Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2011

Some LAPD Gang Units Disbanded; Will Higher Crime Follow?

Filed under: Crime — Jack Dunphy @ 6:52 pm



[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday on the impact felt in the LAPD from one of the last vestiges of the federal consent decree that resulted from the Rampart scandal. Officers working gang and narcotics units are now required to disclose their personal finances to department auditors in an effort – a misguided one, in my opinion – to detect and deter corruption in those units. Many officers, particularly those assigned to gang units, have exercised their option to accept reassignment to other duties rather than disclose this information, resulting in vacancies in every gang unit in the city and the complete shutdown of some, including those in Southeast, 77th Street, and Northeast Divisions, three areas that see some of the city’s worst gang violence.

I discussed this issue in my most recent piece on Pajamas Media, which you can read here.

–Jack Dunphy

35 Responses to “Some LAPD Gang Units Disbanded; Will Higher Crime Follow?”

  1. this smells bad… the LAPD needs to move forward with officers what are transparent and open … there’s simply no reason to give LAPD officers the benefit of the doubt, and the ones with the easier access to drugs and cash? Even less so.

    Corruption is very icebergy and Rampart was just the tip of it I think.

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  2. Really…

    Just another reason to stay the hell out of LA.

    As an Orange County resident, I’m in awe of what a complete craphole that LA has become over the last 20 years. Used to like going to Hollywood to see bands, Dodger Stadium, etc. Would go to orignal Tommy’s at Rampart/Beverly. Not now.

    Could someone pleae take that border fence we haven’t used south of San Disgo, and run it parallel to the 605 freeway…

    the bhead (a31060)

  3. oops..San Diego.

    the bhead (a31060)

  4. This policy is not helpful. The Rampart Scandal resulted from lowered standards; the federal consent decree is the result of the low-lifes admitted into the LAPD that caused the Rampart Scandal. I know I probably hold the minority view on PP, but there are not a limitless number of LAPD candidates just waiting to protect us from those that want to harm our persons and property.

    This is something that makes it look like somebody is doing something. Too many desk-jockeys that watch “The Shield” and think cop/criminal are flip sides of the same coin.

    I have family in law enforcement, some served LAPD. They, rightly, ask why the Feds don’t enforce the same decree on drug-dealers, smugglers, pimps, and gang members.

    TimesDisliker (c0adc4)

  5. me in my very not-police job I would have no problem with the form and the audit – what do you wanna know here are all my cupcake receipts

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  6. When I was in the securities biz, my wife and I had to maintain all of our accounts, even though separate, at the firm where I worked. Copies of our monthly account statements and trade confirms went to management.

    As an auditor, unexplained changes in lifestyle circumstances is a red flag that something funny might be going on. Upfront disclosure and random audits are unusual in my experience. Lack of trust in the system makes requested disclosures even more demeaning.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  7. btw, very nice piece written by Jack Dunphy, it is always worth my time to read his stuff.

    My job is also very not-police, but my finances would make me immediately a suspect. I did not inherit or marry into money, and could show where it all came from, and nobody is trying to bribe me anyway; I would secretly be proud. But if I were in a business where I put it on the line and confronted violence on behalf of an ungrateful and resentful public, I would not like being a suspect. Especially when this decree is a Christopher Commission band-aid attempt to make it look like the Feds are controlling the problem. The gang officers are not the problem. If there is a suspected problem on the force, IA has recourse; this policy singles out gang officers. Taking this to a natural conclusion, why not demand this same information from meter maids?

    TimesDisliker (c0adc4)

  8. Of course, I assume that LAPD leadership did the right thing, leading by example, and made all their own financial info available, right?

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  9. Narcotics offenses are being decriminalized in many jurisdictions either de jure or de facto with diversion programs for almost all offenders. Any cop who would willingly accept assignment to a narcotics enforcment unit has to be clinically insane. The pols, DAs and commissioners who can’t wait to be at the press conference for the big arrest will always stab a cop in the back in a heartbeat once some rabble rouser from “the community” makes any noise. And know that noise is almost always nonsense.

    And as municipalities across the fruited plain slide into the fiscal abyss the collosal waste of resources on do nothing internal affairs units and federal and civilian oversight bureaucracy continues unabated. Go freaking figure.Crazy idea; let the cops do their jobs. Otherwise be honest and get the police out of narcotics enforcement business altogether.Might also be a good idea to tighten up hiring standards.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  10. This is not an intelligent method of curbing/deterring corruption. It’s a “deskjockey” method implemented by idiots from the Fed without any thought.
    If someone is corrupt they will simply deal in cash or drugs which will not show on bank statements or checks received from work. Look at Charlie Rangel. The man IS a crook, the original Tephlon Don, and with all his records they can’t make one thing stick. He still occupies a seat in government. And Timmy TaxCheat Geithner? The list of CORRUPT officials begins at the WH and trickles on down…so imho “the Fed policies curbing corruption” is a bit of an oxymoronic statement.

    LeonidasOfSparta (c9c010)

  11. “Narcotics offenses are being decriminalized in many jurisdictions either de jure or de facto with diversion programs for almost all offenders.”

    Bugg – If I’m caught holding a couple of kilos of coke or my home cooked crank I get diversion? Seriously? Can I keep my money?

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  12. We had an aggressive counter narcotics unit, down here, called ‘the Jump Out boys’ they did conduct
    some rather unorthodox tactics, and they were shut
    down, in part by community pressure, Of course, violent crime, subsequently went up in the area, and they demanded that the police do something, go figure.

    narciso (e888ae)

  13. narciso – I thought drugs were a victimless crime. What’s up with that sh*t?

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  14. Completely Off topic —

    I would very much like to hear Jack Dunphy’s views on the movie “Training Day”. How much of it is realistic? Are the gang neighborhoods of L.A. really that bad? Even worse than the corrupt (and that’s an understatement) cops, are the “three wise men” who run the city; do they really exist?

    LTEC (5fe55d)

  15. I can keep your money… consider it another type of diversion program.

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  16. FYI (someone)

    I turned down the chance to sit on an alleged double murder trial yesterday. I don’t have that kind of time because I am currently self employed.

    I did get the impression the down economy deepened the pool. Usually it is older people who have nothing else to do, and government employees who get paid for their service (and who can coach you how to survive the selection process as long as possible).
    I saw a lot of young people opting in… I can hear them now… “hey baby, I got a temporary job today…”
    Not filling her in that it pays only $15 a day… but telling her… “yeah, and it pays mileage to and from work… but no can do the laundry because I’ll in training and stuff all day for the next ten weeks”

    Instead I got to read a book for a day while they seated a jury for some sort of misdemeanor level indiscretion. The Junior DDA kid did his best to keep his 3X5 card seating chart organized and has an immediate great future in party planning…

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  17. my understanding is that the officers objected to these disclosures not so much for their depth but because the City couldn’t and wouldn’t ensure that their data would remain private and secure.

    for that i don’t blame them at all. it’s tough enough to be a cop anywhere, let alone LA, but to give the city every bit of your personal financial info, knowing that it’s exposure or loss would destroy you and your family financially, is above and beyond the call of duty.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  18. there’s simply no reason to give LAPD officers the benefit of the doubt, and the ones with the easier access to drugs and cash? Even less so.

    Yeah, because why would you worry about your financial info being left in boxes in hallways and parking garages? It only makes it possible to rip off all your money and steal your identity.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  19. Jack, One needs to look no further than the way the Department treated those that chose not to sign to see how the Department’s contention that the Financial Disclosures will not be used for some petty malicious purpose.

    For those that chose not to sign, if they were advanced pay grades they were threatened with downgrade, some actually had to oral to keep their pay grade. To those the Department could not threaten with downgrade, they broke up the partners in the units, sent them to different watches and forbid them to work together.

    How can the Department purport on the one hand that they will act fairly, openly and honestly with the information on the disclosures while on the other, act petty, unfairly and back handed for those that exercise the right not to sign?

    All for a document that most agree will have no real impact on identifying crooked cops.

    And while you only mention those units in the what is considered the roughest neighborhoods, there are other areas throughout the City that are losing their gang units. The areas that are not losing their gang units are not doing so because they are willing to accept a caliber of officer that never would have been considered in the past. Even some that in the past would not have passed the rigorous backgrounds that are in place in the past but are now being taken because any warm body is sufficient.

    You want to root out evil and prevent misdeeds? You need to have a broad and deep pool of talent to choose from coupled with a rigorous and meaningful vetting process. The financial disclosures will not only not root out evil and misdoings but they may ultimately be the cause of it. By shrinking the pool of talent down to only those that are willing to sign the disclosure and overlooking things that in the past would have been disqualifiers, they have effectively accomplished the complete opposite of what the Disclosures were meant to address.

    That’s Government for you…and LAPD in particular.

    Rookdick (cd6b1d)

  20. Daley-

    In NY state you might still be eligible for an 18-month in patient drug treatment program at taxpayer expense.That would result in a misdemeanor conviction after you complete the program. And you would only face serious jail time and a felony conviction if you messed that up. You would be eligible for that even if you had been previously convicted of a felony drug offense.

    LTEC-

    Based on what I have seen 2nd hand, “Training Day” is about an accurate depiction of narcotics police work as “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is of confection production.

    Bugg (996c34)

  21. I dont see why the officers were not given an independent part such as a law firm or CPA firm to handle the disclosures so the information would be out of the department and under a tighter confidentiality regime

    The officers deserve that at the very least

    EricPWJohnson (371585)

  22. that is an independent party not part

    EricPWJohnson (371585)

  23. that is an independent party not part

    EricPWJohnson (371585)

  24. There is a myth that the prisons are filled with low level drug addicts that could easily be treated. The fact is that drug users have many opportunities to clean up before facing even something as minor as County Jail time.

    All first offenders get Deferred Entry of Judgment which eliminates any conviction after successful completion.

    Then after that you get two, sometimes three opportunities under Prop. 36 to clean up without facing jail time. By opportunities, I mean each time you are arrested. After Prop. 36 is used up, judges still sentence people to live-in treatment programs.

    It is rare if any pure addict goes to prison. If they do, it is for some other crime like breaking into your home when you are asleep or sticking a gun in your face and robbing you.

    What we are really talking about are sellers. But even sellers don’t go to prison on there first offense. Unless we are talking about kilos, sellers usually do 180 days in Co. Jail which turns out less due to good-time credits and overcrowding. A subsequent sale might result in prison but many judges are happy to give probation and live-in drug treatment programs if the seller claims to have an addiction.

    I’d be interested to know if anyone here lives in a neighborhood where people stand on a sidewalk selling drugs to passersby and what your feelings are about the drug laws?

    Arizona Bob (e8af2b)

  25. This is typical of our political class. This nonsense was done to appease liberal elements of the Los Angeles political class. It has failed utterly.

    But the political class does not care that its ridiculous ideas fail. They are not held to account for their failures. They merely require the rest of us to live with their failures.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. As for realistic depictions of cops, a friend of mine who is a midlevel office in a local department tells me that the most accurate depiction of police operations on film or TV is RENO 911.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. AzBob, I did move from a Redondo Beach neighborhood a few years back, after living there for 15 years. On my block, there were two homes that were dealing drugs; in both cases, it was grandchildren that moved in with the owners (grandparents), and dealt out of the home. Talking with the grandparents, who in one case lived in the home for 35 years, did nothing; they were afraid, and protective.

    Lots of “kids” (ages 15-30) were customers, but surprisingly many adults, too. Guys in suits would walk down the center of the street (less noise on asphalt, furthest point away from houses) at 4am to buy. I found a broken glass pipe in my rose bushes.

    Police did their best, people went to jail (including a woman who also worked in the cafeteria at Mira Costa High, go figure!). She had a record. All the sellers had records. But buyers weren’t being rounded up and imprisoned.

    Anyway, the quality of life for residents was awful, crime and fear increased, and when one house was shut down customers just went half-a-block to the other house. So much for diversion programs, it just lets people who want to use keep using and stay out of jail.

    TimesDisliker (e3c077)

  28. “In NY state you might still be eligible for an 18-month in patient drug treatment program at taxpayer expense.”

    Bugg – Never heard of a 18 month in patient program. Citation please.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  29. I can tell you how people feel about it, Arizona Bob. Because I have done trials in drug sales cases and talked to people in the area of the crime scene while taking pictures. People will walk up and tell you that you need to do something about the problem; that people are selling drugs in front of children; that it has to stop.

    I know you know this.

    But this will have no effect on anyone’s opinion. The folks who favor decriminalization and/or legalization largely believe that all negative aspects of the drug trade will vanish into thin air once we are no longer enforcing the laws.

    If I believed they were right I would be 100% on their side. Pardon me for being skeptical.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  30. No crime will stay the same, the cops will just have to commit them off duty instead while they’re on the clock.

    thatguy (2bda65)

  31. Give them tons of culpability, an adversarial environment, little freedom in use of judgment – sounds like why we have few medical students.

    Add the physical risk and insult. Sounds like a good recipe to get fewer and fewer talented people wanting to be law enforcement officers.

    Government fix fouls things up again.

    jodetoad (7720fb)

  32. Bugg – Why are you making the assumption I’m using the stuff instead of just selling it? Can I get diversion if I’m not an addict? Can I get diversion for a couple of kilos? Your link is unclear? Sounds like a lot of touchy feely low level BS to me.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  33. Bugg – The link also mentions nothing about 18 months of in patient treatment. It talks about close monitoring.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  34. Times Disliker and Patterico,
    You illustrate the point I was trying to make. Frankly, by the time someone goes to prison for drug selling, they have had more than enough chances.

    Arizona Bob (f57a20)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0912 secs.