Some LAPD Officers’ Bank Records May Be Opened

Los Angeles police supervisors may require officers who work in sensitive units to open up their personal bank records, the Los Angeles city attorney’s office has concluded in an opinion that bolsters Chief Bernard C. Parks’ power to attack police corruption.

Parks had sought the authority to demand financial disclosure to assist in spotting potentially corrupt officers, particularly in anti-gang and narcotics assignments, where large amounts of cash and drugs can tempt officers to commit crimes.

Police union officials are wary of that approach, however, arguing that it represents an unfair intrusion into officers’ privacy.

As a result, the opinion, released Friday, could heighten the growing tension between the management of the Police Department and the union representing its rank-and-file officers--a situation that has been exacerbated by the continuing Rampart corruption probe.

On Friday, Police Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff praised the opinion, and a spokeswoman for the department said LAPD leaders would soon begin looking at which units should be covered if a financial disclosure policy is adopted.

The police union, meanwhile, said it was studying the matter and was apprehensive about its implications.

“Our biggest concern is, how is the information going to be used,” said Hank Hernandez, general counsel to the Los Angeles Police Protective League. In addition, Hernandez said union leaders are worried that “the more hurdles they put up to these units, the fewer volunteers we’ll have.”

The 23-page opinion by Special Assistant City Atty. Frederick N. Merkin concludes that a narrowly tailored disclosure requirement that balances the public’s right to a corruption-free police force against the officers’ right to some privacy protection would withstand a challenge in court.

“Disclosure of financial information may be required from officers applying for or occupying sensitive, specialized positions where the information . . . would tend to indicate a conflict of interest with respect to performance in the assignment, or . . . for those assignments which expose officers to a strong possibility that bribes or other improper inducements may be offered,” Merkin wrote.

His report exhaustively details the allegations of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced in connection with the Rampart scandal, and notes that those revelations “serve as a poignant reminder that the potential for corruption exists in law enforcement, including the Los Angeles Police Department.”

Ted Hunt, president of the Police Protective League, said the union joined with other city leaders in wanting to take a strong stand against corruption.

“Just like everyone else, we want officers who are honest, ethical and professional,” he said.

He added, however, that he and other league directors worry about how the financial information would be gathered, who would be required to provide it, and how it would be used.

“Whenever you allow people access to sensitive, personal information--whether it’s police officers or anyone else--there’s the opportunity for abuse to occur,” Hunt said.

In contrast to the league’s guarded reaction, Police Commission President Chaleff welcomed the report. Chaleff said he expected the commission, which sets policy for the Police Department, to consider the matter.

“It seems appropriate to me,” Chaleff said of the proposed expanded disclosure requirements. As for suggestions that they would invade the privacy of police officers, Chaleff responded: “Police officers occupy a unique position. There’s a balance that has to be struck in order to protect against the small percentage of police who abuse their positions.”

Cmdr. Sharon Papa, who heads the LAPD’s Community Affairs Group, said police officials, armed with the city attorney’s opinion, now will begin identifying the units whose officers should be required to disclose financial records.

Police officials at the rank of commander and above already are required to provide some information, but those requirements do not apply to lower-ranking officers.

Papa said the Police Department would study other agencies as well as its own practices before recommending the units whose officers might be subject to new disclosure rules.