Gates Must Identify Applicants to Carry Concealed Weapons

Unless he can justify exceptions individually, Sheriff Brad Gates must disclose all the names of those who have applied to his office for concealed-weapons permits, as well as those who have received them, a Superior Court judge ruled Monday.

That order includes the names of reserve police officers, but addresses and phone numbers may be withheld, Judge Robert J. Polis ruled.

However, it may be some time before any of the information covered by the order is made public because Polis said that first he will confidentially review requests by the sheriff for specific exceptions. Then he will give CBS Inc., which filed the lawsuit against Gates that resulted in Monday’s order, up to 60 days to respond.

Polis made clear in his ruling that his inclination will be to make information on a concealed-weapons application public, unless the sheriff can make a strong case against it.

“In the last 12 months, we have seen the value of a hard-working, diligent, perhaps even nettlesome media,” Polis said. “Continuous scrutiny by the media . . . helps keep all of us in line.”

Polis’ decision follows a state Supreme Court ruling last October that a sheriff could no longer keep all information on concealed-weapons permits confidential. The court gave local judges discretion, however, to delete some information if revealing it might be a substantial invasion of the applicants’ privacy or might make them vulnerable to threats.

CBS Inc. had sued Gates and Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, who had refused requests by its affiliate, KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, to review files on concealed-weapons permits.

Lawyers for CBS argued that the information on permit applicants and holders should be public to make it possible to determine whether the sheriffs were abusing their discretion in issuing permits.

In Los Angeles County, the Sheriff’s Department is one of several law-enforcement agencies authorized to issue such permits. In Orange County, all law-enforcement agencies have turned over that responsibility to the county sheriff.

400 Applications Involved

Polis said the disclosure format that he set up would apply not only to CBS but to anyone who made a similar request of the sheriff under the Freedom of Information Act.

CBS brought its lawsuit against Gates three years ago. It involves about 400 applications for concealed-weapons permits in 1983. Polis said his ruling would apply also to applications since then. There are currently about 130 concealed weapons permits that have been issued by the sheriff’s office.

Polis’ order was even broader than a recent order in Los Angeles County in the Block case. Block interpreted the Supreme Court ruling to exclude reserve police officers, so their permits were left out when he turned over permit applications to CBS.

“I didn’t realize until a week ago that I didn’t have them,” said CBS attorney Herbert M. Schoenberg in an interview.

In the Orange County case, the California Reserve Peace Officers Assn. asked that Polis exclude reserve officers from his disclosure order. Polis refused, but he did exclude both their business addresses and telephone numbers as well as their home addresses and telephone numbers. In the case of other applicants and permit holders, only home addresses and telephone numbers will be excluded.

Polis told Glenn E. Stern, attorney for the association, that he will give careful consideration to specific requests to delete the names of any reserve officers who might be doing undercover work for a police agency.

Stern said later that he is satisfied with Polis’ order.

“He is a prince of a judge,” Stern said. “We think his decision is reasonable and one we can live with.”

Polis denied a request by Gates’ attorney to delete portions of the applications in which the applicant answered personal questions about matters such as prior arrests, institutionalization in mental hospitals and drug use. But he told Assistant County Counsel Arthur C. Wahlstedt Jr. that he would review any specific cases Wahlstedt brought to his attention.

While Polis agreed with Gates’ argument that home addresses and telephone numbers should be deleted in all cases, he would not agree to delete the city where the applicant resided. Wahlstedt eventually dropped his objection to that.

CBS’ Schoenberg said he was pleased with Polis’ decision and the process he has set up. Polis told Wahlstedt to underline in yellow on the applications anything further he thought should be deleted from public disclosure.

“The judge is not going to give him a blank check,” Schoenberg said. “When the judge is through, I don’t think you’ll find very many yellow lines left.”