Alright. This is just insane. Do we really want records of LEO's who have received disciplinary action to be sealed. I realize that most of you on TFL think I am a cop hater. I wont waste my time in trying to explain that I am not.
Read this article. And Think. I do not want a group of people who have the power to arrest me, shoot me, or make my life a living hell, get special treatment of having their disciplinary records held secret. This is a precedent. A very bad precedent, that will cause everyone problems.
State shielding corrupt officers
THE PUBLIC HAS lost a major skirmish in the battle for government transparency in California.
Late last month, the state Supreme Court ruled records of disciplinary action taken against police officers must remain secret even when a government body that is independent of the officer's employer holds the documents.
The case involves a San Diego County Sheriff's deputy fired after failing to make an arrest in a domestic violence case and then lying about it. The officer eventually appealed the firing to the county Civil Service Commission.
The San Diego Union Tribune sued the commission under the public records act, seeking documents on the case. The newspaper's lawyers argued the state law that makes any records involving law enforcement personnel confidential doesn't apply when the agency holding those records is not the officer's employer.
It is a simple, straightforward argument. The public has a right to know what action is taken against employees paid with tax dollars and the identity of those employees.
A Superior Court judge ruled against the newspaper, but an appellate panel overturned that decision, deciding that the records were public. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appellate decision in a 6-1 decision.
The fault lies not so much with the court but with a Legislature that bows to pressure from law enforcement unions and grants them special rights and exemptions from disclosure that work directly against the public good. Deep-pocketed unions have pulled off, from their perspective, an excellent job labeling anything other than lock-step adherence to their demands as "anti-police" or "anti-law enforcement," a clear political death knell.
But that doesn't mean that restrictions on police officer records represent sound public policy. In fact, just the opposite is true.
As public records lawyer and advocate Terry Francke has repeatedly said, sometimes the very public employees about whom people may need to know the most, those with the power of arrest and who can administer lethal force, are the very ones who enjoy ironclad restrictions on their records.
Police officers are a generally conservative lot, yet their unions often act in ways that many conservatives abhor, becoming the ultimate special interest in Sacramento and winning huge legislative concessions to protect their members' records.
In the San Diego case, the officer was fired after responding to a domestic violence call and failing to arrest a suspect despite there being probable cause to do so, not writing a report of the incident and then lying in a patrol log that the victim bore no signs of physical injury and that the suspect had fled.
The sheriff's department did the right thing in firing the officer. Such action is what the public expects.
But the officer appealed the firing and eventually the county agreed to a settlement of the appeal that changed the record from a termination to a resignation and removed the untruthfulness charge.
One of the most basic issues involves the officer's identity. His or her name has never been released. The court's ruling means that the names of any disciplined officers are secret.
The Legislature, bowing to special interest pressure, created a system that allows bad cops to cloak themselves in shrouds of secrecy. Officers fired for cause can force settlements that clean up their records and hide their identity. This potentially leaves them eligible for future public employment in other jurisdictions as law enforcement officers.
And it allows officer's disciplined but not fired to be assured that their records remain sealed and their identity's hidden from public knowledge. Even police officers disciplined for wrongly shooting people are protected.
Police and their advocates argue that opening records that may contain false allegations against officers besmirches their reputations.
It is unfortunate when an officer is wrongly accused of abuse and misconduct, but their individual interests and reputations cannot outweigh the public need for government transparency. The shrouds have to be lifted. Behind them, bad cops can find their ways back to the street.
The only fix is legislative. California's lawmakers need to pass a bill creating public access and accountability in police disciplinary cases.
But such a bill, despite the overwhelming need, won't happen. Lawmakers probably won't even introduce it, let alone pass it
They don't have the guts.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/15541826.htm
Read this article. And Think. I do not want a group of people who have the power to arrest me, shoot me, or make my life a living hell, get special treatment of having their disciplinary records held secret. This is a precedent. A very bad precedent, that will cause everyone problems.
State shielding corrupt officers
THE PUBLIC HAS lost a major skirmish in the battle for government transparency in California.
Late last month, the state Supreme Court ruled records of disciplinary action taken against police officers must remain secret even when a government body that is independent of the officer's employer holds the documents.
The case involves a San Diego County Sheriff's deputy fired after failing to make an arrest in a domestic violence case and then lying about it. The officer eventually appealed the firing to the county Civil Service Commission.
The San Diego Union Tribune sued the commission under the public records act, seeking documents on the case. The newspaper's lawyers argued the state law that makes any records involving law enforcement personnel confidential doesn't apply when the agency holding those records is not the officer's employer.
It is a simple, straightforward argument. The public has a right to know what action is taken against employees paid with tax dollars and the identity of those employees.
A Superior Court judge ruled against the newspaper, but an appellate panel overturned that decision, deciding that the records were public. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appellate decision in a 6-1 decision.
The fault lies not so much with the court but with a Legislature that bows to pressure from law enforcement unions and grants them special rights and exemptions from disclosure that work directly against the public good. Deep-pocketed unions have pulled off, from their perspective, an excellent job labeling anything other than lock-step adherence to their demands as "anti-police" or "anti-law enforcement," a clear political death knell.
But that doesn't mean that restrictions on police officer records represent sound public policy. In fact, just the opposite is true.
As public records lawyer and advocate Terry Francke has repeatedly said, sometimes the very public employees about whom people may need to know the most, those with the power of arrest and who can administer lethal force, are the very ones who enjoy ironclad restrictions on their records.
Police officers are a generally conservative lot, yet their unions often act in ways that many conservatives abhor, becoming the ultimate special interest in Sacramento and winning huge legislative concessions to protect their members' records.
In the San Diego case, the officer was fired after responding to a domestic violence call and failing to arrest a suspect despite there being probable cause to do so, not writing a report of the incident and then lying in a patrol log that the victim bore no signs of physical injury and that the suspect had fled.
The sheriff's department did the right thing in firing the officer. Such action is what the public expects.
But the officer appealed the firing and eventually the county agreed to a settlement of the appeal that changed the record from a termination to a resignation and removed the untruthfulness charge.
One of the most basic issues involves the officer's identity. His or her name has never been released. The court's ruling means that the names of any disciplined officers are secret.
The Legislature, bowing to special interest pressure, created a system that allows bad cops to cloak themselves in shrouds of secrecy. Officers fired for cause can force settlements that clean up their records and hide their identity. This potentially leaves them eligible for future public employment in other jurisdictions as law enforcement officers.
And it allows officer's disciplined but not fired to be assured that their records remain sealed and their identity's hidden from public knowledge. Even police officers disciplined for wrongly shooting people are protected.
Police and their advocates argue that opening records that may contain false allegations against officers besmirches their reputations.
It is unfortunate when an officer is wrongly accused of abuse and misconduct, but their individual interests and reputations cannot outweigh the public need for government transparency. The shrouds have to be lifted. Behind them, bad cops can find their ways back to the street.
The only fix is legislative. California's lawmakers need to pass a bill creating public access and accountability in police disciplinary cases.
But such a bill, despite the overwhelming need, won't happen. Lawmakers probably won't even introduce it, let alone pass it
They don't have the guts.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/15541826.htm