Much has been penned on the issue of clandestine groups, labeled “deputy gangs,” existing within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The strategies and tactics used in this straw man war can occur anywhere in our nation. The playbook is simple: Utilize lawfare, propaganda and the weaponization of government resources in the name of oversight to create a false narrative and use it against your target.

Collectively, on the topic of “deputy gangs,” the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, L.A. County Civilian Oversight Commission (COC), California Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, California Legislature and even several members of the U.S. Congress have passed dozens of motions, written numerous letters, conducted multiple investigations, spent millions of dollars and contributed to over a hundred negative media articles.

The need for a solution to remedy “deputy gangs” was so imperative for the Legislature that in less than five months the legislation was created, pushed through committee by Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D), voted on and placed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature. Penal Code Section 13670, “Law enforcement gangs prohibited,” became law on September 30, 2021, and went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Another California law pushed through during the same time frame was Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), Police Decertification. Authored by Senator Steven Bradford (D), the bill was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 30, 2021, and some phases took effect on January 1, 2022. Essentially, this new law provided a litany of reasons a peace officer’s California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certificate could be revoked, making them unemployable by any law enforcement agency in the state. Of special note is the fact that SB 2 specifically included “Participation in a law enforcement gang” as a reason for decertification.

But, after all of the hype and propaganda, the truth remains that “deputy gang members” are like unicorns — everybody knows what one looks like, but nobody has ever really found one. No one has ever been identified within the LASD who meets the elements of Section 13670 of the California Penal Code or has been decertified by POST as a “law enforcement gang” member under SB 2.

If “law enforcement gangs” were such a problem in California, then out of the approximately 600 California law enforcement agencies, 80,000 peace officers and over 5,000 reserve peace officers all currently participating statewide in the POST certification program, why has not one single person been identified who meets the elements of the law they pushed through? How big of a problem was this for the state of California if it is unable to identify even one person out of 80,000? How many tax dollars were wasted on a solution in need of a problem? Meanwhile, serious contemporaneous public safety problems the Legislature could have focused attention on, like homelessness, addiction, retail theft and the damage done by the passage of Proposition 47, continue to flourish and multiply.

Origin of the term

Over the last three and a half decades, two epochal police reform points can be plotted on a calendar: March 3, 1991, and May 25, 2020 — the beating of Rodney King and the murder of George Floyd. Both examples of police misconduct severely damaged perceptions of law enforcement and led to years of police reform. Following the tragic murder of George Floyd, much anger was directed at the law enforcement profession and an unstructured anti-law-enforcement coalition spontaneously emerged. The informal coalition was composed of civil trial attorneys, politicians, social justice activists, nonprofit foundations, the justice-involved, members of the media and agitated community members.

To better understand the term “deputy gangs,” first focus on civil trial attorneys. They created the term ultimately for one simple reason: larger civil monetary settlements. If they could successfully marginalize, defame and vilify peace officers publicly for the jury pools, biases may root and sway verdicts in their favor.

The still yet-to-be-proven-in-a-court-of-law allegations of “deputy gangs” first originated from a few lawsuits filed over the last several decades, coupled with the reinvigoration of several lawsuits filed more recently by the families of persons killed by deputies in the line of duty and several lawsuits filed by disgruntled deputies (who seem to share the commonality of job performance-related issues). The attorneys in these cases were aware of existing deputy groups and rebranded them “deputy gangs.” To date, all have failed in court.

The “deputy gangs” narrative led the Board of Supervisors to pass Measure J, which was later passed by voters on November 3, 2020. Measure J permanently redistributed “no less than 10%” ($188 million in the first year) of the LASD budget to “direct community investment” and “alternatives to incarceration.” This consisted of mostly social justice activist groups and anti-police nonprofit organizations.

Despite being cloaked in altruistic camouflage, the zealous obsession of trial attorneys, elected leaders, political appointees and activists to transform peace officers into “gang members” is firmly rooted in greed and political ideology. It is a quest for larger civil suit settlements, a vehicle to obtain more votes, a bureaucratic hunt for the “white whale” disguised as oversight, a dramatized topic to sell papers or get more clicks and an opportunity to push social justice agendas that can ultimately result in rewards of hundreds of millions of dollars through defunding and redistribution.

Station groups

The term “deputy gangs” is a bogeyman, created to seed division. Advocates point to scary-looking station tattoos and assign nefarious narratives. It is not true. However, what is true is that there are groups of friends who are co-workers. These groups often get matching tattoos that vary from station to station. 

To understand the formation of these groups, accept the reality of the way life was, not the way life is now. In the 1970s, LASD training was deficient, equipment was substandard, mental health support was nonexistent, alcoholism was high, divorce rates were higher, suicides were ignored, speaking about your feelings could result in being relieved of duty and the loss of your duty weapon, and the long-term impact of cumulative trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder were not understood. Many were veterans who served in the military and returned from the Vietnam War only to be spit on by a public who created their own “us versus them” mentality.

Many patrol stations suffered partners killed in the line of duty. Since 1970, a total of 81 LASD personnel have been killed in the line of duty. It was common to have station personnel who barely survived violent encounters.

These groups emerged as a survival mechanism and were formed to help emotionally support, as well as to socialize and reduce stress away from the workplace. They formed softball teams, went to the river together, celebrated at each other’s homes, volunteered in the community and hung Christmas lights at the homes of fallen comrades. These groups of friends were bonded together by on-duty trauma and off-duty recreation. Eventually, these tightly woven and cohesive assemblies of friends evolved into more structured groups and, ultimately, deputy groups with station tattoos were born. Contrary to the propaganda, these groups also included members who were women, racial minorities and LGBTQ+.

After deputy groups and station tattoos surfaced, they quickly became ingrained in the organizational culture. The need to belong socially is a human instinct and a basic human need. According to the Harvard Business Review (2019), studies show satisfying the need to belong in the workplace leads to a 56% increase in job performance, a 50% reduction in turnover risk and a 75% decrease in the use of employee sick days. Early subgroup members were high performers, enjoyed coming to work and never called in sick, which was approvingly valued by supervisors and managers.

No one has ever denied unofficial groups with station tattoos (subgroups, cliques, clubs, fraternal organizations) existed in the LASD; they are rumored to have existed in the profession for many years throughout the entire nation. The existence of these groups is akin to similar circles found in the armed forces, college fraternities, secret societies, sports teams, other public professions or even those who unite for a common cause. Even the original cast of the movie The Avengers (2012) forever bonded themselves together with matching tattoos.

It is believed that every patrol station and some coveted unit assignments in the LASD have formed unofficial groups and tattoo symbols at one time. The fact that the names of most of these groups remain unknown is a testament to their innocuous and completely benign nature. Some stations have had multiple station tattoos cycle through over the years, due to the generational factors associated with these groups. A person who served at a patrol station in the 1990s may have belonged to a group and socialized off duty with others in the group, but as time moves forward, people move on. They promote, transfer, retire or simply change their off-duty interests. It is generational, and seldom do generations mix.

Government overreach

The U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment protect against government intrusion of free association and free speech. Stricter LASD policies than what former Sheriff Alex Villanueva implemented would most likely not survive constitutional scrutiny, as was confirmed in the legal opinion letter dated November 19, 2021, obtained by the Association for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). 

Yet, on May 12, 2023, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) sent a letter to numerous personnel suspected of having a station tattoo. The official letter directed personnel to appear and show their uncovered body parts, document any tattoos and reveal all information surrounding their private life in connection with any tattoos. Personnel were told, “Failure to cooperate in an investigation into police misconduct is grounds for decertification of a peace officer.” The questions asked in the letter were nothing short of McCarthyism, such as “Have you ever been told about other deputies who might be in or have been in the group? If so, which deputies? Who told you this?”

On March 18, 2024, the Superior Court of California granted a request for a preliminary injunction against the actions of the Board of Supervisors, OIG and LASD from releasing any personnel files of members belonging to the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA) labor union.

The COC has been obsessively investigating the issue of “deputy gangs” almost since its inception in 2016. Over the last two years, they have conducted a well-publicized series of extremely prejudiced meetings, marketed as “special hearings on deputy gangs in the Sheriff’s Department,” where “witnesses” were subpoenaed under Penal Code Section 25303.7 and subjected to one-sided compound “gotcha” questions, bullying and the absence of attorney representation. The “witnesses” were forced to sit and be subjected to abuse by attorneys while being unable to provide opening statements or enjoy basic legal representation, such as objections, cross-examination or redirection of testimony. Additionally, these hearings allowed secret witnesses to testify remotely with disguised voices and no cross-examination, in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to face your accusers.

These meetings were modeled more after the Spanish Inquisition than our American legal system. They were reminiscent of McCarthyism and the rigged Q clearance hearing depicted in the Oscar-winning movie Oppenheimer (2023). Investigations are not supposed to last forever, so how many more public tax dollars will continue to be wasted before they end?

Conclusion

There are no law enforcement “gangs”! In Los Angeles County, social justice activists have taken over much of the political system, either directly through elections or indirectly through financial and political support. The weaponization of government assets and lawfare against anything standing in the way of their political ideologies and objectives has become commonplace. Public tax dollars continue to be taken from law enforcement budgets and redirected to nonprofit organizations that share the same anti-law-enforcement social justice political ideologies. The more aspersions cast upon law enforcement, the easier it becomes to defund them and redistribute the funds. Recruitment and retention have become critical issues, and soon there will be more radio cars than deputies to operate them. As crime continues to rise, skewed data is intentionally misrepresented and used to perpetuate false narratives. Labeling and referring to members of law enforcement as “gang members” is a successful strategy to continue redirecting public assets to like-minded supporters.

“Law enforcement gangs” are a myth created to enhance civil lawsuits and push political ideologies. The “evidence” these groups are “gangs” is not factual, or even anecdotal; it is based on emotion, rumor, hype, hearsay, falsehoods, discredited testimony, carefully engineered circular narratives and selfish desires to enrich oneself. There is a well-established pattern of lies by omission, false evidence, unethical behavior and “perjury.” These ethical failures serve to destroy the credibility, trustworthiness, validity and reliability of the existing “deputy gangs” narrative.

Yes, there is occasionally misconduct within the organization. Human beings are flawed and will never be perfect. Yet there is no more misconduct in law enforcement than there is with lawyers, medical doctors, dentists, accountants, firefighters or any other profession. When misconduct is discovered, it is dealt with under the law, either administratively or criminally, and is on the individual, not the club they may or may not belong to. The study Trends in Deputy Misconduct: A Reflection on 2012–2022 (tinyurl.com/misconducttrends) states, “Misconduct is an individual behavior and occurs independent of tattoo status.” It is not a group behavior.

To date, there has never been a shred of evidence showing a subgroup in furtherance of a “pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing.” In the exceedingly improbable event someone is ever proven to violate Section 13670 of the Penal Code and decertified as a peace officer under SB 2, then they, and they alone, qualify to be referred to by the slanderous term. Until then, there are no law enforcement “gang” members or “deputy gangs,” and the use of the term is offensive.