By Peter B. Matuszak, Daily Journal Staff Writer

LOS ANGELES - A federal appeals court has temporarily haltednewLAPDfinancial disclosure rules for gang and narcotics officers who routinely handle cash and contraband, and set a Decemberhearing on the policy.

The 9th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals last Fridayissuedthe temporary injunction without commenton the merits ofthe case brought bythe Los Angeles PoliceProtectiveLeague, which claims that revealing policefinances violated state privacy laws. Los AngelesPoliceProtective League v. LosAngeles, CV08-00784 (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 5,2008).

The Police Commission approved the disclosure rules last December as part ofthe consent decree between the U.S. Department ofJusticeand the city related to the RampartDivision corruption scandal.

If adopted, the rules will apply to roughly 600 officers and makepublic their personal income, debt, investments, partnerships and other business interests to curb potential payoffs and embezzlements that plagued the department in the past.

Richard A Levine, a name partner of Silver, Hadden, Silver, Wexler & Levine, represents the police unionin the case and saidFriday's injunction will halt the policy until the court can fully considerthe meritsoftheir case.

"The policy is seriously invasive when you look at the scope ofit - all their debt, all their liability and all joint tenants on any accountswouldbe disclosed," Levine said. "The complication is that this information and anyanalysis by the department ofthe information will becomesubjectto [discovery motions], which will heighten the risk of disclosure oftheir protected privatefinancial information.

"Andif officers do not comply, they cannotremain in assignments or be eligible to further assignments. "

U.S. District Court JudgeGaryFeess sidedwith the city last month, denying the policeunion's preliminary injunction and lifting a temporary stay in the case. The union appealed the ruling on the sameday.

Anthony Pacheco, a partner at PraskauerRose, servesas the president ofthe Los Angeles Board ofPolice Commissioners, whichoversees police department policy. Pacheco saidthe city'scase was still very strong on its merits. He said the injunction and resulting delay were expected. "I am sure they are goingto look at the substance ofthe consent decreeon states' rights and I am sure they will look at the entiretyofthe issue," Pacheco said. "Ona substantive level, I feel very confident on the issuesas raised - and very confident in JudgeFeess' ruling - and confident the 9th Circuit will giveus a fair hearing. "

Pachecosaid the citywas prepared to defend the policy in state court if necessary. Lawyers from the city attorney's office, led by senior Assistant City Attorney Mike Claessens, represent the city and the commission.

Apanel ofthe 9th Circuitwill now consider whetherFeess erred in not remanding the case back to state court, where it was originally filed, and whetherFeess should have been recusedfrom the case. Levine challenged Feess' impartiality in March and motioned to have the judge removed. He basedthe motionon statements Feessfrom the benchduringa hearing in the case filed by the DOJ against the city related to the Rampartinvestigation. In 2006, Feess denied a stipulation in the federal case against the city, which would have removed the financial disclosure requirement fromthe consent decree.

But U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson reviewed the statementsmadeby Feess and ruled that none undermined his impartiality in the union's case. Parties are now preparing briefs and will presenttheir cases to the appeals court at a hearing scheduled for Dec. 8.