Shielding Officer IDs Affirmed

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday publicly affirmed a secret decision made two months ago to withhold the names of officers involved in shootings and defended the policy change, saying it actually was a “proactive” move to continue providing public details on deadly-force incidents.

Commissioner Andrea Ordin, speaking for the five-member civilian panel, said the decision to shield the identity of officers ensured that shooting reports would not be considered “personnel information” under state law and exempted from public disclosure.

For 25 years, the commission had routinely released shooting reports containing officers’ names before ending that policy late last year without any public notice or discussion.

The commission’s decision to end that practice was criticized by advocates of government openness, who complained Tuesday that the panel was misreading state law and doing so in a way that shields officers from public accountability in shootings.

“There were concerns that someone could argue persuasively that these [shooting reports] were personnel records,” Ordin said. “It was the city attorney’s advice that the redaction of the officers’ names would reduce that risk significantly.”

Contrary to statements made by Commission President John W. Mack last week and Tuesday, Ordin acknowledged that the panel did, in fact, have discretion to release the names but elected to withhold them, in part to guard against potential lawsuits from LAPD officers. Mack said it was his belief that state law gave the commission no choice in the matter.

“The commission has discretion,” said Ordin, a former U.S. attorney who served as a member of the Christopher Commission, which examined the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King.

“But the commission doesn’t want to abuse that discretion.... As time goes on, we will see if there needs to be additional transparency. At the moment, in our best judgment, this is the best way to have the most information available.”

Though state law recognizes an officer’s right to privacy, many legal experts say it also gives police agencies discretion to release such information.

Even though lawyers from City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo’s office advised the commission to remove the names of officers from shooting reports -- which contain assessments of officers’ conduct -- they told police officials that officers needed to be identified in news releases about shootings.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and police union leaders voiced support for the commission’s 5-0 vote Tuesday, saying the panel was trying to balance the privacy rights of officers with the need to make the Police Department more transparent.

“I know this group of people. They are reform-minded,” Villaraigosa said of the commission.

Villaraigosa, however, said he did not have detailed knowledge of the issue and added that he would seek additional information from his staff.

“I feel very strongly that a politician, a priest and a police officer are accountable to the law and not above the law,” he said.

Bob Baker, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, praised the commission’s position.

“Law enforcement officers are unique in that their work opens them to potential retaliation from criminals,” he said. “We need to be able to protect the safety as well as the privacy of our officers and their families.”

Civil rights activists and LAPD observers had a different reaction to the commission’s policy change.

They said withholding officer names from shooting reports undermined their ability to hold police accountable.

If commissioners were committed to “transparency” as they frequently claim, they would release the names of officers and defend their position in court if sued, the critics said.

“Police officers who wear their names on their badges have no expectation of privacy in their names themselves,” said Catherine Lhamon, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

“By contrast, shedding sunlight on police activity -- including through public identification of officers involved in shootings -- strongly bolsters public confidence in the workings of the department sworn to protect and serve the community.”

Lhamon called the commission’s refusal to disclose the names of officers in shootings a “mistake” that is not required under the law.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of law at Duke University and a longtime observer of the LAPD, said he was unaware of any court decision saying the names of police officers in California should be withheld from shooting reports.

“We normally don’t think of names as private information,” Chemerinsky said in a telephone interview from North Carolina. The commission’s decision to begin withholding names, he said, will inhibit public scrutiny of the police “in one of the areas where it is most needed.”

At the center of the controversy was the legal opinion from the city attorney’s office that made the case for withholding officers’ names.

On Tuesday, Villaraigosa said he thought the opinion should be made public, even though the city attorney’s office and Police Commission refused to release it. “I think they should share it” with the media, the mayor said in a meeting with Times editors.

Despite Villaraigosa’s remarks, the mayor’s staff declined to ask the Police Commission for a copy of the opinion, saying they did not want to interfere with the civilian panel.

Members of the commission are appointed by the mayor for five-year terms.

Deputy Mayor Maurice Suh, who oversees public safety matters for the mayor, was briefed on the opinion by the city attorney’s office and was satisfied with the need for the change in commission policy, a mayor’s spokesman said.

Beginning in January, the Police Commission began posting summaries of shootings and other use-of-force incidents on the Internet, along with a review of the commission’s findings. It was touted at the time as “a big step toward transparency.”

Ordin said Tuesday that it was while commissioners were attempting to launch the program that they were informed by the city attorney that identifying officers by name in documents that analyze their roles in shootings could expose the panel to legal action.

Ordin said commissioners decided that going forward with the Internet postings and continuing to release the shooting reports produced by the chief were more important than disclosing the identities of individual officers.

In addition to the policy debate, the role of commission Executive Director Richard Tefank has come under scrutiny as leaders of the Police Protective League, Tefank said, encouraged the police union to threaten a lawsuit to push the panel toward adopting the new policy.

In his conversation with Times editors, Villaraigosa said he was troubled by those reports and promised to investigate them.

Tefank has said he did not recall making such a suggestion to the union.

Attorney Stephen Yagman, who has made a career of suing the Los Angeles Police Department over alleged civil rights violations -- including allegedly unjustified shootings -- said he was stunned by the commission’s decision to begin withholding officers’ names and their explanation for doing so.

“It’s double talk,” Yagman said. “It appears to be true, but it’s false. Giving less is not giving more.”

Times staff writer Duke Helfand contributed to this report.