Los Angeles Sheriff Misused Confidential Database Thousands of Times To Run Concealed Carry Background Checks
Public records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation show how sensitive police databases are used and abused.

Police officers in California improperly accessed a state database of private information more than 7,000 times in 2023, according to a new report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights and privacy advocacy group.
Two researchers from the EFF discovered through public records requests that California police departments reported 7,275 misuses of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or CLETS, to the state Department of Justice in 2023. The vast majority of those offenses were committed by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD), which was responsible for 6,789 of the violations.
The LASD committed thousands of abuses by violating a specific rule against using CLETS data to run background checks for concealed carry firearm permits. According to meeting notes obtained by the EFF, the LASD unit responsible for the searches was retrained, "and no further incidents of misuse have been identified since."
The CLETS database provides California law enforcement with access to Department of Motor Vehicle records, national criminal background check information, and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, among other things. Because of the amount of sensitive information on CLETS, there are rules about when and why law enforcement can use it, as well as requiring mandatory reporting of abuses.
"Mandatory data collection on CLETS violations and its disclosure better enables the public to understand and question how databases like CLETS are used and abused," says Beryl Lipton, a senior investigator at EFF and co-author of the report. "The thousands of violations committed by the L.A. County Sheriff highlights just how unfamiliar law enforcement can be with their own policies, how easy it is for police to use sensitive data for prohibited purposes, and the value of transparency in providing oversight of the privileged access to information that law enforcement has."
Other instances of officers abusing CLETS uncovered by the EFF include cops using it to look up information on romantic interests or retaliate against rivals, such as a former Redding police officer who in 2021 used CLETS data to have the pickup truck of his fiancé's ex-husband towed and impounded.
"While many violations resulted only in officers or other staff being retrained in appropriate use of the database, departments across the state reported that violations in 2023 led to 24 officers being suspended, six officers resigning, and nine being fired," the EFF reported.
Police in America now have access to a shocking amount of intrusive surveillance technology, and privacy advocates say there's not enough safeguards or disclosures about how this data is being accessed.
Last year a Sacramento grand jury found that the Sacramento Sheriff's Office was sharing license-plate reader data with law enforcement agencies in states that criminalize abortion, even though California prohibits departments from sharing or selling such data to out-of-state agencies.
"Though often inadequate, policies that outline how surveillance and data sharing can be committed by law enforcement are essential to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding individuals," Lipton says. "It's very important that they are followed."
The LASD did not immediately return a request for comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If they aren't supposed to be using this database, why do they even have access to it?
Glad to know that the "right people" are keeping our information safe, just as was promised.
Fucking "Far Right" Sheriffs
In California? In LA? What in the hell are you on?
Without understanding the context where access to CLETS would be permitted, this seems like an issue of overbroad access to sensitive data, which in itself invites abuse. If there are only specific conditions where using CLETS data is allowed, then it would make more sense to only grant access to law enforcement officers when the situation arises that meets those conditions.
In IT, it's known as the Principle of Least Privilege.
Make them enter warrant information to access the system. Judges rubber so many warrants that it is not likely to impede any investigations.
"The LASD committed thousands of abuses by violating a specific rule against using CLETS data to run background checks for concealed carry firearm permits."
There are two possibilities here. Either the LASD has been forced (presumably by some court case) to actually issue carry permits to regular people, which is a major victory that would itself deserve coverage, or else they haven't and they're lying about the reason for the background checks.
>>California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or CLETS
lol SCMODS
They were going to call it California Law Information Telecommunications System but thought better of it.
Well... it is California. The women don't have 'em and the men can't find 'em. So, CLITS would just be lost on 'em.
^ thread winner
It’s nice that some of them are losing their jobs, but why aren’t any being criminally charged?
(Note the Dr in Texas who was criminally charged for (allegedly) accessing info he (allegedly) wasn’t allowed access - why not here?)
I would have thought it would be more even between the two. What is Sheriff up to that PD isn't ?
Trainer: "You must not do that."
Cop: "Why?"
Trainer: "Because it's against policy."
Cop: "So?"
Why does only 10% of the bill of rights require a permit from the sheriff?
Because the Supreme Court pretended the 2nd Amendment did not mean what it said for 70 years, and is still catching up on enforcing it. (They ignored most of the 14th and all of the 15th Amendments for much longer, but started trying to enforce them in the 1950's rather than the 2000's.)
OK, so before you all drink CJ's ACAB Jonestown Koolaid, understand something very simple: it is VERY easy to do this kind of thing by accident.
Anyone who uses Lexis might have experienced this. You access a Lexis database that checks confidential records of people, you key in the wrong reason for doing your search (it's a dropdown menu), and then a month later you get an angry letter asking you to explain your reason for accessing that information.
It's happened to me personally. Wasn't doing it for any nefarious purpose, certainly didn't make any nefarious use of it - was just clicking too fast to get where I want to go and didn't pay attention to what I was doing.
Now, I don't know if CLETS is the same as Lexis, but this...:
According to meeting notes obtained by the EFF, the LASD unit responsible for the searches was retrained, "and no further incidents of misuse have been identified since."
It makes me think innocent mistake. It wasn't "abuses," it was just dumbassery. Like I said, guilty of it myself.
But since ACAB's gon ACAB, he tries to paint CLEOs all as corrupt. Maybe - probably - some of them are. It's Cali, so corruption is weaved into everything there. But the clickbait presentation of this story is deliberately misleading and misinformative.
What am I talking about, I'm at Reason. Of course it is.
Police in America now have access to a shocking amount of intrusive surveillance technology, and privacy advocates say there's not enough safeguards or disclosures about how this data is being accessed.
And that's a 100% legitimate point and a conversation worth having. Don't know why you felt compelled to bury it under the ACAB.
Well, yea I do. Prick.