Patterico's Pontifications


Still “Preposterous,” Mr. Rutten?

Filed under: Current Events,Dog Trainer,Law — Jack Dunphy @ 11:19 am

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

In two posts from early last year (here and here), I discussed the ongoing dispute regarding a provision in the federal consent decree governing the Los Angeles Police Department that requires gang and narcotics officers to provide financial disclosure information to auditors as a means of preventing corruption. The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers, has contested the implementation of this provision, and the case is now under review in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

One objection officers have to providing this information is that there is no guarantee that it will be safeguarded as promised, exposing the officers to such mischief as identity theft or perhaps worse. L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten scoffed at this, calling the officers’ concerns “preposterous” and “baloney.”


Today the Times reports on the inadvertent release by the LAPD of a confidential report on officers accused of racial profiling, a report that included the officers’ names. The release, says the Times, violated LAPD policy and perhaps even state law. The blunder was blamed on a “clerical error.”

Not so preposterous now, is it?

–Jack Dunphy

9 Responses to “Still “Preposterous,” Mr. Rutten?”

  1. Yeah – just look at what these responsible public officials did with Joe the Plumber’s personal information. No doubt this too was “clerical error.”

    TakeFive (011ec1)

  2. Seems that cops know themselves too well to trust everything to fellow cops eh?

    TC (0b9ca4)

  3. Sounds like there’s lots of “inadvertent” releases going around. Just ask Michael Steele. Funny how they all seem to run in one direction, politically speaking.

    Chris (b886a5)

  4. TC (#2) doesn’t seem to understand that the people handling these files aren’t cops. They are civilians – often with agendas, like the Police Commission.

    Robert C. J. Parry (50a453)

  5. As I was reading about the huge payout approved the other day by the LA City Council triggered by the lawsuits involving the LAPD and the May Day event (or melee) in MacArthur Park, I couldn’t help but think that various plaintiffs in that case — regardless of the merits of their claims — must now be tempted to provoke, or are musing about reenacting, a similar occurance in the future. IOW, they’ll want to play another game of Million Dollar Lotto, as sponsored by the LAPD and City Hall, and promoted by trial lawyers everywhere.

    Mark (411533)

  6. We won’t negotiate with terrorists or violent criminals. But since there are none of those, we will negotiate with everyone.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  7. What does it take to scrape that barnacle off the S.S. LA Times?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  8. Mr. Fikes, I suggest a whole lot of fire.

    If we’re lucky, we might be able to salvage the barnacle.

    Anon (f43943)

  9. Another through-the-looking-glass editorial from the LA Times:

    Exhibit A in the case for LAPD openness

    A mistake that revealed the names and badge numbers of officers accused of racial profiling seems to undercut the argument that identifying cops accused of serious wrongdoing exposes them to danger. . .

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0702 secs.