Email This to a Friend
Policing the LAPD
A new regulation will require "regular and periodic financial disclosures" by all Los Angeles police officers "who routinely handle valuable contraband or cash." Officer Jack Dunphy warns that such a measure will drive the LAPD's best from crime fighting and create a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare.
On June 15, 2001, the city of Los Angeles and the United States Justice Department entered into a consent decree intended to remedy what the Justice Department alleged was a “pattern or practice of unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful conduct” within the Los Angeles Police Department. The Justice Department brought suit against the city as a result of what became known as the “Rampart scandal,” in which officers engaged in all manner of criminal behavior, from drug dealing to perjury to unjustified shootings.
As reprehensible as that behavior was, it is important to note that the scandal involved only a handful of officers at a single police station. Even after investigations by the FBI, the Los Angeles County district attorney, and the LAPD itself, not to mention countless television and newspaper expos√©s, no evidence was produced to suggest this “pattern or practice” extended beyond that small group of officers at that one station. Despite this, the city declined to contest the DOJ allegations at trial and instead entered into the consent decree, which, more than seven years later, continues to govern virtually every facet of the LAPD’s operations.
On December 20, the five members of the civilian police commission, which acts as a board of directors to the LAPD, voted unanimously to implement what has been one of the consent decree’s last remaining sticking points, and in so doing may have placed the department and indeed the city itself in danger.
Paragraph 132 of the consent decree reads as follows:
The LAPD shall require regular and periodic financial disclosures by all LAPD officers and other LAPD employees who routinely handle valuable contraband or cash. The LAPD shall periodically audit a random sample of such disclosures to ensure their accuracy. When necessary, the LAPD shall require the necessary waivers from such officers.
This paragraph has been interpreted to apply to all officers working in narcotics and anti-gang assignments, or about 500 of the LAPD’s 9,500 sworn personnel. The disclosure requirement will apply not only to those officers, but also to their spouses, children, and anyone else with whom they might operate a business or own property. Many, if not most, of these officers have informed their superiors they will accept transfers to other assignments rather than accede to what they see as an overly intrusive and even illegal examination of their personal finances.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the labor union representing LAPD officers below the rank of captain, has filed suit in superior court seeking to enjoin the city from implementing this measure. The Protective League’s complaint alleges, among other things, that the disclosure requirement violates the California state constitution and a state law that expressly forbids this type of inquiry into an officer’s finances.
Interestingly, the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Daily News came to opposite conclusions on this issue on their editorial pages. The Times, seldom a friend to the city’s cops, argued against the disclosure requirement (even as it took a backhanded slap at the Protective League), while the other paper endorsed it. “[I]t’s hard to believe 500 cops would jeopardize public safety,” said the Daily News, “if they have nothing to hide.”
This argument ignores reality. The affected police officers do in fact have something to hide, as do the editorial writers at the Daily News and indeed nearly everyone else in the country, namely the personal financial records that might be ill used if not properly safeguarded. The LAPD has at times been famously sloppy with its record keeping. At a press conference announcing their opposition to the financial-disclosure plan, Protective League officers displayed photographs showing hundreds of boxes stacked in the hallways at Parker Center, the LAPD headquarters building. These boxes contained files that are presumably confidential, yet there they were, piled nearly to the ceiling and available for inspection by anyone curious enough to stop and have a peek inside. Supposedly confidential personnel information has on many occasions been leaked to the media, and officers have little faith that their financial records will enjoy any more protection than those boxes stacked in the hallways do today.
But there is another reason those 500 officers are threatening to leave their assignments, one that you may not see discussed anywhere but here. In the seven years they have operated under the consent decree, LAPD officers have seen millions and millions of dollars and countless man-hours devoted to complying with its many provisions. All of that money and all of that time – figures that, if they were to be tabulated and publicized, would have L.A.’s taxpayers taking up torches and pitchforks – went straight down the rathole of bureaucracy spawned by the consent decree.
William Bratton may be the LAPD’s chief, but in reality the department is run by lawyers and auditors. A new computer system demanded by the consent decree was intended to help supervisors monitor their officers, but in reality it is little more than a generator of worthless busywork, keeping those supervisors glued to computers in the stations rather than in the field where they might actually interact with the officers they’re supposed to be monitoring. And far too many honest and hardworking officers have been disciplined for making the smallest and most inconsequential of errors in reports that are now endlessly and ludicrously scrutinized.
Now, at long last, some of those officers have the opportunity to say, “Enough.” Who can blame them?
“Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
10 Comments
1. David Thomson:This is another example of the fecklessness of the politically correct George W. Bush. He is ultimately responsible for the behavior of the U.S. Justice Department. I am reminded once again why I support Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the presidency. Sixteen years of the combined leadership of Bill Clinton and the current occupant of the White House has greatly damaged our country.
Dec 27, 2007 - 11:26 am 2. Pops Petrick:Seeing that politicians have to submit periodic financial statements, I see no reason why police officers should not also submit them.
Dec 27, 2007 - 5:16 pm 3. MikeT:However, seeinmg that police officers must take mandatory drug tests, all politicians must also be tested…..
This is the way that a lot of federal agencies handle their personnel who handle classified material. Doesn’t matter which department it is, if your department does classified information, then you better prepare to have to reveal your personal finances to let the government make sure you are not easily compromised.
Dec 27, 2007 - 6:04 pm 4. pchas:Methinks “Jack Dunphy” doth protest too much. He seems to think that the LAPD should not be accountable to anyone, yet he overlooks that it was a lack of accountability that caused to the Ramparts scandal which led to the consent decree in the first place.
The disclosure requirements placed on the narcotics officers (5.3 percent of the police force) are not out of keeping with what is required of anyone who has any degree of responsibility in public service.
For example, as a middle-level manager in a California state financial regulatory agency, I am required to submit an annual financial disclosure statement to the Fair Political Practices Commission, and I am forbidden to engage in financial transactions with the entities that my agency regulates.
Certainly, the LAPD’s alleged mishandling of officers’ personal financial records does not eliminate the need to gather the information. The obvious solution is to improve record keeping procedures, not to stop gathering the data. It is egregious in the extreme to suggest such a thing.
The Ramparts scandal that led to the consent decree proved that there is a need for society to be protected from its protectors. As the Roman poet Juvenal who asked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or Who will watch the watchers?
Dec 28, 2007 - 10:43 am 5. Tom Holsinger:pchas,
You don’t worry about crimnals attacking your family. These guys do, particularly the undercover officers.
You don’t have to worry about narcotrafficantes offering bribes to the clerks handling your financial data. These guys do, particularly the undercover officers.
They are quite correct to refuse to entrust their family’s lives to the confidentiality of LAPD financial records, which are NOT maintained with the degree of security provided to records of informants.
Apples are not oranges.
Dec 28, 2007 - 3:38 pm 6. Ted G.:If handling large amounts of money by public officals requires complete financial disclosure, first start with elected politicians.
Dec 28, 2007 - 7:38 pm 7. Ed O'Shea:pchas: You ever have a “green light” (street vernacular for a bounty on your dead carcass) put on your melon at that fine financial institution you play golf for? Methinks…. Probably not! So hop down off that high horse and save your obtuse observations for the cricket field! You deal in money, I chase killers who would kill my family if they had the chance and the opportunity. See that’s the part about the FD that we are fighting against, and if you do not think that is a reality then I have to words for you to research “Piches Motion!” These killers will do our families harm while we are protecting YOU! As for your research, you might even get to use your shinny new abacus by counting how many different times a gang member with the motive, motivation and now opportunity might get his hands on an Officers family’s PRIVATE information. Now if you want to divulge my family’s information to the killers that I deal with, stand by, because then I see Mr. Crip/Blood/NAZILowrider/Florencia, approach my family, that is where I WILL loose my professional objectivity! And if my family’s life is threatened……… Front Site Presssssssssss! Rinse, wash and repeat until the threat(s) stops!
As for my financial standing…… I’m a cop I haven’t got two dimes to rub together. Prior to becoming a Police Officer, I was in the private sector tripling what I make now! So if it were the money, I wouldn’t be in Law Enforcement! See my fellow Officers and I enjoy protecting the public from the predators out there. We even do it for ingrates like yourself! Walk a mile in my shoes Mr. knowitall before you wax any further! You might have heard we are hiring, you can bring your abacus with you, we need bean counters!
In short fairness is what I expect! As one of my fellow Officers said “If you think I am guilty of something? Write a warrant, show a burden of proof, then investigate me!”
Furthermore, if you want to wax intellectual about a topic, please educate yourself on it! Just a smudge! And don’t just read off some mind numbing talking points from an obscure article.
As for Jack Dunphy, he hits the nail on the head every time! Oh yeah and fancy that, he actually is a real live Police Officer. Methinks you should hold your breath, block your nose, close your eyes and fart! Methinks that will clear out your mind!
Have a Happy and Safe New Year!
Ed O’Shea
Dec 29, 2007 - 1:32 am 8. pchas:It’s disingenuous to suggest that the consent decree makes it possible for bad guys to go after a cop or his or her family–the LAPD already compiled personal information on its officers before the consent decree was issued.
I’d like to know if there are any instances of a cop actually being “greenlighted”–to use Officer O’Shea’s colorful street vernacular–as a result of confidential information having been leaked.
Cops are entitled to have their personal information treated with the utmost confidence by the LAPD. If that isn’t happening, then the Protective League should insist that the LAPD improve its record handling procedures, not try to obstruct the decree.
As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Police have extraordinary power over citizens, so there need to be sufficient routines and controls in place to ensure that they do not abuse that power. While the majority of officers are truly dedicated public servants, there are a handful of bad actors in any police force that make these measures necessary.
Dec 29, 2007 - 10:59 am 9. Tom holsinger:pchas,
You are clueless. This concerns the personal financial information of family members. “… also to their spouses, children, and anyone else with whom they might operate a business or own property.”
Not those family members who they do have business relationships with, but who they MIGHT do business with. So an officer with a married daughter who runs a child day care business out of her home, which the officer has no financial interest in and visits only to see his daughter and grandchildren, has to disclose her home address.
Tell us, from your vast knowledge of public affairs, about city planning commissioners who have to make such disclosures, and about the criminals who will kill their children for revenge.
Dec 29, 2007 - 8:26 pm 10. Pajamas Media » Thin Blue Line Wrapped in Red Tape at LAPD:[...] in the consent decree under which the LAPD has operated since 2001. The LAPD is now free to impose financial disclosure requirements on officers working gang and narcotics squads. The judge made his ruling despite the near-universal [...]
Sep 5, 2008 - 2:04 am