Judge blocks LAPD rule on disclosure of officers’ finances

A federal judge Friday temporarily barred the Los Angeles Police Department from enforcing a controversial policy that would require officers in specialty units to disclose personal financial information.

The temporary restraining order, granted by U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, had been requested by the Police Protective League -- the union representing the department’s 9,300 rank-and-file officers.

The disclosures, which would cover about 600 officers working mostly in anti-gang and narcotics units, would require the officers to turn over to department officials documents on any outside income, real estate, stocks, other assets and debts every two years. They also would have to reveal the size of their bank accounts and include any holdings they share with family members or business partners. Officers already assigned to the units would be granted a two-year grace period before having to complete the records.

It has been one of the most problematic provisions of a federal consent decree for the department to implement. The decree was ordered after a lengthy investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice in the wake of a scandal in the late 1990s involving misconduct by anti-gang officers at the Rampart Division. Agreed to by the city, it mandates numerous LAPD reforms.

Members of the civilian Police Commission who approved the policy argue that the financial disclosures are necessary to satisfy the terms of the court decree. The disclosures are intended to help supervisors monitor for signs of corruption among the specialty officers who frequently handle cash and other contraband. The union has argued vociferously that the requirement would invade officers’ privacy and do little to detect corrupt officers.

Feess, who oversees the decree and eventually would have had to sign off on the disclosure policy, has scheduled a July 7 hearing. After listening to arguments from both sides, he could lift the ban or maintain it.

Union President Tim Sands said he was “gratified that the judge understood the harm that could be caused by implementing financial disclosures before the matter had its day in court.”

Commission President Anthony Pacheco, meanwhile, said that after years of negotiating and battling over the issue, he was not troubled by the relatively short delay.

“This court is the proper place ultimately for this issue to be heard,” he said. “It has been a long road, and I’m convinced that the judge will give it a fair hearing.”

--

joel.rubin@latimes.com