Talk back: Some LAPD anti-gang units dismantled as cops refuse to disclose data

At a time when Los Angeles has seen a major drop in crime, some neighborhoods are seeing big reductions in anti-gang units.

The Times' Joel Rubin and Scott Gold report that the LAPD has temporarily dismantled some anti-gang units because officers in those squads refused to comply with a controversial financial disclosure rule that they view as misguided and invasive. Rubin and Gold say a showdown of sorts is taking place:

Police officials have sent the defiant officers back to regular patrol duties and expect that it will take several months to rebuild the gang units with others willing to abide by the policy, which requires officers to periodically submit information regarding their assets and debts. Until then, patrol officers have been saddled with trying to keep up with gang-suppression efforts, a move some gang unit supervisors and community advocates fear could lead to an erosion of expertise and hard-fought gains in reducing gang violence and crime.

What do you think? Are the rules worth the loss of gang officers on the streets? Tell us what you think.

Photo: Officials prepare for a news conference on gang crime. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[jr]

Officers seemed to forget that when they applied for the job, they had to answer every detailed question and they did it without hesistation, only the best qualified were chosen and hired. Now they are employed and claim privacy. We live in a world full of corruption and there is nothing wrong with having a special group of officers doing a job that is beyond other duties and thier honesty should be exemplary. There is nothing wrong with providing the information because it is not made public and besides it shows the officers are well qualified and suited for the duties. It's when you appear to hide something that makes it look wrong and you don't want anyone not suited for the duties in that position.....remember not long ago...Rampart Corruptions.

[red]

if they gang unit officers cant abide by the rules?
what does it say about them?
besides all Law enforcement officers should declare!
how else do you find the ones that are dirty?

"to protect and serve"
it does get lip service

[Frankie B.]

The information that is provided during the hiring process is not subject to subpeona by defense lawyers. The info provided to be a gang officer is subject to subpoena for criminal defense lawyers. Who wants to risk a gang banger having access to you personal info. Screw that! All this to work gangs? Work odd hours, horrible schedules, bogged down with extra paper work and more limitations, forget that. I'd rather see the man and handle the radio.

[jay]

Think of the story of Frank Serpico.

If officers don't want to confidentially disclose their assets then I suspect they're either very stubborn or corrupt.

Jay

[anon]

Fire them. The city can't afford such a large force anyway.

[darkmatter]

What's there to hide, you hear cops say it all the time. Funny when the shoe is on the other foot huh? Look, the courts bend over backwards to protect them, if they don't like the job they can get another one. The crime rate is going down because demographically 75% of the group that is responsible for most of the crime is no longer around. If you laid off a thousand of them tomorrow crime would still go down, it's been trending down for half a decade the FBI predicted it correctly. All over the country, PDs that have cut back and laid off officers due to the economy have still shown major crime reductions.
Stop buying the stuff they're feeding you.

[st clair]

Hey, this is a great way to clean up the city , institute this for every city employee, including those who hold public office. I think these officers have a dangerous job, they don't need their personal information floating around-I say good for you, let's see who steps up to the plate and applies. We have to have some faith in those who protect us, keep in mind what they deal with and are exposed to. You commentors make it sound like they're all crooked for taking the position they did, it is purely intrusive-and I say "good for you!" Oh, and thank you for your service!

[Carl]

What a tough decision to make. Invade someone's privacy and dramatically reduce the chance of corruption or respect their personal life and risk the units integrity and over all safety.

Can anyone imagine the stress these people will go through in order to weigh these options?

[Gino]

The irony of it all. Remember Rumsfeld testifying before Congress just before 911? He said that he was going to get to the bottom of where the missing trillions from the Pentagon had been stashed. Not a peep since.

Most recently, we have Bernanke refusing to reveal where all the trillions were sent. We are talking "TRILLIONS" going to foreign bankers, UNACCOUNTED FOR...and yet, we make a stink about peon cops?

Why is only one press discussing the $50k every superior court judge in CA. illegally pockets every year? Google "DR. FINE, POLITICAL PRISONER" and watch the full series of videos on the program "Full Disclosure".

We have a corrupt system from the cops on the beat stealing monies and drugs found in home invasion raids to the very top level politicians accepting monies from lobbies peddling poison gmo's...BP's illegal spraying of solvent over Gulf residents... bribes to the FDA ordering the rubber stamp on products like Aspartame...products that killed most of the lab animals.

Considering all the corruption at all levels, how much can a cop really steal...millions $$$'s?

[Boobby v]

Some divisions are trying to get around the problem by creating new units with different names, putting the gang and narco officers in those units and have them basically do the same things they were doing before. If it's not called the gang unit or narco unit, there is no requirement to sign that worthless financial disclosure. Wait till the judge finds out about that!

[Res08hao]

I would like to see the voting records of all Times hack "reporters".
Full disclosure.

[Frankie Serpico]

All of you people who think that the Officers should be fired or they must be corrupt, would you feel confident giving your personal information to the incompetent City bean counters to keep your information safe? I wouldn't and if it fell into the wrong hands at the very least it could lead to identity theft and at the worst, you could have gang bangers knowing where you live...

[alfie]

I feel that we are all subject to searches & seizures by the I R S so why not be held accountable like every one else is when it comes to disclosing information about personal assets when you are out in the streets around alot of potential money , Drugs , & Cars I mean lets face it police officers are suppose to be held to a higher standard than most but nevertheless they are human so why not disclose some of that information like everyone else does in the real world .

[RC]

Citizens should refuse to provide info when they get pulled over. What's good for the goose..................

[Cornelius Wallace The Third]

How many times do we hear Police saying only the guilty have something to hide.
If you are Innocent then why not disclose this info.

I think them stating that defense attorneys well subpoena the info is a lame excuse.
The Police Dept have there home address and you don't see that being subpoena.

Come on you dirty cops, expose your self or get stuck in a patrol car.

Boo Whooo, Now i cant skim off all the drug profits i come in contact with every day.

[JustCause]

The gangsters are going to love this.....no more gang cops...I heard that the ex-gang cops are being transferred out of the area they worked; whatever knowledge they had goes with them.....L.A will again re-claim the title of the GANG CAPITAL… I feel that the public perception of the P.D is very important, but I am positive that we will be reading a story where a police officer’s personal information was handed over to gang members by a dirty lawyers…..Hopefully we will not began to read about gang members showing up at the door steps of police officers homes and hurting their families as pay back for putting them behind bars.

[Carlos]

Their rights are my rights and their freedom is my freedom, the federal government is going too far in trying to get all this private information from the gang units, I am in favor of Constitutional rights and right to privacy, and we need to stop federalizing all our law enforcement, this disclosure request is likely coming from the Federal Cartel.

[Carlos]

We need to unite in the effort to stop the career bureaucrats from taking all our rights, this is just one more example of how everyone's rights are being eroded and snatched from us, the officers should have a right to keep their privacy, first they loose their rights to privacy and we are next, the Federal Goons are taking all our rights away and handing control over to the United Nations and China.
We must not give up any more of our rights, it is public knowledge that most major gang leaders work for the CIA as distributors and informants, many are in the payroll.

[Carl]

It is not so much the information that is given, but the fact that it can be disclosed in a "Pitches" motion. That would give crooks information that will endanger the officers' families. No other law enforcement agency in the nation uses financial disclosures, not even the FBI. The FBI agrees that it does not stop any corruption. I think all of you haters need to find out what really happened in the Rampart scandal and the fact that only 3 officers were either fired or filed on. Hundreds of officers were cleared after the liar Raphael Perez lied to get himself a better deal and some wrongfully accused officers sued and made millions. No civilian is required to fill out the forms, why gang officers?

[Gil]

YES, We need less officers that are corrupt. If they are legit they should have nothing to fear. It just shows that there are many officers with something to hide.

[Gino]

What are you afraid of LA Times? You didn't post my comment on Dr. Fine and superior court judge corruption?

[Steve]

If I remember correctly, didn't this requirement for gang unit officers come after they have been working in the unit for a number of years. The point is, gathering personal information, that is not always handled propertly, was not a requirement when they transfred into the unit.
I don't blame them for not wanting to agree to an after the fact invasion of their privacy.

[contraryjim]

Such laws as the war on drugs (a war on people) which enhance greed in the PD to get confiscation goods and money and the public servant unions have left the populace unable to control what they have created.

Gangs are nothing new only the racial elements are different - it used to be the Irish, Poles and Italians, now people of color, people who are disenfranchised, those without political power. The police have power and will be wary of those they feel may have power as well.

[Richard M. Breidenthal`]

It is inconceivable to me that low level officers who are attacked daily by the Los Angeles Times, who has a long history of attacking LAPD (some forty years) and community leaders, all who have an axe to grind, have decided because a couple of nut cases at Rampart Div. became corrupt; that a whole -sale look into street officers family bank accounts is necessary, is so insulting as to be unbelievable. Why don't you just print that all LAPD officers are probably corrupt so watch out for them. If the Times and community leaders are looking for corruption that counts...look no further that appointments made by city officials, or contracts given to friends of city officials. There my friends is corruption. How about bus drivers who collect money on busses. How about city survice employees who have a miriad of jobs dispursing supplies or managing money? What about the city accounting department? It seems to me that this is a violation of a persons civil rights. Oh yes, I forgot officers have no civil rights. They don't even have a right to strike. The Times employees have a right to strike. How does Los Angeles keep police officers is beyond me. They don't.

[J. F>]

Those who serve took an oath. You do as your told and if you have a beef you send it up the chain of command. Those that decide to do on their own should be removed from the line of duty. No questions asked.