Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 10, 2006 13:00:45 GMT -5
State law protects officers from disclosure of complaints
In California, unlike much of the country, police disciplinary records and citizen complaints against officers are kept secret by law.
By contrast, at least 30 states allow partial or complete public access to police personnel records.
But here, where the disciplinary records of numerous professions -- including doctors, lawyers and accountants -- are readily accessible to consumers, the public is largely kept in the dark, even when officers have a continuing pattern of misconduct.
The confidentiality law was enacted a quarter-century ago at the urging of law enforcement lobbying organizations.
"Police in California and some states have had the political clout to have most of their records closed,'' said Samuel Walker, a leading expert on police discipline who recently wrote "The New World of Police Accountability."
"That's the only explanation for it,'' Walker said.
Law enforcement officers in California, as well as 13 other states, have an additional shield, a special set of legal protections when they are being investigated by their own departments.
Called the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, the almost 30-year-old state law imposes limits on investigative procedures, internal hearings and punishment.
One important provision requires that disciplinary charges or other punitive actions be lodged against an officer within one year of the time of complaint. The legislation was created in response to departments' overzealous internal investigations, police say.
Critics of the statute of limitations say disciplinary investigations can be complicated and take more than a year to complete. In San Francisco, between 1996 and 2004, 129 cases were dismissed because the Office of Citizen Complaints or the Police Department failed to meet the deadline.
"It was controversial providing all these rights,'' said Hank Hernandez, a former Los Angeles police officer who helped draft the law. He is general counsel for the Los Angeles Police Protective League.
"We had to come up with a lot of horror stories about departments holding officers incommunicado for many hours, not disclosing charges against them.''
Police officers and other law enforcement representatives, who lobbied for their special protections, say they are entitled to singular rights because their work is dangerous, their profession unique.
"No other public employees have the awesome power that the law grants a police officer,'' Hernandez said. "We need a police force that is motivated to engage the criminal element."
If the public "doesn't support officers," he said, "if officers aren't treated fairly, what's to motivate them to go down the alley? What you would have is a heck of an increase in crime."
In 1978, a confidentiality section was created in the state penal code after a state court decision expanded defendants' rights to obtain citizen complaints against officers.
Some law enforcement agencies, in response, tried to protect their officers by destroying complaint reports, in what legislative documents described as "massive record-shredding campaigns." That made it impossible to prosecute some cases.
Powerful police unions "aggressively pushed" for the measure to keep the records confidential, in return for preserving them, said John Crew, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's police practices project, which monitors Bay Area police departments for violations of constitutional rights.
"Why should you have a privacy right to how you hit someone with a baton in public?" he said. "To do the very delicate job of police, we delegate certain powers to use in our name. But that delegation of power isn't unlimited. If they misuse the powers, it has a huge ramification.
"The idea that how an officer exercises those powers should be secret is contrary to a free society."
Police representatives say the layers of secrecy built into the process are necessary because officers often are targets of false complaints that could unfairly taint their records. They also say that blocking access to officer records helps instill public trust in the system.
"If every complaint becomes public knowledge, you could lose confidence in the officer who comes to your home," said Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which has helped draft some of the most significant legislation affecting law enforcement.
"A lot of this is about protecting the public reputation of an officer."
San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong said she supports the law shielding officers' identities when information on citizen complaints is released.
If officers' "names are put out there, how are they supposed to respond to a challenging situation?'' Fong asked. "Members of the public might start pointing fingers'' at them and "complicate what are already very complicated responses.''
Those devoted to policing the police, though, say the law protects potentially dangerous officers.
"It is a huge problem. The public has no idea what discipline is being meted out," said Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director with the ACLU in San Francisco. "Some officers have had significant discipline, but no one knows who they are.
"Police officers are public employees. The public should have a right to know whether they have been suspended."
In San Francisco, all citizen complaints about police officers made to the Office of Citizen Complaints are confidential.
The office, which operates under the umbrella of the Police Commission, makes public information on the number and type of complaints it receives and the number sustained or rejected. But specific cases, along with the names of officers and complaint histories, are withheld.
Also confidential is the way investigations are done and their outcome.
"It's always a difficult task for us to show the citizenry that a process is in place and it works because no one ever sees it,'' said Kevin Allen, director of the Office of Citizen Complaints.
"The trend nationally is more transparency in police work -- the public wants to know more about what police do.''
When states impose overly broad confidentiality laws, dangerous officers are protected and accountability is thwarted, some critics say.
"They have elevated it to a religious principle that the public has no right to know,'' said James Chanin, an Oakland civil rights lawyer who specializes in police misconduct cases. He served on Berkeley's first police review board, one of the oldest in the country, in the early 1970s.
"Where officers live, their children's schools, medical conditions, that kind of information should be confidential," Chanin said. "But anything to do with their performance should be public.
"The public is their employer, more so than doctors, lawyers, accountants for whom there is disclosure. There are bad people in every profession, and there are safeguards in place to know who they are. But for police, there is such incredible secrecy, like it's a nuclear secret."
In California, unlike much of the country, police disciplinary records and citizen complaints against officers are kept secret by law.
By contrast, at least 30 states allow partial or complete public access to police personnel records.
But here, where the disciplinary records of numerous professions -- including doctors, lawyers and accountants -- are readily accessible to consumers, the public is largely kept in the dark, even when officers have a continuing pattern of misconduct.
The confidentiality law was enacted a quarter-century ago at the urging of law enforcement lobbying organizations.
"Police in California and some states have had the political clout to have most of their records closed,'' said Samuel Walker, a leading expert on police discipline who recently wrote "The New World of Police Accountability."
"That's the only explanation for it,'' Walker said.
Law enforcement officers in California, as well as 13 other states, have an additional shield, a special set of legal protections when they are being investigated by their own departments.
Called the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, the almost 30-year-old state law imposes limits on investigative procedures, internal hearings and punishment.
One important provision requires that disciplinary charges or other punitive actions be lodged against an officer within one year of the time of complaint. The legislation was created in response to departments' overzealous internal investigations, police say.
Critics of the statute of limitations say disciplinary investigations can be complicated and take more than a year to complete. In San Francisco, between 1996 and 2004, 129 cases were dismissed because the Office of Citizen Complaints or the Police Department failed to meet the deadline.
"It was controversial providing all these rights,'' said Hank Hernandez, a former Los Angeles police officer who helped draft the law. He is general counsel for the Los Angeles Police Protective League.
"We had to come up with a lot of horror stories about departments holding officers incommunicado for many hours, not disclosing charges against them.''
Police officers and other law enforcement representatives, who lobbied for their special protections, say they are entitled to singular rights because their work is dangerous, their profession unique.
"No other public employees have the awesome power that the law grants a police officer,'' Hernandez said. "We need a police force that is motivated to engage the criminal element."
If the public "doesn't support officers," he said, "if officers aren't treated fairly, what's to motivate them to go down the alley? What you would have is a heck of an increase in crime."
In 1978, a confidentiality section was created in the state penal code after a state court decision expanded defendants' rights to obtain citizen complaints against officers.
Some law enforcement agencies, in response, tried to protect their officers by destroying complaint reports, in what legislative documents described as "massive record-shredding campaigns." That made it impossible to prosecute some cases.
Powerful police unions "aggressively pushed" for the measure to keep the records confidential, in return for preserving them, said John Crew, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's police practices project, which monitors Bay Area police departments for violations of constitutional rights.
"Why should you have a privacy right to how you hit someone with a baton in public?" he said. "To do the very delicate job of police, we delegate certain powers to use in our name. But that delegation of power isn't unlimited. If they misuse the powers, it has a huge ramification.
"The idea that how an officer exercises those powers should be secret is contrary to a free society."
Police representatives say the layers of secrecy built into the process are necessary because officers often are targets of false complaints that could unfairly taint their records. They also say that blocking access to officer records helps instill public trust in the system.
"If every complaint becomes public knowledge, you could lose confidence in the officer who comes to your home," said Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which has helped draft some of the most significant legislation affecting law enforcement.
"A lot of this is about protecting the public reputation of an officer."
San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong said she supports the law shielding officers' identities when information on citizen complaints is released.
If officers' "names are put out there, how are they supposed to respond to a challenging situation?'' Fong asked. "Members of the public might start pointing fingers'' at them and "complicate what are already very complicated responses.''
Those devoted to policing the police, though, say the law protects potentially dangerous officers.
"It is a huge problem. The public has no idea what discipline is being meted out," said Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director with the ACLU in San Francisco. "Some officers have had significant discipline, but no one knows who they are.
"Police officers are public employees. The public should have a right to know whether they have been suspended."
In San Francisco, all citizen complaints about police officers made to the Office of Citizen Complaints are confidential.
The office, which operates under the umbrella of the Police Commission, makes public information on the number and type of complaints it receives and the number sustained or rejected. But specific cases, along with the names of officers and complaint histories, are withheld.
Also confidential is the way investigations are done and their outcome.
"It's always a difficult task for us to show the citizenry that a process is in place and it works because no one ever sees it,'' said Kevin Allen, director of the Office of Citizen Complaints.
"The trend nationally is more transparency in police work -- the public wants to know more about what police do.''
When states impose overly broad confidentiality laws, dangerous officers are protected and accountability is thwarted, some critics say.
"They have elevated it to a religious principle that the public has no right to know,'' said James Chanin, an Oakland civil rights lawyer who specializes in police misconduct cases. He served on Berkeley's first police review board, one of the oldest in the country, in the early 1970s.
"Where officers live, their children's schools, medical conditions, that kind of information should be confidential," Chanin said. "But anything to do with their performance should be public.
"The public is their employer, more so than doctors, lawyers, accountants for whom there is disclosure. There are bad people in every profession, and there are safeguards in place to know who they are. But for police, there is such incredible secrecy, like it's a nuclear secret."