The watchdog group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition posted more than 9,300 officers' information and photographs last month in a searchable online database following a public records request by a reporter for progressive news outlet Knock LA. Hundreds of undercover officers were included in the database, although it's not clear exactly how many because the database doesn't specify which officers work undercover.
The officers were not given advance notice of the disclosure, and the backlash has roiled the department. The inspector general is investigating Chief Michel Moore and the agency's constitutional policing director Liz Rhodes after an officers' union filed a misconduct complaint.
While the city attorney's office determined the agency was legally required to turn over the records - which includes a photograph and information on each officer including name, ethnicity, rank, date of hire, badge number and division or bureau - under California law, exemptions are often made for safety or investigative reasons.
The Stop LAPD Spying Coalition opposes police intelligence-gathering and says the database should be used for "counter surveillance." They created the site for the public.
"There's so many different portals that have the information about the officers already, so it's not that this is the first time it's been published," said Hamid Khan with the coalition. "The LAPD and the Police Protective League is really sensationalizing this information."
Attorney Matthew McNicholas said 321 undercover officers filed legal claims, the precursor to a lawsuit, through his office and more are expected to come forward. The officers' names were not listed on the court documents.
"Only time will tell how many there are total," McNicholas said Tuesday during a news conference announcing the filings. If you visit the webpage with the officer's information, you'll see that in order to pull up photos, you have to search for a particular officer's name. But McNicholas said criminals have already gotten access to the bulk of the photos and are able sniff out undercover officers.
The claims allege negligence and seek unspecified damages. The plaintiffs say they can no longer work as undercover officers and, in some cases, may not be able to work in policing altogether going forward.
McNicholas said his clients fear for their safety - as well as that of their families - and want to know whether the city will provide protection for them. He said he's aware of several investigations involving undercover officers, such as cases into gangs, drugs and sex traffickers, that have been stopped in the wake of the disclosure. He would not provide additional details.
"Some of their officers had been threatened based on the material released, that they were outed," said McNicholas. "This presents a significant threat to the safety of the citizens of Los Angeles."
He also said, "If you think that that information is confined to the first webpage, that's folly. It is absolutely not. If you're technologically savvy, you can pull all the information off and make it sortable."
Eyewitness News reached out to the city attorney's office, which declined to comment. But Moore made it clear last month that he is unhappy with the release of his officer's pictures and information.
"I worry every day about mine wife and about my family because of the threats and the issues that come against me as an individual," he said. "So I'll do everything within my power to protect the privacy interests of our officers."
Tuesday's claims follow separate lawsuits filed last month by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents the department's rank-and-file officers. The union has sued the police chief in an attempt to "claw back" the undercover officers' photographs and prevent further disclosure.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.