A journalist secretly under fire: The hidden investigation of Maya Lau by the LA Sheriff’s Department

Listen to the audio

Available now on:

Click to Download the
Complete Audio Transcript

Maya Lau, a former investigative reporter for the Los Angeles Times, recently found herself at the center of a shocking revelation. For over three years, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department conducted a secret investigation against her, accusing her of receiving stolen property related to her reporting on a leaked list of problematic deputies. In a conversation on the podcast, Lau shared her experiences, reflections, and the chilling implications of law enforcement’s actions with E&P Publisher Mike Blinder.

The beginning of the investigation
In 2017, under then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department initiated a criminal investigation into Maya Lau. At the time, Lau was reporting on the department, specifically focusing on a leaked list of deputies implicated in various forms of misconduct. “According to the reporting that I’ve read and the conversations that I had with the journalists who wrote that, the LA County Sheriff’s Department, which was my beat… opened a criminal investigation into me,” Lau explained during the interview. The accusation? The department alleged that Lau was guilty of receiving stolen property — a claim that targeted her journalistic integrity and tested the boundaries of First Amendment protections.

Lau’s reporting delved into the so-called Brady List, named after the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Brady vs. Maryland. This list tracks officers with disciplinary histories that could affect their credibility in court. The existence of the list is crucial because it ensures defense attorneys can challenge the reliability of an officer’s testimony if they have a history of misconduct.

A revival under Villanueva
After the case initially fizzled, the investigation was resurrected in 2018 when Alex Villanueva took over as sheriff. Lau described the revived probe as part of a broader issue of intimidation tactics by law enforcement against journalists. The Sheriff’s Department escalated the investigation, eventually labeling Lau a criminal suspect. She explained how she first learned about the case: “I only learned about it in June when the reporters contacted me about it.”

The department didn't just stop at investigating Lau. They accused Diana Teran, their constitutional policing advisor, of being the source of the leak. Interestingly, Teran had initially reported the leak herself, only to be later accused of being involved in the very information breach she reported. This aspect of the case adds to the tangled web of suspicion and internal politics within the Sheriff’s Department.

Journalistic integrity and the Brady List
The leaked list that Lau received was a vital piece of investigative reporting. It contained the names of deputies whose past misconduct could compromise their ability to testify credibly in court. Lau explained the importance of the list, stating, “I received information about who was on the Sheriff’s Department's Brady List and why they were on it. Many of these deputies were still on the force… This, at the time, was really key information because it had never been obtainable before.”

Despite receiving the leaked list, Lau and her team at the Los Angeles Times took their time to verify the information. They didn’t rush to publish but instead spent months corroborating the details. Lau explained the rigorous process: “We didn’t just take the list and slap it on the internet. We spent months researching… Do we have backup evidence to show and corroborate what is on the list? We went and found details and then ended up putting out a story in late 2017.”

The result of that reporting wasn't just a series of articles exposing misconduct within the Sheriff's Department; it also contributed to legislative changes in California that made it easier to access police misconduct records. Lau's work demonstrated journalism’s critical role in holding powerful institutions accountable.

The chilling effect of intimidation
Lau’s experience with the Sheriff’s Department has broader implications for press freedom. When asked about the pressures she faced due to the investigation, Lau revealed, “I didn't know that it was happening until just two months ago — after the investigation was closed,” she said. Despite the probe’s secretive nature, Lau expressed shock but not surprise. “It was always something I thought could happen… But I never got any concrete information that I was being investigated.”

Lau’s story highlights the potential dangers journalists face when investigating powerful entities, especially law enforcement agencies. She reflected on how these intimidation tactics impact not just individual reporters but the broader media landscape: “This is an intimidation tactic against journalists… I would hope that there is some learning going on in the Sheriff’s Department and in any police agencies across the US that would even think of doing this.”

The investigation into Lau also raised alarms within the journalism community. The First Amendment Coalition and other advocacy groups have spoken out against the Sheriff’s Department’s actions. Lau hopes this case sparks a broader conversation about the role of law enforcement in a democracy and the necessity of protecting journalists from such tactics.

A shift in focus
Since leaving the Los Angeles Times in 2021, Lau has pursued other projects, including producing a podcast on personal finance. While she’s shifted away from day-to-day journalism, Lau hasn’t completely ruled out a return to investigative reporting in the future. When asked whether she might consider returning to journalism, Lau said, “I think about it sometimes… It is really fun to dive back into this world now and then.”

For Lau, leaving traditional journalism wasn’t  due to this investigation. The financial pressures of working in the news industry played a significant role. “I didn’t feel like I could buy a home in LA… I would see friends of mine win Pulitzers and not get a raise after that,” she shared. The frustrations with the industry’s structure, coupled with the demands of motherhood and the pandemic, prompted her to explore other interests.

Looking ahead
Despite stepping away from her role as a full-time investigative reporter, Lau continues to feel the pull of journalism. She offered advice to aspiring journalists, emphasizing the importance of building skills beyond the newsroom. “I truly believe that… you can transfer [journalistic] skills to anything… Think about your career in terms of building your own brand and your network.”

Lau’s journey serves as both an inspiration and a cautionary tale. Her story underscores the power of investigative journalism in uncovering uncomfortable truths and the risks that come with it. In her words, “If you feel like this is what you want to do, you should absolutely try to do it. It's the most thrilling, exhilarating job there is.”