Deputies named in DA advisor case after public records reveal details
- Diana Teran, a top advisor in the district attorney's office, is accused of misusing confidential personnel records to track deputies with disciplinary issues.
- State prosecutors initially fought to keep the names of eight involved deputies secret, citing state laws protecting police personnel records.
- After legal pressure, some names were released, revealing past misconduct and raising concerns about transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
The case against Diana Teran, a senior advisor in the district attorney's office, revolves around allegations of her misuse of confidential personnel records to track deputies with disciplinary histories. State prosecutors, led by Rob Bonta, initially sought to keep the names of eight Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies involved in the case confidential, arguing that revealing their identities would violate state laws protecting police personnel records. However, after a legal battle initiated by The Los Angeles Times and LA Public Press, some names were disclosed, shedding light on the deputies' past conduct and the nature of the allegations against them. The investigation revealed that the deputies had faced various disciplinary actions, including demotions and discharges, often linked to misconduct. For instance, one deputy, Jordan, was demoted for failing to report a switch involving an ineligible runner in a department event. Another deputy, Jackson, was discharged in 2012 but had his case reversed by a judge due to procedural errors by the Sheriff’s Department. These instances highlight the complexities surrounding the disciplinary processes within the department. Additionally, Serrata, another deputy, faced serious allegations related to undisclosed financial issues on his job application, which led to disciplinary actions against him. Despite these challenges, he successfully appealed his discharge and continued his career until retirement in 2021. The release of the deputies' names has sparked public interest and debate regarding transparency in law enforcement and the accountability of officers. The ongoing legal proceedings and the public's demand for transparency underscore the tension between protecting police personnel records and the public's right to know about law enforcement conduct. As the case unfolds, it raises critical questions about the integrity of the disciplinary system and the implications for public trust in law enforcement agencies.