Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Case Walden topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board recommends revocation of LAPD detective Luke Walden’s POST certification after POST alleges attempt to buy silencer and dishonesty
Summary
After POST presented evidence that an item intercepted by federal authorities was a firearm silencer ordered to the detective’s address, and that the detective repeatedly denied attempting to buy a silencer, the board voted to recommend decertification of Luke Baxter Walden.
The POST advisory board on July 16 recommended revocation of Los Angeles Police Department detective Luke Baxter Walden’s POST certification following a POST presentation that alleged he attempted to purchase an illegal firearm silencer and was dishonest in internal‑affairs interviews.
POST law enforcement consultant William Emboden told the board that U.S. Customs and Border Protection intercepted a package from Hong Kong addressed to Walden that contained an item a forensic criminalist described as having “the general appearance of a silencer” and internal features consistent with suppressor design, not a fuel filter. Emboden said LAPD’s audit of Walden’s internet activity showed searches for threaded barrels and items marketed as fuel filters that match ATF bulletins describing online listings for suppressors sold as “fuel filters” or “solvent traps.”
The nut graf: POST presented evidence that (1) the seized assembly was a suppressor as defined under the Penal Code; (2) the item was purchased via Walden’s PayPal account on March 17, 2021; (3) LAPD criminalists and supervisors testified at a Board of Rights that the seized item was a suppressor and that Walden’s job duties included identifying suppressors; and (4) Walden repeatedly told investigators he had ordered a fuel filter and not a silencer, which POST characterized as false statements.
POST said its Internet audit showed Walden visited websites that advertised the sale of fuel filters and threaded barrels compatible with several firearms registered to him, and that the seized item matched a product code (NAPA 4003) that law-enforcement sources treat as a code word for suppressors. Emboden said LAPD’s automotive expert concluded the object could not function as a fuel filter because it lacked a filtration medium.
Walden told the board he accepted a plea agreement in the criminal case: he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor attempt to possess an assault weapon as part of a negotiated resolution; an original felony attempt‑to‑possess‑a‑silencer charge was later dismissed under that plea. Walden and his representative disputed POST’s framing of the allegation of dishonesty, noting LAPD’s internal process and asserting they did not receive full materials through the investigative record. Walden said he took a plea for financial reasons and that he returned to work after the Board of Rights process.
After closed-session deliberations, the board recorded a vote to recommend decertification. The roll call recorded seven ayes from members present; the motion carried. The board’s recommendation is a preliminary administrative finding that will be followed by POST’s notice and appeal process if the division pursues decertification.
POST recommended suspension or revocation, citing the officer’s alleged purchase of the item and repeated denials to investigators. The board’s recorded vote reflects its initial determination that POST’s presentation met the clear-and-convincing threshold required to move the matter forward.
