This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
LAPD Could Lose 500 Narcotic & Anti-Gang Cops
Photo by abardwall via Flickr
You can thank the Feds for this one; same goes to the Police Commission, who approved earlier this month to agree with the LAPD federal consent decree that officers in specialized units dealing with narcotics and gangs must "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," according to NBC4.
And refusal is what they will do if the city writes the policy down as law. 500 LAPD officers in these specialized units will request transfers or retire before abiding by this 'draconian' financial disclosure requirement.
When the consent decree was established in 2001 to watch over the LAPD after the Rampart scandal, the city did not write a financial disclosure that a federal court accepted, which led to the consent decree extending to June of 2009. The Police Commission, who voted to approve the financial requirement, says this is a means to ending the consent decree for once and for all.
Representing 9,000 police officers and arguing that the state Constitution guarantees all citizens a right of privacy, the Los Angeles Police Protective League filed a lawsuit against the city.
Today, the City Council will debate whether or not to veto the Police Commission's decision. If they decide not to veto, the financial disclosure requirement will stand. If vetoed, the decision will be thrown back to Police Commission to reconsider.
"It is true that some sort of financial disclosure policy is called for under the consent decree. This particular proposal is one take at doing that, but it's not exclusive of doing it another way," Jack Weiss, councilman and chair of the Public Safety committee, told NBC4.