AG supports opening up on police incidents

Perhaps the pendulum is swinging back toward sanity with regard to police officers and open records, even if it's only a slight swing in the right direction. In an opinion released May 19, Attorney General Jerry Brown explained that the public has the right to know the names of police officers involved in incidents involving the use of force and deadly shootings, although he left the door open for some exceptions. The AG offered the opinion following a request by Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco to clarify whether a police agency must release the names of peace officers under the California Public Records Act.

This issue has been in question since the California Supreme Court's disastrous 2006 decision in Copley Press vs. Superior Court of San Diego, in which the court ruled that police disciplinary hearings are private. As a result, the public and media have lost access to information about abusive deputies and police officers. The police unions have fought back legislation to overturn Copley, and police agencies have hidden behind a wall of secrecy, as they claim that Copley protects all such information — even the names of officers involved in troubling incidents — as confidential “personnel” matters.

The attorney general argued that the Copley decision “did not overrule the ‘central holding' of a 1997 California Appellate Court decision, New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, that a peace officer's name is generally subject to disclosure.” In the Times case, the court ruled: “The public's legitimate interest in the identity and activities of peace officers is even greater than its interest in those of the average public servant. ‘Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers.'”

Unfortunately, California has been moving toward more secrecy of officers, and less accountability. Law enforcement unions exert much political influence, and politicians from both parties are afraid to defy them. But officers have an immense amount of power and it's in the public's interest — especially in a nation founded on the principles of limited, accountable government — that the public have relevant information about the behavior of the men and women who exert state power. Clearly, more sunshine and accountability is better than less.

We expect law enforcement to constantly seek exemptions, but at least the attorney general made clear the principle at work here. And at least it shows a long-awaited move in the right direction.