an appropriate response to the level of threat, disturbance and danger that they are encountering."

However, he is determined to meet the challenges, Bratton said.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will create an "after-action report" to evaluate its handling of the event, and conduct a use-of-force investigation to determine if officers responded appropriately, he added.

Tuesday's rally by thousands of people calling for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants was peaceful until about about 6 p.m., when police tried to disperse some demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk into Alvarado Street in the downtown area.

Some demonstrators responded by throwing plastic bottles and rocks at officers, police said. Several dozen riot police, wearing helmets and carrying batons, fired a few dozen volleys of foam bullets into the crowd.

The clashes injured 15 police officers and at least 10 demonstrators.

The Radio and Television News Association (RTNA) said earlier that "there is evidence that officers knocked reporters to the ground, used batons on photographers and damaged cameras, possibly motivated by anger over journalists photographing efforts by officers to control the movements of marchers."

An early version of the March order had authorized the officials to act without even having to consult the Attorney General, but the wording of the instrument was later revised at the urging of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which was concerned about the constitutionality of such broad-brush delegation of power. An unnamed "senior executive branch official" quoted by the National Journal said of the order that it was "an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed similar concern over the root strategy apparently reflected in the order, saying in a statement Monday:

This development is highly troubling in what it seems to reveal about White House politicization of key appointees in the Department of Justice. The mass firing of U.S. attorneys appeared to be part of a systematic scheme to inject political influence into the hiring and firing decisions of key justice employees. This secret order would seem to be evidence of an effort to hardwire control over law enforcement by White House political operatives.

Leahy called for the order and its supporting materials to be formally turned over to the Senate and House Judiciary committees looking into the US Attorney firings.

In papers filed in support of obtaining the injunction, the government alleged that Olympic deposited almost $28 million of customer funds into accounts that OBS maintained in its own name at commercial banks. Olympic allegedly used the funds to pays customers’ bills and expenses while promising to leave no paper trail.

Judge Lasnik’s order held that Arant “is or should be aware that courts have repeatedly held that warehouse banks are tax evasion schemes.” A California federal court in 2004 permanently closed a similar warehouse bank. Details about that case are available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04785.htm. In 2005 a federal court in Oregon sentenced operators of a warehouse bank to prison, after their criminal convictions. Details are available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05070.htm.

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

The statements Friday, during a private interview with investigators from the House and Senate Judiciary committees, make McNulty the latest senior Justice official to assert that he did not identify any of the U.S. attorneys to be fired and that his role was minimal.

Gonzales, former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson and William E. Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, also told Congress they did not choose who was fired.

"If the top folks at DOJ weren't the key decision-makers, it's less likely that lower-down people at DOJ were, and much more likely that people in the White House were making the major decisions," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Moschella was also interviewed last week. He told investigators he was solely responsible for a provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization law that gave Gonzales the authority to appoint U.S. attorneys for an indefinite time, a congressional aide said.

Moschella also said that, when the provision was drawn up in November 2005, he was not aware of a dispute over the appointment of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota, the aide said. Justice officials have pointed to that case as a key justification for the provision, which Congress has since repealed.

Democrats criticized Gonzales yesterday for giving Sampson and his White House liaison in March 2006 the authority to hire and fire certain employees. "It is disturbing to learn that the attorney general was granting extraordinary and sweeping authority to the same political operatives who were plotting with the White House to dilute our system of checks and balances in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

Administration officials said Gonzales's order, published in the Federal Register and first reported yesterday by the National Journal on its Web site, codifies a process that is standard for agencies throughout the government in dealing with political appointees. "The notion that the White House shouldn't be involved in presidential appointments is bizarre," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Rather, officers can take measures to stop the car without putting themselves at risk of civil rights lawsuits.

"A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death," Scalia said.

The court sided 8-1 with former Coweta County sheriff's deputy Timothy Scott, who rammed a fleeing black Cadillac on a two-lane, rain-slicked road in March 2001.

Victor Harris (nyse: HRS - news - people ), the 19-year-old driver of the Cadillac, lost control and his car ended up at the bottom of an embankment.

Harris, paralyzed, sued Scott.

Lower federal courts ruled the lawsuit could proceed, but the Supreme Court said Monday that it could not. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

In an unusual move, the court posted the dramatic video on its Web site.

The case involved Jose Medellin, who was denied the right to meet with a consular officer from Mexico after his arrest for murder.

The World Court in The Hague in 2004 ordered the United States to review the cases of Medellin and 50 other Mexican death row inmates because U.S. officials failed to tell them of their right under the Vienna Convention to talk to consular officers immediately after their arrests.

Bush in 2005 decided to comply with the World Court's ruling and he directed state courts to review the 51 cases to determine whether the violation of their rights caused the defendants any harm at trial or at sentencing.

Bush's action caused the Supreme Court to dismiss an earlier appeal by Medellin without deciding the merits of the dispute and to send the case back to the Texas courts.

After losing before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Medellin's attorneys again appealed to the Supreme Court. They said the Texas court has put the United States in violation of its undisputed treaty obligations.

Bush administration attorneys supported Medellin's appeal. They said Bush acted within his authority and that the Texas court invalidated a presidential action "on a matter of international importance."

Medellin, a gang member, was sentenced to death in state court for the 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. The brutal killings stemmed from a gang initiation.

Lawyers for the state opposed the appeal. They said Bush exceeded his authority and that he cannot pre-empt Texas criminal law.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments and decide the case during its upcoming term that begins in October.

The University of Georgia reached an out-of-court settlement with a former student who filed a 25 million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit.

The woman -- Tiffany Williams -- claimed U-G-A officials were slow to respond to an alleged assault involving three athletes.

The lawsuit revolves around a 2002 claim that she had consensual sex with former Georgia basketball player Tony Cole in her dorm room. Afterward she told police that former basketball player Steve Thomas and ex-football player Brandon Williams sexually assaulted her.

The lawsuit claimed that school officials exposed her to danger by recruiting Cole even though they knew he had a history of sexual misconduct.

U-G-A attorney Ed Tolley said the settlement was six figures but he did NOT specify the precise figure.

Brandon Williams was acquitted of any wrongdoing and criminal charges against Cole and Thomas were dropped.