Letters to the Editor
... input from forum participants


EDITOR'S 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:

Profit motive behind burglar alarm response stoppage

To: Mayor, all City Councilmembers

Feb. 13th


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.

Edward L. Woody, Los Angeles

Councilmember Dennis Zine answered:

Mr. Woody:

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:

Councilman Zine,

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 repercussions.

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 or by clicking on this link to the Los Angeles Community Policing web page:

Private 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:

Secondary Employment of Off-Duty Peace Officers as Private Investigators
....Announcement of Research Project - by Dr. Arthur A. Jones and Dr. Robin Wiseman