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

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.

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 LAPD officers who own these security companies should be easy for you. A list of such approved companies and individuals should be maintained by the LAPD

Unfortunately, many LAPD 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 LAPD 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:

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

Councilmember Dennis Zine answered:

Mr. Woody:

Thank you for the additional information. I will make sure this is presented to the alarm task force.

Councilman Dennis P. Zine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jan 31 - Sworn / PI Conflict

Mr. Woody has either not done his home work, has had a very bad experience with Law Enforcement / Legal system or he still is a great believer in the tooth fairy.

I am a retired Police Sergeant and presently a licensed Investigator that specializes in Criminal Defense. I was not an investigator when I was in uniform but if I had been my investigations would not have been conducted any differently.

As an Investigator and as a Police Officer I only have one goal in mind and that was to find the truth. The truth is the foundation of our Criminal Justice System. There are only three (3) entities that I am aware of that can create a "Loop Hole" -- the Police, the Prosecution or the Judicial System. The Defense can not create a loop hole or "Get anyone off" if the three above are doing their job.

If the "Criminal" is truly guilty and the Defense Investigation confirms this, then the Defense Attorney is in a better position to advise this "Criminal"/defendant whether or not to pursue a trial or to accept a plea that is "always" on the table by the Prosecution.

The statement by Mr. Woody "How can cops arrest "Criminals" (At this point I always thought they were just suspects) with one hand, help the "Criminals" BEAT the case with the other hand and take money with both hands" This is absurd. See above paragraph.

Mr. Woody, what are your thoughts on Attorneys that have PI licenses or Police Officers that are Attorneys or Criminals (your word) that are Attorneys, Police Officers, PI's, Doctors etc, etc etc?

I doubt very much if you know any "Lawyers that would hire a Cop / PI just to get their wealthy client off in appeals court" Obviously you know little to nothing regarding the appeal process or the requirements. Besides, if the client was so damn wealthy and the Attorney & PI so corrupt what's he/she doing in appeals court anyway?

You have come across to me, Sir, as a disgruntled, whining, sniveling mal-content that feels that he received less then fair treatment at the hands of the system.

....Roger Carter
....Sacramento

Feb 1 - Response from Mr. Woody:

Mr. Carter,

I commend you for avoiding the conflict of interests of police being private investigators, by retiring from the police department before starting a career as an investigator.

You are absolutely right that the defense cannot create a loop hole, or get anyone off, if the police, the prosecution, and the judicial system, are doing their jobs.

Unfortunately, if the police are also working for the defense as private investigators, that system is corrupted. For how can a man serve two masters, both the prosecution and the defense, without there being a conflict of interests?

If only one police officer/private investigator succumbs to the temptation of transferring confidential information through the open door created by the dual employment, cop/p.i., then this door must be closed.

I am not faulting the judicial system, just trying stop a practice which could potentially cause the system to collapse because of a dually employed police officer/private investigator's inability to decide where loyalties lie. Do they side with the prosecution, or with the defense?

Would you agree that this situation might create a conflict of interests?

Edward L. Woody