Police disclosure requirements

Re “Policing the police,” Opinion, Jan. 23

Tim Rutten besmirches one of the two finest law enforcement organizations in the United States.

Federal law enforcement officers are not, as he claims, required to provide the same depth of financial information proposed by the Los Angeles Police Department reform. And they are not required to provide the same information regarding family members, friends and others the officers might do business with. The dangers of such disclosures, including identity theft, are not the “bunch of baloney” Rutten claims. Officers have paid dearly because of them.

By no one’s standards but Rutten’s was former LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks’ law enforcement career a “failure.”

Rutten’s most egregious allegation is that officers’ personnel information won’t leak to criminals. It’s apparent that he doesn’t understand the concept of the Pitchess Motion, whereby attorneys can obtain exactly the information Rutten thinks is sacrosanct.

Lastly, Rutten sarcastically suggests that “officers should be allowed to keep their home addresses private as well.” They already are and for reasons well understood by everyone except, it seems, Rutten.

Steven Switzer

Redondo Beach

The writer was a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Mr. Rutten, I have, on several occasions, given your opinions a strong thumbs down. However, you’ve hit the nail on the head with his column. You told us exactly how it is and how it should be. Thank you.

John A. Saylor

Long Beach