Inside the vast and politically charged machinery of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, where credibility is currency and accountability is supposed to be non-negotiable, troubling questions about favoritism and internal power networks are now impossible to ignore as insider dealings have emerged under Sheriff Robert Luna’s watch. Elected in 2022 on promises of reform and transparency, Luna’s administration has instead been plagued by allegations of cronyism, nepotism, pay-to-play practices, and selective enforcement of policies designed to prevent exactly such abuses. At the center of this storm are two key figures: Captain Ryan Vienna and Captain Michael Moen, whose intertwined careers and personal connections raise serious questions about merit-based promotions, conflicts of interest, and the erosion of departmental integrity.
Drawing from internal San Dimas city documents, public records requests, redacted emails, and text messages obtained through the California Public Records Act (CPRA), this exposé reveals a story of high school buddies leveraging political clout, campaign loyalties, and city council influence to secure plum positions. It’s a tale that not only violates the spirit, if not the letter, of LASD’s own nepotism policy but also disadvantages dedicated lieutenants without the “right” connections. As Luna gears up for potential re-election amid mounting scandals, including federal indictments of his donors and ongoing lawsuits over deputy misconduct, this case exemplifies how personal relationships can trump professional qualifications in one of America’s largest law enforcement agencies.
The Players: A Brotherhood Forged in Youth and Cemented in Power
Ryan Vienna and Michael Moen aren’t just colleagues, they’re lifelong friends whose bond dates back to their days at Glendora High School in the San Gabriel Valley. Both pursued careers in law enforcement, rising through the ranks of LASD. Vienna, an egotistic figure with a dual role as a city council member in San Dimas since 2017 (re-elected in 2022), has cultivated a public image of civic leadership. His official bio on the San Dimas city website touts his “wealth of experience in public service,” including his work as a LASD captain. But behind the résumé lies a network of influence that extends from local politics to the sheriff’s inner circle.
Moen, meanwhile, was promoted to captain of the San Dimas Sheriff’s Station in late 2025, along with Ryan Vienna as captain of the Crescenta Valley Sheriff’s Station, a move that placed him directly in Vienna’s backyard. As captain, Moen oversees law enforcement in the very city where Vienna wields significant political power as a councilmember. This arrangement screams conflict of interest, yet it sailed through with apparent ease. Why? The answer lies in Vienna’s strategic alliances, particularly with Sheriff Luna.
In 2022, as Luna campaigned against incumbent Sheriff Alex Villanueva, Vienna hosted a high-profile campaign party for Luna. This event, held in San Dimas at Vienna’s father’s house, wasn’t just a casual gathering; it was a show of support that aligned Vienna with Luna. Sources familiar with the campaign describe it as a pivotal networking opportunity, where local leaders and law enforcement figures mingled to back Luna’s bid. When Luna won and took office in December 2022, Vienna’s loyalty paid dividends. Almost immediately, Vienna was assigned special projects directly under Luna and even filled in as the sheriff’s lieutenant aide, a role that granted him unprecedented access to the department’s top brass. Insiders said Vienna was following Sheriff Luna around like a lost puppy.
This proximity to power didn’t go unnoticed. Other lieutenants, lacking such personal ties or the means to host campaign events, found themselves at a stark disadvantage. In an agency where promotions are ostensibly based on merit, interviews, and performance, Vienna’s fast track exemplified the “pay-to-play” culture that Luna had vowed to dismantle. As one source from the eighth floor of HOJ said, “If you didn’t throw parties or kiss the ring, you were sidelined while the favorites climbed.”
The Promotion Plot: City Council Influence and a Rigged Selection?
Fast-forward to 2025, when the captain position at San Dimas Station opened up. The selection process, detailed in redacted emails from LASD Commander Walid S. Ashrafnia, was meant to be equitable: a panel of odd-numbered members (typically five), including representatives from the city, business or clergy members, and LASD liaisons. Interviews were scheduled for August 18, 2025, at San Dimas City Hall.
But documents reveal a process tainted by Vienna’s influence. As a San Dimas councilmember, Vienna had the ear of his colleagues, including Mayor Emmett Badar and Mayor Pro Tem Eric Weber, both close friends who endorsed Vienna’s re-election campaigns and, according to insiders, “would do anything he asked.” Badar, in particular, features prominently in a text message dated August 19, 2025, where he thanks Ryan Vienna for leaving messages with “the chief and Rob” (likely referring to Luna or a high-ranking executive) to commend the department for sending “5 well-qualified candidates.” Badar adds, “We believe we selected the candidate that we are sure was the right fit for San Dimas. I’m sure you will or have already confirmed our thoughts.” Badar confirmed Ryan Vienna relayed the message to Sheriff Robert “Rob” Luna in choosing his best friend, Michael Moen.
This message, in a CPRA response, reeks of preordained outcomes. Why would Badar assume confirmation from Vienna unless the councilmember was pulling strings behind the scenes? Further, the emails coordinating the panel, redacted in places, show selective transparency. Names like Anabel Martinez from the LA County Board of Supervisors’ office are visible, but others are blacked out, including those of panel members and senders. Entire pages in the provided documents are fully redacted, prompting the question: What is San Dimas trying to hide? Was Vienna’s involvement scrubbed to avoid scrutiny?
The collusion deepens with Moen’s selection. As Vienna’s high school best friend, Moen was the “right fit” Badar alluded to. Vienna, leveraging his council position, allegedly influenced the panel to favor Moen, ensuring his promotion by Luna. This move not only placed Moen in command of San Dimas, where Vienna could benefit from a friendly captain, but also violated LASD’s nepotism policy (Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-02/010.06).
Worse, on the very day of the interviews, Monday, August 18, 2025, Vienna was actively texting another candidate, Lieutenant Louis Serrano, informing him that the selection was between him and Michael Moen before the fifth candidate had even been interviewed. Text messages show the conversation escalating as early as Mon, Aug. 18, at 1:58 PM (“Good luck today! You got this. Hope it goes well!”), followed shortly after Serrano’s interview by Vienna’s revelation: “Nice… How do you feel? I think it’s between you and Moen.” This exchange occurred before 2:00 PM, when the final (fifth) candidate was still scheduled to interview. What you don’t see are any text messages between Vienna and Moen. Vienna appears to be trying to hide his communications with him.
This appears to have completely undermined the integrity of the captain selection process, as it suggested the fifth candidate had no real chance. LASD is known for throwing “filler” candidates into the top five odd-numbered selections designed to narrow the field and ensure the department’s preferred pick (in this case, Moen) prevails. Four out of the five candidates had no genuine shot at the job; they were props in a rigged game. The early disclosure to Serrano proves the outcome was pre-decided, with Vienna feeding inside information to his preferred contender while the process was still underway.
The policy explicitly prohibits “Qualified Personal Relationships” (QPRs) that could create conflicts of interest, favoritism, or impair departmental checks and balances. Defined broadly, QPRs include blood relatives, marriages, and even “influential” friendships or cohabitations. The guidelines warn against situations where one party can influence another’s professional environment, such as promotions or assignments. In Vienna and Moen’s case, their longstanding friendship, coupled with Vienna’s political role in the city Moen now polices, fits this definition squarely. The policy states: “Department members shall not participate in or influence any workplace decisions involving a relative and/or someone with whom they have a QPR… This includes, but is not limited to, transfers, reinstatements, promotions.”
Yet, no disclosure form (SH-AD-758) appears in the records, and the department’s response to inquiries has been evasive. Other lieutenants, without such insider access, were left in the dust, their qualifications overshadowed by cronyism.
The Cover-Up: Denied PRA Requests and Deleted Messages
Attempts to uncover the truth have been met with stonewalling. A CPRA request filed on December 9, 2025 (PRA #25-4406EL) sought emails between Vienna and Moen from January 1, 2022, to the present; communications regarding their promotions; recommendation emails from executives or council members; and names of participants in the San Dimas and Crescenta Valley selection processes.
LASD’s response, dated February 6, 2026, and signed by Captain Tri T. Hoang under Luna’s authority, denied nearly everything. Item 1 was deemed “unduly burdensome and voluminous,” citing Government Code section 7922.530(a) for lacking specificity. Items 2–4 were classified as “personnel records” under Penal Code section 832.8(d), exempt from disclosure to protect privacy and deliberative processes. The letter invoked the California Constitution and various codes, effectively burying the request in legal jargon.
This denial is a blatant cover-up. Why refuse communications between two captains during their promotion periods unless they reveal improper influence? Notably, the attached text messages in the response include exchanges with interviewers but conspicuously omit any between Vienna and Moen. Sources allege Vienna deleted these messages and failed to disclose them in a separate PRA request to the City of San Dimas, further obscuring the trail.
The redactions are inconsistent: some names are blacked out, others not, suggesting selective editing to protect key players and fuel suspicions of hidden endorsements or directives from Vienna to the panel.
Broader Implications: A Department Riddled with Favoritism
This isn’t isolated. Luna’s tenure has been dogged by cronyism allegations, from promoting figures tied to alleged deputy gangs (as detailed in a 2024 WitnessLA report) to accepting donations from indicted developers like those at Shangri-La Industries (indicted in October 2025 for fraud) and the promotion of his Chief of Staff’s wife, Nancy Escobedo, to command the Sheriff’s Information Bureau. Insiders said Sheriff Luna did not allow other lieutenants to interview for the position. A federal lawsuit accuses Luna of withholding records from oversight commissions, echoing the transparency issues here.
In Vienna and Moen’s case, the nepotism policy meant to “ensure relationships do not create an adverse impact on a professional work environment” has been flagrantly ignored. As the policy notes, “Nepotism is the practice of individuals with power or influence providing unfair advantage… or employment to a relative.” Vienna’s influence over the San Dimas Council, combined with his Luna ties, handed Moen an unfair edge.
Badar and Weber’s endorsements of Vienna amplify the echo chamber. In Vienna’s 2022 re-election announcement on Facebook (February 19, 2022), he thanks Badar, Weber, and others for their support, highlighting their tight-knit group. These “very good friends” likely deferred to Vienna’s preference for Moen, prioritizing loyalty over impartiality.
A Call for Accountability
The Vienna-Moen saga is a microcosm of Luna’s flawed leadership: promises of reform undone by old-school favoritism. Other lieutenants, without campaign parties or high school chums in high places, face systemic disadvantages, eroding morale and public safety. The department’s cover-up through denied PRAs, redactions, and deletions demands an independent investigation by the California Attorney General or federal authorities.
As Luna faces scrutiny in his 2026 re-election bid, voters must ask: Is this the transparency we were promised? Or just another chapter in LASD’s long history of corruption? The documents speak for themselves. Now it’s time for the truth to prevail.
Editor’s Note: I submitted a formal complaint to the Office of Inspector General for an internal investigation. Sheriff Luna was included in the email. Will he follow the law and investigate my complaint?
Leave a Reply