The Los Angeles Times has a long article on LASD’s investigation into stolen deputy personnel files and document leaks. The Times obtained LASD’s report into crimes by its oversight. Readers will quickly recognize that the paper wants to tell readers what the report says without letting readers believe any of it is true. Still, some fascinating details are hidden in the article if you read carefully.
New Details Into Potential Crimes by Oversight Agencies
The LA Times obtained an 80-page report of the LASD investigation into stolen deputy personnel files. The report is part of a larger, 300-page case file. The Times reviewed the report and discussed it but did not provide a copy of the report for readers to draw their own conclusions.
The article begins with LASD‘s investigation into the theft of confidential personnel documents.
The criminal investigation began soon after Villanueva took office, when his transition team noticed “abnormalities” while reviewing personnel records, according to the report. In early 2019, the sheriff’s chief of staff asked internal criminal investigators to look into it, and in 2021 the department sent the case file to state prosecutors.
The investigation has two prongs. The first prong of the investigation focused on Office of the Inspector General chief Max Huntsman, and his effort to obtain deputy personnel files, including the file of then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Peace office personnel files are protected by law and by LASD policy. But LASD has an informal agreement to share personnel files with OIG for limited purposes. OIG cannot use the files for any purpose they like: the files must be used only to further their oversight role. LASD suspected that OIG was abusing their access to personnel files.
In 2018, LASD cut off OIG access to the personnel files of 54 deputies who were being investigated by LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau. Huntsman requested that LASD restore access to these files to OIG. Huntsman later emailed an LASD oversight official – distinct from OIG – and told her that the Sheriff had instructed her to release all files. This turned out not to be entirely true.
By apparent coincidence, the LASD oversight official was Diana Teran, who was recently charged with several felonies related to document theft by the attorney general. Teran corrected Huntsman and said she had not been authorized to release all the files, just a smaller group of them. Later, a different LASD official gave OIG all the files. The LASD investigation says that this official was “duped” by Huntsman’s OIG into giving OIG the documents.
Huntsman disputed the accusation that OIG obtained the files by fraud. He said that they obtained the files to track any changes made to them by incoming LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva.
“Our reason for getting those files was, in part, to be sure the Sheriff’s Dept. complied with the law,” Huntsman told The Times this month. “We were concerned that there might be an attempt to alter government records, and we wanted to obtain a copy so that we would be able to provide proof to anybody later.”
It is not clear if OIG was permitted by law to do this. The article is silent on this point. A cursory look at OIG’s mission suggests it is outside the scope of their oversight and therefore illegal. What is clear is that Huntsman was “concerned” by Villanueva’s election. He was also against Villanueva’s decision to rehire a deputy that Villanueva believed had been fired unjustly. Huntsman, through OIG, had written a report opposing the rehiring.
The second prong of the investigation focused on suspicions “that oversight officials, as well as the former LASD constitutional policing advisor, Diana Teran, stole records of Villanueva and his top associates.”
Oversight officials were apparently unaware that LASD had been tracking their access to confidential personnel files.
In 2018, department officials created a secret audit tool that would allow them to track who accessed personnel files — including outside oversight officials.
Over the next 11 months, the sheriff’s report says, that auditing tool showed that Office of Inspector General officials downloaded an “extraordinary number” of items — 1,500 — from the department’s database of personnel files.
LASD officials were particularly concerned about the files being accessed by OIG Attorney Bita Shasty. She accessed personnel files of people Villanueva intended to promote, even though none of them were under investigation. This is a violation of OIG’s agreement with LASD and a violation of the California Government Code.
The LASD tracker also turned up evidence against Diana Teran. She “downloaded dozens of case files on at least three separate occasions, including on June 5, 2018, the day of the primary election, and Dec. 2, 2018, her last day working for the Sheriff’s Department,” according to the report. Teran was recently charged with stealing confidential deputy personnel files by the California attorney generals office.
LASD officials also believe that the contents of these files were leaked to the press by OIG in an effort to foil the deputies’ promotions and harm Villanueva politically. The Los Angeles Times is itself a long-time beneficiary of leaks believed to originate with LASD oversight agencies like OIG.
Villanueva described the investigation like this:
“People got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, […] It turns out I was one of 22 employees, where their files were illegally accessed and downloaded. When you illegally access them, that’s a misdemeanor crime. When you download them, and remove them, then it becomes a felony. This happened 2,400 times. […] These files, as they were downloaded, they started appearing in the media. Gee, I wonder how.”
Oversight officials concede that they downloaded confidential personnel files but say they were entitled to the files, did not misuse them, and did not leak them.
The Implications
The article ends with a provocative bit of information. OIG head Max Huntsman said “he has never officially been informed by the department or the attorney general’s office that he’s no longer a criminal suspect.” Many rumors suggest that the charges against Teran are a prelude to charges against Huntsman. Rumors are circulating that an indictment against more oversight officials (beyond Teran) is in the works.
At the very least, despite the LA Times’ obfuscation efforts, it appears that LASD has evidence that OIG officials were overstepping their access privileges and committing crimes in the process.
As of April 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal has taken up a pretrial writ and appears skeptical of the charging decision.
DA in CA 