FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – December 14, 2025

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Admits It Has No Written Policies Governing Criminal Affidavits or DA Investigator Authority

In response to a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request filed by The Thunder Report, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) has formally stated that it possesses no written policies governing who may sign a criminal affidavit, who is authorized to certify probable cause, or what authority District Attorney Investigators have when acting inside LASD jurisdiction.

The request sought basic administrative policies that most law-enforcement agencies maintain, including:

• Who is permitted to sign or certify a criminal or probable-cause affidavit
• What qualifications or training an affiant must have
• When a District Attorney Investigator may act as a primary investigator
• Whether a DA Investigator may sign affidavits “for” or “in place of” a Sheriff’s detective
• What approval chain is required before an affidavit is submitted to prosecutors

LASD’s official response: these documents do not exist.

This admission means LASD has no written rules on:

• Who can legally sign or certify probable-cause affidavits
• What DA Investigators are allowed—or not allowed—to do in Sheriff’s cases
• Whether DA Investigators may substitute for sworn LASD detectives
• What limitations or oversight apply when non-sworn personnel influence criminal filings
• What approval chain governs the submission of affidavits to the District Attorney

A Structural Problem, Not a Single Case Issue

The absence of these policies raises major questions about procedural compliance, training, and oversight in a county with more than ten million residents and one of the largest law-enforcement agencies in the United States.

Criminal affidavits are the documents used to justify arrests, searches, warrants, and prosecutions. Without clear written rules defining who may sign them—and under what authority—there is no guaranteed standard for due process, accuracy, or accountability.

Case Example: People v. Giselle Farias Smiel

The issue came to light after reviewing public records from the case of Giselle Farias Smiel, Michael Phillips discovered that a District Attorney Investigator, not a sworn LASD detective, signed key paperwork in her case.

If LASD has no written policy authorizing a DA Investigator to:

• act as a primary investigator,
• certify probable cause, or
• sign affidavits on behalf of LASD personnel,

then the validity of the probable-cause determination may be compromised.

While Giselle’s case illustrates the problem, the implications extend far beyond a single prosecution.

A Systemic Policy Gap With Countywide Impact

Without formal written policies:

• The public cannot know who is legally authorized to initiate criminal charges
• Defense attorneys cannot verify whether affidavits were lawfully executed
• Courts cannot easily assess whether procedures were followed
• Supervisors have no clear standards to enforce internally
• Misuse of authority can occur without detection or accountability

The Sheriff’s Department’s confirmation that these policies simply do not exist raises concerns for civil liberties groups, legal advocates, and anyone subject to law enforcement authority in Los Angeles County.

Next Steps

Additional CPRA requests are pending, including:

• Records of communications between LASD detectives and DA Investigators
• Warrant materials
• Internal memoranda regarding protective orders
• Database checks conducted before initiating charges

Updates will be published as new information becomes available.

Contact:
Michael Phillips
Investigative Journalist
The Thunder Report / Father & Co. / Bay News Media
Email: mike@thunderrpeort.org
Phone: 240.428.0202 (Signal)