mistakenly posted on the Internet

A clerical error is blamed for the disclosure, which violates the Police Commission’s own privacy policy, and perhaps state law.

By Joel Rubin Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Police Commission violated its own strict privacy policy — and perhaps state law — on Friday, releasing a confidential report on the Internet that contained the names of hundreds of officers accused of racial profiling and other misconduct.

The blunder, which police officials attributed to a clerical error, marks an embarrassing misstep for a police department that has staunchly rebuffed efforts by the public to learn the identities of accused officers and gain greater access to the discipline process.

“This was an unfortunate mistake,” said Richard Tefank, executive director of the civilian oversight body. “The Police Commission will work with the Police department to insure that it does not happen again.”

An electronic version of the report, which was disseminated to members of the news media in an e-mail and posted to the city’s website, included the names of about 250 officers recently investigated by the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Group over allegations that they used a person’s race to justify a traffic or pedestrian stop.

The commission and department staff had reviewed an earlier paper copy of the report that did not contain the confidential information and assumed the electronic version would be the same, Tefank said.

The Los Angeles Police Department has sparred for years with news media organizations and other 1st Amendment groups over the question of the public’s access to police discipline proceedings.

After a state Supreme Court decision, the department in 2006 sharply curtailed a long-standing policy in which discipline hearings were open and officers’ names released. Citing the opinion of City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo that such transparency would violate state law, the department and commission now make only anonymous summaries of discipline cases available.

In the court case, Copley Press Inc. vs. Superior Court of San Diego County, the court prohibited public disclosure of personnel records of a sheriff’s deputy appealing his discipline to a civil service commission.

Delgadillo’s office declined to comment on the possible legal consequences that the LAPD could face because of the privacy breach.

Tom Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Assn., said the inadvertent release of the officers’ names underscores the importance of the public having access to police discipline matters.

“These are facts gathered by professionals in a public institution,” he said. “Now that these names are out, there may be important stories that can be told.”

Word of the report sent the department and commission into damage-control mode. The website was taken down within an hour while representatives from the commission and Police Chief William J. Bratton’s command staff called the president of the union that represents the department’s 9,500 rank-and-file officers to apologize.

Union officials have fought fiercely to keep officers’ personal information private, saying its release could jeopardize officer safety. Recently, it has tried to block a new department policy that requires some officers to disclose personal financial information, saying the department cannot be trusted to keep the information safe.

“This is outrageous, absolutely outrageous,” said Paul M. Weber, president of the Police Protective League. “It confirms our concern that the department cannot protect its own employees. This is confidential information.”

He said the union plans to file a lawsuit against the department over the matter.

joel.rubin@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-disclosure23-2008aug23,0,1184340.story

The issue is regarding the Financial Disclosure demands the Police Commission and the Chief are imposing on Officers who work the gangs and narcotics units.

As a community advocate and advocate for fair and just treatment of our men and women in Blue, I have been following this issue very closely. Having attended several Commission Meetings and City Council meetings where this was discussed and testimony heard, I am convinced those forcing this action fall into two camps.

First are the Commissioners, who with the exception of one have no clue what they are doing. They are merely reacting on preconceived prejudices against authority (except their authority). This has become a personal battle of egos.

Next there are those who know without a doubt that these policies will do nothing to prevent corruption but favor any action which might resolve the Consent Decree demands. They care not of any of the consequences to Public Safety.

In reality both are in error. In listening to them speak, they never miss and opportunity to demonstrate their ignorance of the motion they either voted to implement or are expounding in their bloated rhetoric.

Whether it is the lack of knowledge of the far reaching requirements and imposition on the Civil Rights of the police and their families or the ability to force the officers to comply, no one except the Los Angeles Police Protective League has a clear grasp of the situation.

With the Judge believing he as a former Prosecutor has more experience than the men and women of the Police Protective League and the District Attorney, it is clear this decision must be appealed!

Just who are the Board members of the Police Protective League?  Here is a link to their web site. You be the Judge, think they have enough experience to make a rational decision on the real consequences of the Financial Disclosure issue.

http://www.lapd.com/about/bod/

Now take a look at the Homicide Data for Los Angeles and tell me where the Police Commission should be forcing their efforts

  http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/homicides/?appSession=558113446220475&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

In Your corner and in their corner,

David Hernandez

Police Profiling

On many occasions I believed it was in the best interests of the residents of Los Angeles for me to attend meetings of the Los Angeles Police Commission.

Residing in the San Fernando Valley I made the morning pilgrimage to Downtown Los Angeles. (Imagine the freeway traffic at 8:00AM). Once reaching my destination I found a suitable parking site which put me in walking distance to the meeting location. ($8.00 for parking).

The police commission meets the Parker Center 150 No. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles. As you enter the police building you must first check in at the front desk. This requires you produce ID and then sign in. After passing through a metal detector you are good to go!

Pick up a copy of the agenda and once you find you item of concern, you fill out a speaker card to get your two minutes to address the Commissioners.

All of the above was the easy part.

You then get to sit and watch the process unfold before your very eyes.

I had the privilege to be at the meeting where the LAPD’s report on Racial Profiling Complaints was presented to the Commissioners.

In spite of intensive and extensive investigations, no substantial evidence was found to validate any of the complaints.

In spite of conducting the investigation under the scrutiny of the Federal Consent Decree, no valid evidence was found.

The report gave the Commission a clear bill of health on the department in the area of Racial Profiling. 

Instead of praising the efforts of the Department and the professional police work of the men and women in Blue, the Commission took the low road.

The political and activists roots of the Commissioners filled the room with the odor of distrust and contempt for the Police.

With the exception of one Commissioner, all others expressed disbelief that no officers were found guilty of the charge.  After all they were police officers; they must have committed the offense. The investigations were called into question because; after all it was the Police who conducted them!

So not only are the commissioners alleging Racial Profiling but a Police Cover UP as well.

With absolutely no evidence and solely based on sheer contempt and distrust, the Commission is ready for a witch hunt or even worse a lynching!

No Evidence of wrong doing was seen as it was there, but not found.

Even though investigations have been conducted by several agencies, the result was the same, NO Evidence of Racial Profiling!

With the professionalism of an elementary school playground monitor, the Commission has concocted a solution to their quandary, Mediation. Mediation? yes mediation.

Sort of like going to the principal’s office and getting at the true feelings which were responsible for the unsportsmanlike behavior.

Here is the picture for those of you still in your seats.

Street thugs and gang members know that all complaints against police officers are logged in and become a permanent part of the Officers record. Whether proven or not, valid or not, imagined or real, they are a part of the Officers File. As a result gang members intentionally file complaints against officers who interfere with their criminal activities. Get enough complaints and who needs evidence? Where there is smoke there is fire, right?  WRONG!

Now the Police Commission wants the Officer, a Supervisor and the person filing the complaint to hear their sides of the story.

As the commission put it, the people may even get and apology…

What is the Officer going to get? Will that complaint be removed form her file? Who will be representing the Officers best interest?

Clearly it is not the Commission and as we have seen in the recent past, it is not the Chief or Command Staff.  Since the LAPD has become a political football, reduced to doing the bidding of Politicians and being the firs line of sacrifice, we are residents must stand up for justice of our men and women in Blue.

Contact the Police Commission and voice your objection to this Mediation Policy. Here is a link to the Commission, just click on the Presidents link and Mr. Mack link and send them an e-mail. If you can find a fax or telephone number, follow up as well.

http://www.lapdonline.org/police_commission

Thank You,

David Hernandez

Police officers are men and women who serve the cause of justice daily.  When thousands of brave California law enforcement officers take the oath to serve and protect their fellow citizens, they answer a vital calling and accept a profound responsibility.  We stand in admiration and gratitude for their service.

That is why our organization is so thankful that you voted against Senator Romero’s SB 1019.  We agree that proper oversight is essential to preventing and punishing police misconduct, but officers who have not been charged with a crime should not have their reputations tainted.  In many communities, including Los Angeles, independent citizen commissions have proven successful in holding confidential hearings on police discipline ─ ensuring peace officers are held accountable while also protecting their privacy and safety.

We hope that this latest defeat of SB 1019 ends the legislature’s attempt to overturn the California Supreme Court and State Constitution, which protect the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records. We appreciate your strong leadership and hope you will now be allowed to return your attention to the state budget, economy and other important legislative priorities. 

Very truly yours,

discipline records

Sen. Gloria Romero says L.A.’s mayor supports her bill, which would allow greater public access to records from disciplinary hearings. The police union staunchly opposes it.

By Joel Rubin
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 17, 2008

A state senator hopes to revive a controversial bill that would increase media access to disciplinary hearings and records involving Los Angeles Police Department officers.

The legislation, according to Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), was encouraged by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and has already generated sharp criticism from the union that represents LAPD officers.

Last year, Romero sponsored similar, yet more far-reaching, legislation that sought to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred law enforcement agencies from releasing personnel information.

The legislation passed the Senate, but stalled in the Assembly’s public safety committee. Members of the panel refused to discuss it or vote on it after leaders from several influential law enforcement unions spoke vociferously against it.

Union leaders argued that the law would endanger police officers’ lives by making it easier for disgruntled members of the public to track them down — although they could not cite cases in which officers had suffered such harm before the Supreme Court’s ruling, when the public enjoyed greater access to disciplinary information.

This time, the legislation targets the LAPD only.

The Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the amended bill June 24.

If approved the legislation will permit, but not require, the LAPD to return to its disclosure policies before the Supreme Court’s decision in Copley Press Inc. vs. Superior Court of San Diego County. In that case, the court prohibited public disclosure of personnel records of a sheriff’s deputy appealing his discipline to a civil service commission.

After that ruling, LAPD officials imposed a far stricter policy, denying public access to disciplinary hearings that traditionally had been open and removing officers’ names from discipline records.

Word of Romero’s bill infuriated leaders of the Police Protective League, the union that represents the LAPD’s 9,300 rank-and-file officers.

Tim Sands, the group’s president, called the gambit a “legislative temper tantrum” on the senator’s part and said state unions would again present a unified front before the committee next week.

“If she is doing this with the idea that she can divide and conquer us, she is making a very big mistake,” he said.

The union Monday quickly pulled together a biting radio advertisement directed at Romero and the bill.

Romero said the decision to narrow the bill’s scope came after Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told her that he would back the effort.

Last year, Villaraigosa and LAPD Police Chief William J. Bratton voiced strong public support for the original bill after a disciplinary panel secretly exonerated an officer involved in a high-profile shooting, even though the civilian Police Commission, which oversees the LAPD, had said the officer should be punished.

Romero and Villaraigosa discussed the issue at a recent meeting in Sacramento, where the mayor told Romero “that he wanted to get Los Angeles back to where it had been for three decades,” she recalled. Romero said she had not spoken to Bratton about the bill.

Neither the mayor, who is in Israel, nor Bratton could be reached for comment.

joel.rubin@latimes.com

Daily News Wire Services

Article Last Updated: 06/13/2008 06:07:28 PM PDT

A federal judge today granted a request by the Los Angeles Police Protective League to halt implementation of a city policy that would require LAPD anti-gang and narcotics officers to disclose their personal finances.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feess agreed to the temporary restraining order and scheduled the matter for a July 7 hearing. The policy had been scheduled to take effect Sunday.

“We are gratified that the judge understood the harm that could be caused by implementing financial disclosure before the matter has had its day in court,” said LAPPL President Tim Sands.

A spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office said he could not comment on pending litigation.

The financial disclosure policy, which is intended to prevent corruption among police officers who handle confiscated cash and contraband, is required by a federal consent decree under which the Los Angeles Police Department must operate.

Under the policy, officers in anti-gang and narcotics units would be required to disclose all of their sole and jointly owned assets, liabilities and income every two years. Refusal to disclose such information would bar officers from working in those units.

The LAPD anticipated that the policy would apply to about 600 officers.

Eight years ago. the city of Los Angeles agree to have the LAPD be overseen by a court-appointed federal monitor, a move that forestalled a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit that would have alleged a pattern of civil rights discrimination

By Tim Sands, Columnist

President Police Protective League

MOST people subscribe to the adage that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Apparently, that well-known nugget of common sense has escaped the Los Angeles Police Department and the hand-picked panel of lawyers and others unfamiliar with police tactics assembled to review Los Angeles Police SWAT.

Unfortunately, this lack of common sense is going to have dire consequences. In the business world, leaders often hire outside consultants to advise them to take actions those leaders have already decided on taking. Should the actions fail, the leaders then get to blame the consultants. The same game is played in the public sector, except that politicians usually commission a “panel of experts” rather than hiring outside consultants. The experts’ recommendations are, however, no less preordained.

 The SWAT report and recommendations of the panel have yet to be released. Perhaps LAPD officials are embarrassed that they only included one person with any familiarity with police tactics on their panel. What is known is that despite the department’s refusal to be transparent and let the recommendations be critically examined by the public, changes based on those recommendations are already being implemented.

Police Chief William Bratton let panelists know from the start that he “is looking to create change within SWAT.” The panel’s report came back 15 months ago, but to this day it is officially under secret departmental cover.

But a leaked copy in the Los Angeles Times confirmed that – surprise, surprise – the panel decided the chief was exactly right. The department’s hand-picked experts concluded that SWAT has become “insular, self-referential and resistant to change,” and that SWAT’s selection criteria “underemphasized negotiating skills, patience, empathy and flexibility while overemphasizing physical prowess and tactical acumen.”

Was there some evidence for these striking conclusions? We don’t know. The LAPD’s new emphasis on “transparency” does not, it appears, so far extend to the work of this special group of “experts.” For over three decades, LAPD SWAT has handled thousands of incidents successfully, and achieved a worldwide reputation for excellence.

Notwithstanding that SWAT is called in only when a police incident has escalated in danger, the department demanded to know if the barriers to becoming a member of the SWAT team were “too stringent.”

Bratton also identified the lack of turnover in the unit as one of his concerns. Since the panel’s make-up left it unable to intelligently debate or review SWAT tactics and procedures, the focus became the “face” of SWAT. It is known, for example, that the panel called for “greater gender and racial diversity,” and the lowering of the rigorous physical and reaction standards for selection to SWAT.

 The department’s panel has envisioned a “new” SWAT. This SWAT would emphasize “negotiating skill, empathy, patience and flexibility.” These are important qualities, but they should not be the basis for determining fitness for SWAT.

The less-desirable qualities of a SWAT officer, the panel concluded, should be “physical prowess and tactical acumen.” In fact, the panel’s recommendations sounds like a job description for desk-bound lawyers. However, in the real world of barricaded suspects and hostage situations, we aren’t sending in lawyers – oftentimes the LAPD is forced to send in trained SWAT officers, and “empathy” isn’t often a key ingredient for their success. SWAT isn’t an organization that needed to be “fixed.” SWAT has performed its function with tremendous success for more than 30 years.

 The overriding question that should have been answered before changes were made was: Will these changes make a successful unit even better? The answer clearly is “no.”

The next real and very troubling question is this: How many officers will have to get hurt or die in this experiment before the department admits its mistake, and assembles another panel of “experts” to evaluate SWAT?   

The Financial Disclosure Chronicles

 “Clarity begins to surface in spite of media bias against LAPD”

David Hernandez Community Advocate 

It is not the Consent Decrees Financial Disclosure which is being challenged, it is the Order passed by the Police Commission. 

Thanks to the leadership of Los Angeles City Council members Jack Weiss and Janice Hahn, the Financial Disclosure Order passed by the LA Police Commission was sent to the Public Safety Committee of the Los Angeles City Council. 

The Public Safety Committee is comprised of five Los Angeles City Council members, Jack Weiss, the Chair, Greg Smith, Bernard Parks, Ed Reyes, and Dennis Zine.

 The first meeting of the Public Safety Committee took place in council chambers on January 24, 2008. This meeting was open to the public and was subject to Brown Act requirements. Council member Wendy Gruel also sat in for most of the meeting even though she is not on the committee. Members of the Los Angeles Police Department, Representatives of the Police Commission and the Los Angeles Police Protective League also attended and gave testimony. The Los Angeles City Attorneys office was also represented. 

The first to give testimony was Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley. He addressed several issues including the effectiveness of Financial Disclosure in detecting police corruption. He stated it was not effective and offered several alternatives.  He also concurred that the Order passed by the Police Commission would have an end result of more gang crime and presents a real danger to the community. He could see the officers impacted by the order choosing not to continue in the units if such a threat to their family’s safety was allowed to be enforced.

 District Attorney also brought up the point that the Consent Decree can not violate State Law and in doing so would be grounds for legal action by the City of Los Angeles. 

 Gerald Chaleff ( http://www.lapdonline.org/home/comm_bio_view/758 ) the Police Administrator appointed by Chief Bratton addressed the Committee along with Deputy Chief McDonald. Chaleff stated the Order would not impact the officers on the units for two years. Deputy Chief McDonald stated the Financial Disclosure issue was all that was holding up the resolution of the Consent Decree. He also stated of the 330 officers in the gang and narcotic units only 78 would be required to complete the Financial Disclosure in 2008 and 70 in 2009.

 When pressed by Councilmember Smith if the Financial Disclosure Order passed by the Police Commission was the preference of the Department or if it was being presented to only satisfy to judge, Deputy Chief McDonald responded that this is what is necessary. 

The representatives of the City Attorneys office were very reluctant to discuss in detail the options open to the council and on numerous occasions stated it would be better to discuss the matter in closed session. 

In long awaited and much needed moment Committee Chair Weiss asked the City Attorneys Office to clarify one very important point; that being that the consent decree in paragraph 132 called for Disclosure but did not call for the extent or procedures called for in the Order passed by the Police Commission.  The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.

The second point of clarification when Councilmember Weiss asked that could the council challenge the Order passed by the Police Commission and not challenge the Disclosure section as outlined in paragraph 132. Once again, the response was yes! It is not the Consent Decrees Financial Disclosure which is being challenged, it is the Order passed by the Police Commission.  

Tim Sands the President of the Police Protective League addressed the committee. He told the committee he and the officers sincerely wanted to come to an agreement which would bring resolution to the issue and at the same time protect the officers and their families.  He has spoken to most officers who will be impacted and to an officer all have stated they would not comply and would transfer out of the units. The officers wanted to continue in the units and serve the community but could not and would not put their families in jeopardy. 

Councilmember Zine advised he had contacted the Independent Monitor and requested he attend the meeting. The monitor refused. Council member Zine questioned Mr. Chaleff as to the amount of money paid to the Monitor each year and it was two million dollars.

There were other related expenses but Mr. Chaleff could not say how much was being spent.  ( Attached is the last report from the Monitor) http://www.kroll.com/library/lapd/LAPD_Q25_Final_Report_11-15-2007.pdf  

The last person to address the committee was David Hernandez. He was addressing the committee and a member of the North Hollywood North East Neighborhood Council and a concerned resident of Los Angeles. It is a shared belief and fear that the ultimate consequences of the Order Passed by the Police Commission will be the residents of Los Angeles. 

He was the only member of the Public to address the committee. Hernandez stated that it was the news of the impacted officers transferring out of the units which first brought attention to the issue.The impact on the community as a result of losing such experienced officers would be devastating.

As a result Hernandez address representatives of 30 councils requesting they support the City Council assert jurisdiction over the Financial Disclosure. The Neighborhood Councils of North Hollywood North East, Mid Town North Hollywood and Sunland-Tujunga passed motions supporting the transfer of jurisdiction. 

After hearing from several sources, mis-information being given about the ability of officers to transfer out of the units; Hernandez sought to bring clarity and truth to the transfer issue. In addressing the Committee Hernandez read directly from the Order passed by the Police Commission; “Additionally, employees within any of these designated assignment who either fail or refuse to fill out the forms as specified in the Order will not be allowed to continue in the assignment”  pg 2 secII paragraph A. 

The Order submitted by the Police Chief and Passed by the Police Commission contradicts what the Police Chief and members of the Commission have been saying in public about the ability of the officers to transfer out of the units. Both had been stating when responding to questions about the transfers that just because an officer submits a request for transfer does not mean they will get it. 

The second mis-statement deals with the two year grace period of officers now in the units. The gang units have a three year term and the officer can apply for two more years in the unit after the third term.

There are 78 officers who will be at the end of their 3^rd term in 2008 and will be required to submit to the Financial Disclosure. There are 70 officers who fall into that category in 2009. That means a 45% reduction in the next two years.

This does not count those retiring or injured on the job.

The last mis-statement deals with the Consent Decree will be resolved if the Financial Disclosure is implemented. Hernandez read directly from the Report of the Independent Monitor, page 46 section V “it is clear the transformation of the Department is not yet complete. In the coming months, while we continue to closely to monitor the Consent Decree’s transactional paragraphs, we will also attempt to ensure that the transactional mandates of the Consent Decree have their desired effect of bringing about true reform within the Department.” 

Who is the “Independent Monitor”?  http://www.kroll.com/news/media/krollfactsheet.pdf

Is the Independent Monitor using the LAPD Consent Decree as a Marketing Tool? You be the judge.http://www.kroll.com/about/history/notable/

Whether the Financial Disclosure is kept as is or not, the Independent Monitor is not going to step aside for years to come. 

At two million dollars per year, would you?   

January 11, 2008 Hon. Jack WeissLos Angeles City Council200 N. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA   90012-4873 Hon. Janice HahnLos Angeles City Council200 N. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA  90012-4873             Re:   LAPD Financial Disclosure Program Dear Councilpersons: 

As an agenda item at its regular monthly meeting held January 10, 2008, the Board of North Hollywood North East Neighborhood Council discussed the proposed Financial Disclosure Order concerning the requirement for Los Angeles Police Officers assigned to Gang and Narcotics Units to make regular and periodic financial disclosures as to their business and financial dealings, and those of their immediate families. 

The Board was advised that the police officers were unhappy with the proposed regulations and that you propose to assert control over this Special Order by transferring its jurisdiction to the City Council.  Discussion by our Board raised the issues of why just Gang and Narcotics Units should be subject to proposed disclosure rules; and the uncertainty of how any confidential information supplied by officers would be maintained by either the Police Chief or the City.

   Upon motion made by Board Member David Hernandez, seconded by Philip Manson, our Board voted unanimously (9-0) to support your transferring jurisdiction of the Financial Disclosure Program of the Police Commission to the Los Angeles City Council.    Very truly yours,  J. ERIC FREEDNERSecretary, North Hollywood North East                     Neighborhood Council  cc: Messrs. Greuel, Cardenas, Police Protective League

Office of the Independent Monitor
of the Los Angeles Police Department
660 South Figueroa Street, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Cherkasky:
On July 26, 2001, you met with me and other members of my staff and solicited our insight and input on the Consent Decree. We believe that the pending proposal to require personal financial disclosures by gang and narcotics enforcement officers is ill advised and could severely impact public safety.

Knowing as we do the history and details of the Rampart Division situation that precipitated this consent decree, we readily agree with the editorial views recently expressed by the Los Angeles Times to the effect that the proposed disclosures will have no realistic value in deterring or detecting corruption (see enclosed). It is instead the existing oversight ofLAPD Internal Affairs, the Police Commission, the Inspector General, the District Attorney’s Office Justice System Integrity Division, the District Attorney Rollout Team, law enforcement criminality referral protocols, the Grand Jury, the media, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the civil rights plaintiffs’ bar, and your watchful monitoring-as well as the basic honesty of the vast, vast majority of police officers-that insure that officers meet required standards of performance and integrity.
The proposed disclosures would unnecessarily invade family privacy and create risks of identity theft and other mischief, representing a disincentive for the best and brightest to apply for or remain in assignments that would make them subject to the disclosures. The public safety implications of this fact cause us great concern.
The dangerous and specialized nature of criminal investigations of street gangs and major narcotics violators makes it essential that the LAPD be able to recruit and retain the most dedicated and resourceful officers available for these assignments. Developing the street knowledge, informant pool, and investigative expertise to prevent and solve gang and drug­related crimes takes time and experience. The negative public safety impact occasioned by a sudden exodus of LAPD’s current contingent of experienced and effective gang and narcotics officers from these assignments is both predictable and devastating: lives will be lost and many crimes will go unsolved. Recent successes in reducing serious crimes in Los Angeles would be quickly reversed, and a dangerous resurgence of gang and drug crimes in the areas served by LAPD would occur.

We are unable to see how the public interest or the integrity of criminal investigations would be well served by imposing the financial disclosure requirements under consideration. I therefore strongly urge you to take appropriate steps to insure that this ill-advised proposal does not inflict irreversible harm to the Los Angeles Police Department, the City’s residents and, in a very real sense, the safety of all residents of Los Angeles County.

Very truly yours,

STEVE COOLEY District Attorney