Policing the police

THE LOS ANGELES POLICE COMMISSION seems to have painted itself into a corner. The five-member panel appointed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa continues to promise more openness, but it passed up the chance this week to reverse its surprising (and, at first, secret) recent decision to delete from published reports the names of officers involved in use-of-force cases. Commissioners said they were worried about state privacy laws, which they think may now require that the names of officers who shot or otherwise used force to subdue suspects be suppressed. Never mind that for the last 25 years the city’s practice of identifying officers involved in shootings hasn’t been successfully challenged. And never mind that the Legislature hasn’t made any recent changes in laws on officer privacy. Maybe now it should.

When the commission’s change in policy became public this month, state Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) offered to introduce a bill making it clear, once and for all, that naming police officers involved in use-of-force cases does not violate personnel or privacy laws. Some commissioners said they might even consider backing such a bill. That’s great, but Romero shouldn’t wait for them. The Legislature should act as soon as possible.

The Los Angeles Police Department took a giant step toward accountability in 1980 when it began disclosing the names of officers involved in shootings. Since then, including the names has been expected, and routine. It helped the public by providing data that show whether any particular officer poses a problem. And it helped the police -- whether or not the officers and their union want to admit it -- by providing data that can be used to debunk claims that any officer involved in a controversial shooting or arrest is a loose cannon with a long history of violence.

Protecting the public is dangerous work, and police officers do not give up their right to privacy when they take their oaths. But protecting the public includes full disclosure and accountability in cases in which officers must resort to force in making an arrest or stopping a dangerous suspect.

It’s odd that Villaraigosa’s Police Commission, headed by civil rights activist John Mack, took a U-turn on that quarter-century-long policy of disclosure late last year. It’s also odd that the decision came in closed session. And it’s both odd and troubling that police union officials said they were encouraged by the commission’s executive director, Richard Tefank, to threaten a lawsuit in order to get the panel to start withholding the names.

Commission member Andrea Sheridan Ordin, a former U.S. attorney, suggested that the city file a brief in one of two pending state Supreme Court cases dealing with the release of officer data. Perhaps the court will clarify the balance between privacy and disclosure. That’s one way to go. But the Legislature could end all doubt, and Romero should follow through on her offer.