More on the ongoing LAPD financial disclosure controversy. For background see here and here and here:
This morning, the Los Angeles Police Protective League filed a temporary restraining order with the United States District Court to halt implementation of the Special Order requiring that gang and narcotics officers be forced to complete comprehensive financial disclosure forms.
To remind you, the idea behind the much-loathed financial disclosures is that any dirty cop who might be skimming money and drugs from gang and/or narcotics busts would be nabbed by a regular review of his or her checking accounts, Visa bills and Roth IRAs—a strategy that both defies logic and has little or no record of actually working since, as a general rule, thieving officers don’t deposit their ill-gotten gains in their Wells Fargo checking accounts.
The Special Order has been demanded by U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, the guy overseeing the LAPD’s federal consent decree. And, as anyone who has had even the shortest discussion with Feess on the subject will tell you, the good judge does not like our police department. Therefore he seems to be unable to discern the good and useful demands and strictures from the stupid ones. The financial disclosures are a case in point.
If approved, the temporary restraining order will prevent the Department from enforcing the Special Order.
Good for them. Sometimes you’ve just gotta say NO. And in this case the union is exactly right.
The question is whether it will work. With the TRO, the union is trying to stop the immediate institution of the Order— that is set to begin on June 15—while it pursues a lawsuit to stop the financial disclosure requirement altogether. (Ironically the 15th will also be the seventh anniversary of the Consent Decree, which kicked in on June 15, 2001.)
Independent attorney’s give the TRO about a 50-50 chance of being approved, as the union will have to convince a judge that the Special Order will cause “immediate harm.”
So stay tuned.
Art from Full Disclosure Network
I agree with Judge Feess and hope the whiny cops lose. They won’t leave their cushy, union jobs until they retire earlier than they should.
There are laws that are passed that may not make sense, but they are the laws. Elected representatives decided that the benefits of this disclosure will outweigh the costs. If they turn out to be wrong, get rid of them.
Woody this isn’t a law, this is a stricture based on a plea bargain. No elected representatives involved. Only a federal judge.
Piffle, Alan. I’m rarely on the side of the union, but this time Judge Feess, who’s convinced he’s dealing with old time bribe-taking Chicago cops, or whatever.
As a command staff guy said to me in an unguarded moment, “Look, historically, we might beat you up, but we don’t take your wallet.”
That’s about right.
Thanks Celeste and I agree with you as so do many of us. This is more then a financial discloure not only for the cops but their families, relatives, father in laws, etc. It extends far beyond just the one cop who works gangs and narco. I hope the cops stand their ground and if they don’t get an order to stop it then have all the gang cops and narco guys transferr out and let the mayor deal with the gang violence these guys put up with every day. They are the good guys.