NOTE: On February 13th, Mr. Woody wrote the following letter to
the Mayor and the Members of the LA City Council, sending a copy
to LACP. As you'll see, Councilman Dennis Zine (CD3) replied and
Mr. Woody wrote him back:
motive behind burglar alarm response stoppage
To: Mayor, all City Councilmembers
Before you allow the L.A.P.D. to cut off response to burglar alarms,
it might behoove you to examine the profit motive behind this decision.
When alarms go unanswered, the frightened citizens of Los Angeles
will seek protection from private firms.
An examination of the ownership of many of these private security
companies, which stand to make millions of dollars from the plight
of the unprotected citizens, will reveal that many of these companies
are owned by L.A.P.D. officers. All levels of the department are
represented in this private police force.
To ferret out the profiteers within the department, a simple check
of the ownership of all P.P.O. California Licensed companies compared
to the roster of the L.A.P.D. will reveal the many officers of all
ranks involved in the private security firms.
The push to stop answering alarm calls is simply a ploy to profit
from the fear generated by the public having the wool pulled over
it's eyes, once again.
Unfortunately, the wool is blue this time.
L. Woody, Los Angeles
Councilmember Dennis Zine answered:
Thank you for your comments. We are examining all aspects of the
industry. The [Alarm Policy] task force will have 60 days to resolve
the matter. Since I am on the task force, I can assure you that
public safety is my number one concern.
Councilman Dennis P. Zine
Then Mr. Woody wrote back:
Thanks for the response.
As the L.A.P.D.'s policy only allows P.P.O. security work for active
duty officers with official permission, securing a list of L.A.P.D.
officers who own these security companies should be easy for you.
A list of such approved companies and individuals should be maintained
by the L.A.P.D.
Unfortunately, many L.A.P.D. officers work as Licensed P.P.O. security
officers without official sanction. This lack of supervision and
oversight results in liability issues which could cause severe financial
See Melendez V City of Los Angeles for details.
I think that police should only be police, not private investigators
or private security guards. Either work for the public, or work
for private employers, not both. In my opinion, all L.A.P.D. officers
should be barred from any employment within the Security or Private
Investigation fields as conflicts of interest are sure to develop.
You can access my opinions on LACP.org or by clicking on this link
to the Los Angeles Community Policing web page:
Investigator issue heats up
by Edward L. Woody.. In an open
letter to Chief Bratton the author said the policy that allows sworn
LAPD Officers to operate as Licensed Private Investigators should
be abandoned as a serious conflict of interests. Now, others are
beginning to respond.
Thank you for your time.
Edward L. Woody
An article by Dr. Arthur Jones follows in support of my stand:
Employment of Off-Duty Peace Officers as Private Investigators
of Research Project - by Dr. Arthur
A. Jones and Dr. Robin Wiseman