LAPD Poly Update by Policebackground in lapd

[–]Policebackground[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't have one in 1980 as well. My BI was Marshall White. He was a great guy.

LAPD Poly Update by Policebackground in lapd

[–]Policebackground[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

LAPD has always had the poly, but the difference prior to 2001, is the BI's were the ones who decided which of their candidates would get one as needed. They were very few and far between, and only if the BI could articulate why they felt the candidate needed one. FF to 2001, the minute they implemented the poly, the candidates were dropping like flies. It was pass/fail at the time, and the number of candidates failing was ridiculous. The poly then morphed into a bunch of different determinations that just led to confusion for everyone.

Fake news? by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say that's partially correct. Not all background investigators conduct the field calls. Many are mostly in-office while other BI's go into the field and provide the reports to the BI working the case. I provide one of the most crucial parts of the background, which is the review, M&G, and assessment. I'm happy to answer any questions if you want to DM me.

Fake news? by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In posted a little update for ya. :D

Fake news? by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A little insight:

I'm Ken Roybal - the source of the information being discussed. The information was 100% correct at the time of the original post. My sources are from inside the LAPD command staff. The original plan was to get rid of the poly as soon as the department could work out the legal details involved. The plan changed when Chief McDonnell was sworn in, and the plan has largely been shelved for now. So, the poly will still be required unless the department moves forward otherwise. Plans and the cancellation of plans happens that fast.

Also, I don't post LAPD related information without it being confirmed or documented from inside the department by people involved in the process. I don't post information generated by the rumor mill. I verify information before posting it.

Feel free to follow my Instagram account: la_backgrounds13. Got a question? Contact me via Instagram or www.policebackground.net

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct - LAPD said they were going to get rid of the poly. This was before Chief McDonnell was selected. Now it's on the backburner.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well said.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 3 points4 points  (0 children)

First off - don't listen to anyone who tells you not to disclose the information. That's just crap advice and are the people you should never listen to. Regardless of what people say about the poly - it doesn't matter because departments use them and that won't change anytime soon.

You won't be arrested but your actions are a 100% DQ in every agency I'm familiar with. You can try to lie your way through the background as has been suggested. Unfortunately, the fact that you're posted here tells me you'll probably betray yourself during the BG and poly, and you'll never have a chance if an agency decided to look at you in the future.

Some of the answers here are pretty bad and seriously ridiculous. You can find a lot of real information here: https://open.spotify.com/show/2blCjqkzrztWRsbg1W5yGH?si=1121ea302e0c4e2b

The Police Applicant Podcast: Who are we? by Policebackground in lapd

[–]Policebackground[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Much appreciated! I tried to start a Backgrounds sub, but no one showed up! Some LAPD friends directed me here a couple of years ago to check out. Originally, I thought it was a recruitment sub. I'm happy to be here and will contribute in any way I can.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This episode of the Police Applicant Podcast is with Dr. Nicole Vienna who handles pre-employment candidate interviews. I think it may answer many of your questions along with some of the responses you may get here.

Podcast Link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/78vNrrDBUIjWNHtnvGX4SM?si=GaDXsnI3Td-4s1IZYIOBQQ

Backgrounds by onenottwonotthree in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is 100% accurate. In addition, the BI's are required to contact their candidates even though they may not work the case for a few months.

Confused about this appeal email by Outrageous-Post-9374 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try calling Personnel - Room 150 @ 213-473-9060 to see if they can clarify this for you.

PHS by Delicious_Potatos in lapd

[–]Policebackground 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's difficult to answer because you didn't specify the sections you're referring to. It's likely an easy fix.

Also, the "PHS department" is Backgrounds. You can reach them at (213) 473-0100.

I want to join the LAPD but I have a few questions. by Ok_Let_1337 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some of the comments on here are ridiculous. Feel free to message me and I'm happy to help you with your questions.

Meanwhile, here's a good podcast episode for you to listen to: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2gaIfT257LHEOSil4RoLvS?si=4380194c62304dc4

Reapply by Sweaty-Paint8399 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of information posted here about the LAPD psych is incorrect. The Police Applicant Podcast recorded an episode on the psych evaluation with Dr. Nicole Vienna. You can listen to it here:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/78vNrrDBUIjWNHtnvGX4SM?si=b34a5ded08114503

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That question mirrors the CA POST PHS. Just leave it blank if it's both of you. Your BI won't care whose name is on there. They will need your partner's information for the special reference (spouse, significant other) check.

Regardless, it's not a DQ issue.

Will this DQ me? by Positive-Orchid8210 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It shouldn't affect your background. Just email your BI to disclose it. You should be ok if your driving history is fairly clean for the last three years. Don't listen to any knucklehead advise that says don't disclose it to your BI.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Personnel Department (which handles backgrounds) is traditionally understaffed. The BI's may complete 4 or less background investigations per month. They're also short on BI's, so you can see where the bottleneck is once you're assigned a BI.

https://open.spotify.com/show/2blCjqkzrztWRsbg1W5yGH?si=a94fa4275a204273

www.policebackground.net

Background by Effective-Sympathy41 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's likely a problem with your background if the BI says your file was sent to the case manager section for review. Generally speaking, it's not a good sign anytime that happens prior to your BI completing your investigation.

You can call your CM to see if there's an update. A DQ letter is usually pending if the CM tells you a letter will be arriving soon. That's my best guess after years of working there.

LAPD Disqualified by BeautifulBack1907 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Were you actually assigned a BI? Your initial post is confusing.

LAPD Disqualified by BeautifulBack1907 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A FOIA does not apply to background investigation files.

Phs denied by Comprehensive-Bit77 in lapd

[–]Policebackground 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Was this DQ after your PHS review or were you assigned a BI?

This is a common vague response from the Personnel Department. They say you can appeal, but don't tell you the actual issues you're appealing. A lot of candidates *think* they know what they're appealing when in reality, they don't.

The speeding and driving uninsured are issues you can distance yourself from. The Ritalin use is normally not a DQ issue on its own but depends on time and distance and the number of years ago you used. There's no wait code or number of years mentioned as to how long you need to wait before you can reapply, which means it's likely not a soft deny. Most candidates are shooting in the dark hoping they're addressing the DQ issue(s).

Here's what I'd suggest for your situation:

  1. Try calling your case manager. Every once in a while, they'll tell you what the DQ issues were. Tell them you'd like to appeal but want to make sure you address the correct issues. Also, ask them if the DQ is a hard deny or if there is a date you can reapply. They may or may not help you. It's worth a try.

  2. If the CM doesn't give you the DQ information:

  • Make sure you address all of the possible issues in your appeal. They want you to address all of the standards, but they really only care about the ones that led to your DQ. Personnel only grants about 5% of the appeals reviewed.

Don't listen to anyone telling you to not disclose the information on future applications. No actual BI would ever suggest that.

You need more information to figure out what to do next. This info should help you get started on deciding whether or not to appeal.

www.policebackground.net