Los Angeles: The decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to deny the Los Angeles Police Protective League’s motions to prevent the implementation of Financial Disclosure was not unexpected.
The Los Angeles Police Department will fulfill its obligation, under the Consent Decree, to fully implement Financial Disclosure within the next 30-days. During that time, personnel who will be affected by Financial Disclosure will be fully briefed on the new policy and procedures that will need to be followed to ensure full compliance with the Consent Decree.
It seems the solution is really simple, get rid of Narco, Gangs, Vice--and other special units, to include prolonged stays in places like the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB), Audit Div, Recruitment and Training.
We need to get back to the basics, the Basic Cars, regular Patrol--the real grunts. SEND Everyone back to Patrol. Spread specific institutional knowledge gained by Narco, Gangs, Vice to Patrol, instead of hoarding this information. There is no need to compartmentalize.
Can you imagine a Watch which has all these specific knowledge and expertise at it's disposal? Instead of separating all these law enforcement entities, consolidate it in every Watch and every roll call. Put everyone back in patrol, pushing black and whites, but with the ability to conduct Narco, Gang, Vice ops.
Patrol should be the center piece of this organization. Then if word comes down that they too want Financial Disclosures from all Patrol ofcrs. Bring it!
Posted by: PushingBlackWhite | March 04, 2025 at 12:52 AM
Daddy, are you signing? The American way of life is based on "Innocent until proven guilty." The financial disclosure would NOT have found out Perez, the sheriff's who were caught several years ago, or do any of the objectives it is stated to do. Why? Because people aren't going to steal money then put it in their bank accounts.
If one needs to be signed why don't we use the tried adn true disclosure that the FBI uses? They're a federal agency and theirs stood up under federal scrutinty. This is a federal judge so why make up one that NO OTHER agency in the country uses? Because Judge Fees can.
I wouldn't sign it. I don't have anything to hide. I've given many years to this city and the people of this city. I just am not going to parade something that is personal for the world to see. Is Chief Bratton going to have to sign it? Any command staff? Don't they oversee these divisions/units? Why isn't everybody being held to the same standard.
What happened to the spell check function?
Posted by: karen | March 05, 2025 at 08:24 AM
Hey Daddy..
The problem is..... are the ones replacing the one leaving going to know what the hell they are doing. It takes a couple of years focusing on your gangs to be an effective gang cop. Alot can happen in those couple of years. Gangsters don't have that kind of problem.
Posted by: Woody | March 05, 2025 at 01:24 PM
i agree w/ pushingblkwht. there's way too many comfy pogue spots and specialized units in the dept. we need to flatten the whole dept. back to a more patrol centered organization.
send everyone back to patrol. you don't need to grow a cool goatee or have sleeve tattoos to do narco, vice or gangs. the main unit should be patrol, from there you can detail ops as needed.
just like the dept divers. they do patrol, when they're needed they get pulled out. if it's a yr long narco investigation, get the tasking, finish the job, then return to patrol to share lessons learned. patrol needs to be the center.
Posted by: gumshoe | March 05, 2025 at 05:08 PM
I hsve yet to meet 1 officer (patrol or GED) that has publicly said that they would be willing to sign the Disclosure. I'm not sure where the hundreds of officers ready to sign are? I hope that is not the assumntion because it would be dead wrong.
Posted by: Copper System | March 06, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Just a shout out here for the Philosophical Cop. He's a police officer with a great blog. Google "Philosophical Cop" and you'll find it.
Posted by: Dave | March 06, 2025 at 06:53 PM
Risk and Rewards
Risk: You voluntarily disclose your finances. If you have nothing to hide then there's no problem--no risk.
Rewards: Better working schedule and more overtime opportunities, without the petty patrol bs.
There's more rewards to staying and complying with the financial disclosure, than there are risks. For every copper who refuses to sign, there will be two willing to take their place.
Posted by: Reality Check | March 09, 2025 at 03:28 AM
If GED and NED sign the disclosure it will just be a matter of time until it filters down into patrol. At that point we will see a ton of good officers leave to other departments. They don't have anything to hide, they just don't trust the department to keep their info confidential. They keep confidential information in boxes in hallways, not what I think as confidential.
Posted by: Back2Patrol | March 10, 2025 at 09:35 AM
I also agree with Pushingblackwhite. We have way too many specialized units. We have gangs chasing gang members, Violent Crime Task Force chasing the same gang members, Safer City Initiative chasing the same gang members, and all of them playing I've got a secret. And all of these officers in these units come out of patrol. In patrol we can't even put out all of our required A cars. Also, the majority of officers in admin type jobs could be replaced with civilians and that would put more officers on the street while saving the city millions of dollars. A civilian gets paid far less for doing the same job as a sworn "secretary with a gun".
As for the Financial Disclosure, I disagree with Reality Check. It is a matter of principle! The department has no business knowing how I invest my money and they sure as hell don't have any business knowing about my wife's finances! The disclosure will do nothing to combat corruption. And from talking to my fellow officers, I have not found one that will sign it. I think that gangs and narco will cease to exist and then what will the Mayor and the Chief do about their war on gangs?
Posted by: FTO | March 10, 2025 at 03:13 PM
As someone who pays taxes and supports the CD. I say to all of you who do not want to sign" HIT THE ROAD" and don't let the door hit you.
Posted by: CITIZEN | March 11, 2025 at 08:10 AM
The real issue with financial disclosure is the potential for abuse with no recourse for the officer. Confidential personnel information has been publisghed on several occasions. The most recent case being our very own Police Commission. This may well have been an accident but the problem remains, what happens when financial information is abused? What are the penalties?
The other problem is legal. Under current fedal law, I cannot disclose financial information of any other person unless I have thier permission. The relationship is immaterial. For example, if my wife says no to discosing her financial informaion to a third party, I cannot do so. If I ignore her wishes I have violated the law. The last time I checked, our oath was to the law, not the Department or the City. Our ultimate oath is to enforcement of the law.
This is a very serious decison for many because of the inherent conflict between what they want to do (work gangs or narcotics) and what they cannot do (violate law, disclose information against the involved party's wishes). The main concern for most is the lack of confidence in the Department's ability to keep this infomation confidential. So far there is nothing published on what the penalty will be for abuse or negligence. Without these two aspects ( trust and violation of law)being resolved, most officers will not submit to this process.
Currently the only sure way of avoiding a potential violation of oath or trust is to simply not sign. The end result may very well be an increase in gang crime due to reduction of gang personnel.
The bigger probelm is a large element of mistrust with our own Department. For those who do sign, how will you react if even one officer has his or her information compromised? Think about what your options are if your finacial information is negligently released. What can you do? If you initaite a compaiont how will that stop the damage done? It will not. The fact remains if a person's finaical information is misused, regardless of the reason, that person and thsoe connected financialy will be left to deal with the problem.
It is interesting to note that the Department employees who handle the largest amounts of money and narcotics are not gang officers and they are not narcotic officers. They are not even patrol officers. Can you guess who they are?
Posted by: Richard Davis | March 11, 2025 at 11:53 PM
I would just sign the disclosure. I dont think you have to worry about conficential information being accidentally leaked or compromised by a professionaly organization like the LAPD...or wait a minute, didnt confidential racial comaplaint info just get compromised a couple of weeks ago? Right, please keep teling me more about how we wont have to worry about our info. Finally, someone please tell me where all these officers are that are supposedly ready to "step up" and sign the disclosure to take gang/narco spots.
Posted by: chonchers | March 12, 2025 at 07:47 AM
Risk and Rewards, you obviously dont work gangs now. What better schedule are you talking about? Having to work every weekend is not better hours.
Posted by: Ed'o Shea | March 12, 2025 at 07:51 AM
Hmmmm....my guess would be a Property Officer since they handle everything that is booked as evidence for the entire Department....am I close?
Posted by: Dis and Dat | March 12, 2025 at 05:39 PM
Isn't it great to hear the hating on specialized units. This type of talk usually comes from: the inexperienced, the slugs, the burned out and those who don't have a clue. Yes, Patrol will always be the most important thing the Department does, and its way understaffed. However, you NEED these units because of the intelligence they gather. Yes, as a patrol cop you can make great dope arrests, but you don't really know how things connect. The same goes for Gangs and Vice. You NEED cops in a gang unit. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. If ya wanna pull bodies for patrol, take em' from the thousands who sit in front of their desks every day, not from specialized field units. As for the disclosure, no way...And I don't believe that there are "two lined up" for every one that will not sign.
Posted by: DRobs | March 12, 2025 at 06:36 PM
Just in case you haven't been keeping up with the news for the last decade. It's called a "POLICE STATE". How many of you have ever said the words, "if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about" when you were attempting to intimidate someone into letting you search their vehicle, home, etc?. By the sound of your comments on this page, you don't like your own medicine.
Posted by: heavilytaxedcitizen | March 12, 2025 at 07:08 PM
heavilytaxedcitizen: Well said. You hit the nail right on the head.
Posted by: CITIZEN | March 13, 2025 at 08:21 AM
"However, you NEED these units because of the intelligence they gather. Yes, as a patrol cop you can make great dope arrests, but you don't really know how things connect. The same goes for Gangs and Vice."
DRobs,
I agree with you that we NEED these units and they DO possess much needed 'know-how'.
And that's exactly my point, this 'know-how' should be in Patrol. This department is too compartmentalized and most units hoard their particular 'know-how' to the point where the citizens of this city end up getting the short end of the stick. Specialized units share information only when they feel like sharing crumbs to Patrol.
The only way I know how to share all these skill sets, expertise and knowledge is to put everyone back in Patrol. Narco, Gangs, Vice, SCI, etc. will still exist, but as part of Patrol. Break down the walls that divide us, we'll be stronger. With the exception of highly confidential information, all other regular crime knowledge should flow freely throughout the Department.
Posted by: PushingBlackWhite | March 14, 2025 at 06:39 PM
"As someone who pays taxes and supports the CD. I say to all of you who do not want to sign" HIT THE ROAD" and don't let the door hit you."
As another person who pays taxes, I don't agree with that. I think citizens(yes coppers are citizens too)regardless of occupation have a right to privacy. What they do on their off time so long as it is NOT illegal is no ones business but their own. I would hate to see that because of this, officers will leave LAPD for other agencies where they have no such requirements and they are actually trusted.
I also believe that there are too many full time specialized units rainging from SWAT on down. I think the LAPD should rotate time like other smaller p.d's that limit the time one officer stays in a specialized assignment. Wouldn't that be beneficial for the city because you'd be cross training new officers with skills that would otherwise take years to obtain if ever? Call me crazy..
Posted by: No one special..just a citizen | March 17, 2025 at 12:13 AM
Here is a new twist not previously discussed regarding gang units.
After the Rodney King incident, officers used their batons less than 50 times the following year for the entire Department. It was unprecedented and to a large extent has remained a problem ever since. The officers' perceptions and subsequent use of a very good tool was permanently altered and has never recovered, even after nearly twenty years.
So what happens if the same fundamental shift occurs as occurred with baton use? The assumption made is that elimination of Financial Disclosure would result in business as usual and there would no longer be any problem fielding these gang units. That is a risky assumption.
The message of Financial Disclosure being forced upon the rank and file is one of insult and dishonor and the subsequent damage repair may not work. Officers and supervisors may simply stop applying to work these units even if Financial Disclosure ends. This is similar to everyone deciding that use of a baton was not worth the risk. Should that shift occur, the damage would be far worse than the original problem currently being hashed out in court.
For those who believe there are plenty of officers waiting to step into these gang units, consider this problem. The Consent Decree prohibits these units without supervision. Therefore, even if officers may be waiting in line to work them, no supervisors equal no gang units. That is a drastically smaller number. It would only take the refusal of a very small number of supervisors to cripple the gang units throughout the City. So far, I have not met a single supervisor willing to start working a gang unit.
The City and Department Leadership are betting the safety of the public on a losing hand and are naive to believe there will not be lasting consequences. There are always consequences when you choose to denigrate the reputations of your officers.
Posted by: Bob Davis | March 17, 2025 at 03:06 AM
Bob,
There are plenty of new Sergeants who have worked Gangs and Narco who would love to head their own unit when the older Sergeants leave. Same goes for the new officers who are more than eager to replace the ones who choose not to comply. There are officers who see no problem in complying. There's close to 10,000 officers in the Dept., not everyone feels the same way about Financial Disclosure.
Posted by: Another Side | March 17, 2025 at 07:01 AM
Those Sgts and Officers who choose to comply with the disclosure will have to "educated" by their fellow officers. Maybe they wont be so eager after that...
Posted by: Ndynamite | March 17, 2025 at 05:27 PM
What exactly does this "education" entail, Ndynamite?
Posted by: No Habla | March 18, 2025 at 08:58 AM