Judge Rules Against Police Union in Personnel File Secrecy Suit

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John L. Cole refused Tuesday to enjoin the Los Angeles Police Department from releasing personal information about its officers without their consent, noting such an order was unnecessary.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, bargaining agent for most officers, had sought the order, claiming in its civil suit: “It is a matter of fact that the (Police Department) has a practice of releasing personal information regarding sworn members of the Los Angeles Police Department to the news media, to the public, to an officer’s co-workers and to other third persons.”

Cole, however, said he saw no proof of any improper disclosure of personnel information, including medical and disciplinary records, and was impressed by procedures to safeguard confidentiality as presented by Assistant City Atty. Catharine H. Vale.

“You want me to order the city to obey the law, and that is a silly order since they are already doing it,” Cole told league attorney Diane Marchant.

According to procedures, Vale assured the judge, the department releases only “blotter information,” such as name, age, area of residence, time in service and assignment, along with a brief summary of the charge when an officer is arrested for a crime.

Medical records are kept in strict confidence, she said, with pertinent information such as the number of sick days used given to commanding officers when necessary.

Disciplinary actions (other than a monthly summary of actions without officers’ names) are made public only when a Board of Rights hearing is requested, Vale said, and that is because Board of Rights proceedings are usually open to the public.

“The evidence demonstrates that the policy, practice and procedure of the Los Angeles Police Department,” she stated in court documents, “is to adhere scrupulously to the lawful restrictions upon the dissemination of information about its police officers.”

She acknowledged one “error” in the Harbor Division in which a supervisor said lieutenants and sergeants regularly looked at officers’ personnel files when evaluating them or recommending raises--an incident cited by the league to indicate violations of confidentiality laws. Vale said procedures had been tightened in that office, and that the league failed to prove any records were wrongly released.

The league claimed releases of personal information about officers violated their constitutional rights to privacy, and violated the state Penal Code, which states that such records must be confidential.