Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST delays final decision on former LAPD detective accused of buying illegal silencer, sends case back for more investigation
Summary
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training on Sept. 10 reviewed the Division’s findings that former LAPD detective Luke Baxter Walden attempted to obtain an illegal firearm silencer and made false statements during the internal investigation into that purchase.
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training on Sept. 10 reviewed the Division’s findings that former Los Angeles Police Department detective Luke Baxter Walden attempted to obtain an illegal firearm silencer and made false statements during the internal investigation into that purchase.
The commission heard a presentation from William M. Bowden, a professional conduct law enforcement consultant, and Simone Renteria, an attorney with POST’s Legal Affairs Bureau, who summarized the Division’s investigative findings: customs seized a device addressed to Walden that a LAPD criminalist described as having the design elements of a firearm suppressor; a PayPal payment from Walden’s account matched the purchase; Internet-audit results showed searches consistent with silencers; and LAPD sustained an improper-possession finding and referred him to a Board of Rights, which found guilt but imposed a 30-day suspension rather than termination. ‘‘Clear and convincing evidence exists to show respondent purposely committed a felony … and lied repeatedly to IA and at his Board of Rights,’’ Bowden said as he described the Division’s recommendation for revocation.
The case drew questions from commissioners about what materials POST had received from LAPD and whether the Board of Rights had addressed dishonesty. Commissioner Gordon asked whether POST had reviewed testimony referenced in the Board of Rights rationale; Bowden replied POST had the guilt-phase rationale but did not receive the penalty-phase rationale until the day before the advisory-board hearing. Commissioners also questioned why LAPD did not itself allege dishonesty and whether POST had interviewed Walden directly; Bowden said POST had briefly spoken with Walden after notice of the investigation but did not conduct a formal follow-up interview.
Walden’s counsel, panel attorney Leslie Wilcox of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said Walden was on injured duty and asked the commission to consider that LAPD and the Board of Rights did not allege dishonesty and that the criminal felony charge was dismissed as part of a plea agreement that produced a misdemeanor. Wilcox asked the commission to consider a suspension rather than revocation, citing Walden’s 24-year career record and numerous commendations.
Public commenters pressed for decertification. Community member Leticia Williamson recommended permanent decertification and described efforts to pursue statewide legislation to penalize agencies that fail to turn records over promptly. Yousef Miller of North County Equity and Justice Coalition urged strong action and said a purchase of this kind is ‘‘an assassin’s tool’’ that undermines trust.
After a closed-session discussion, the commission did not vote to revoke. Chair Jeff Long announced the commission’s unanimous direction to return the matter to the Division for additional investigation. Commissioners asked staff to obtain and review: the full internal affairs investigation, the Board of Rights transcript(s) including both the guilt and penalty rationales, the adjudication letter from the detective’s commanding officer (the department’s letter of transmittal), and follow-up interviews with the internal affairs investigator or adjudicator asking why LAPD did not pursue a dishonesty allegation. The commission recorded no final determination on Walden’s certification and directed that the Division complete the additional work and then re-present the matter (and, if warranted by new findings, the advisory board) before the commission.
Why this matters: The commission’s role at this stage is limited to assessing whether the Division’s record demonstrates a high probability that serious misconduct occurred; any final revocation would follow a full evidentiary hearing. Commissioners emphasized the narrow legal standard they apply and sought documentary and testimonial completeness before ruling on decertification.
What’s next: POST staff will obtain the additional records and follow-up investigative steps the commission requested and will return the case for further consideration.
