Police Panel Upholds Policy on Officer IDs

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Wednesday stood by its new policy to withhold the names of officers from shooting and use-of-force reports, despite forceful arguments from community activists that the practice undermines public confidence in the police.

The commissioners said they may seek a court ruling or a change in state law to clarify whether they can disclose the names, noting that their goal is to be as open as possible.

But, the panelists appeared swayed by the testimony of a city attorney and a law professor who said any “appraisal” of a named officer’s conduct, such as that provided by the chief and commission in shooting reports, could be viewed as personnel information shielded from disclosure by state privacy laws.

“I feel a strong, persuasive case was made that if we were to leave the names in, we may have crossed that delicate line,” Commission President John Mack said. “However, I have not closed my mind to hearing from other informed experts.”

After a nearly two-hour session attended by about 40 people who packed the commission’s hearing room at Parker Center in downtown Los Angeles, Mack said he was also open to considering testimony from attorneys for the news media and civil liberties groups at a future meeting.

The Rev. Lewis Logan of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church told the commission that many minority residents were already concerned about the level of violence used against them by the police.

“There is a tremendous amount of paranoia and fear as it relates to the Los Angeles Police Department’s actions in the African American community,” Logan said. “And just the idea of withholding the information, especially the name or identity of the police officers, will exacerbate that condition.”

Larry Aubry, representing a group he identified as the Community Call to Action and Accountability, also appealed for the commission to reverse its position to address a perception that officers get special protection.

“We find that officers’ rights trump our rights every damn time,” he said.

Mack, former head of the Urban League of Los Angeles, suggested a compromise that would have reinstated the names in shooting evaluation reports done by Police Chief William J. Bratton but would have continued to withhold them from appraisals done by the commission.

That idea went nowhere after Deputy City Atty. Julie Raffish said that both the chief’s and commission’s reports evaluate the actions of officers named within them and therefore would probably be considered by the courts to be protected personnel records.

“If you were to reverse your decision and begin including the names of the officers involved, as well as an appraisal, there is an extremely strong argument to be made and a court would likely conclude that it is personnel information,” Raffish said.

The city attorney’s reading of the law was largely backed by Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, who was invited by Commissioner Andrea Sheridan Ordin to address the panel.

Levenson said there were a couple of cases pending before the state Supreme Court that might clarify what constitutes personnel records, as well as decided cases that do not directly address the officer disclosure issue.

“Even though there is no case specifically on point, it’s not hard to read these cases and see the courts are taking an expansive view of what constitutes a personnel record,” she said.

Ordin, also an attorney, agreed, saying, “There is no way that will not be seen as a personnel record ... if the names are included.”

Ordin suggested that the commission try to file a “friend of the court” brief with the state high court on the two pending cases, with the idea of getting clarification about what constitutes a confidential personnel record.

Mack said he supported taking state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) up on her offer to introduce legislation to clarify the commission’s right to disclose officers’ names in shooting evaluation reports.

Commissioner Anthony Pacheco said he also backed “having the Legislature weigh in on this very important issue and resolve it so this commission and the council or any other commission doesn’t run afoul of penal code provisions and put themselves at risk of potentially enormous lawsuits.”

Mark Harvis, a deputy public defender who testified Wednesday, disputed the claim that courts are leaning against disclosure.

“You have two cases, at least, that come down on the side of openness,” Harvis said.

He suggested that the commission release the original officer-involved shooting reports prepared by the LAPD that include the facts of the shooting and the officer’s name but not the evaluation by the chief or commission of the officer’s performance.

Mack rebuffed the idea, saying, “It would gut the heart of the information we are trying to get out to the public.”

Former City Councilman Nate Holden said the city doesn’t want “to give the impression to the public that we are going to revert back to those days when there was a code of silence.”

Anticipating that the commission would stand by its previous decision, Najee Ali of Project Islamic Hope vowed to take the issue to the City Council, where some members have raised objections.

“We are prepared to fight tooth and nail to make sure that gains we made in police reform are not lost,” Ali said.

Reached after the meeting, Councilman Ed Reyes expressed concern over the policy change and said he hoped that the council would claim jurisdiction over the matter. To do so, at least 10 of the 15 council members would have to agree to act by Friday, according to city rules.

At a minimum, Reyes said, he wants the council’s Public Safety Committee to hold a hearing on the issue.

“It’s a critical move, changing a law that has been in place for 25 years,” Reyes said.

Councilman Jack Weiss, who is the chairman of that committee, said last week that he had planned to take up the issue but Wednesday said he wanted to give the commission more time to gather other views.

“I’m impressed with how thoroughly the commission considered the issue today,” Weiss said. “I’m impressed by their continuing commitment to hear from all sides on what is a complicated decision.”

During the commission hearing, Ordin worried that the legal issues raised by attorneys, if taken to court, might limit the ability of the panel to make public its evaluations of shootings.

Hank Hernandez, an attorney for the Police Protective League, said he was “pleasantly surprised” that the commission stood by its policy change. But he said it does not go far enough to protect officers.

For that reason, Hernandez said he would brief the police union’s executive board members next Wednesday on their legal options.