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."

Ahem.

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