Police Rights Overshadowed

The San Diego County Grand Jury recently issued a glowing report on the San Diego Police Department’s firearms policies and its procedures for investigating shootings.

“Senior leadership of the Police Department is dedicated to enforcement of excellent policies,” said the grand jury, which reviewed 18 shooting deaths that occurred over 18 months.

The report also concluded that officers are thoroughly trained and that they strive to carry out the policies. Both the Police Department and the district attorney’s office were praised for thoroughly investigating each shooting.

The report made the Police Department sound almost superhuman. But the report may have particular credibility because this was the same grand jury that sharply criticized the Sheriff’s Department.

Perhaps the contrast made the San Diego Police Department look better than it is. Or, perhaps the San Diego Police Department’s handling of discipline is truly exemplary.

The city’s first civilian review board seemed to think so. It agreed with the disposition of all of the complaints it reviewed.

But the public has no way of judging. Under the current interpretation of the state’s police officer’s “bill of rights,” no information whatsoever is released about complaints against officers--not even anonymous statistical summaries, and not even to the person making the complaint.

Balancing individual officers’ rights against the public’s rights is difficult, and, in striving to strike such a balance, some confidentiality of personnel matters is reasonable. But the protection allowed under current state law is not. The public is left in the dark unless the case is reviewed by the district attorney or an officer appeals a disciplinary decision to the Civil Service Commission.

A bill by Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) would restore some of the public’s rights.

The bill would allow information on the type, number and disposition of complaints to be released if it did not identify individual officers. It would also allow complainants to be told of the disposition of complaints.

The state police chiefs’ association supports the bill, as do the city of San Diego and Police Chief Bob Burgreen. Support among officers’ organizations is spotty. San Diego’s Police Officers Assn. supports the release of statistical information, but objects to complainants being told of the disposition, because they know the identity of the officer and might make the information public.

The concern of officers about this is understandable; for most people, personnel matters are confidential. But police officers are not most people. They serve the public and are granted the legal right to use lethal force. And, if a complaint procedure is to be meaningful, the complainant has to be told the disposition of his complaint.

We urge support for Sher’s bill. Making such information public is crucial if police departments are to be held accountable for their actions. Without such information, no civilian review, whether by the grand jury or the new civilian review panel, which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters, can be very effective.