Editorial: Public has right to access police disciplinary hearings

Our system of government is based on the idea that an open government is a smarter, safer and more effective government. That’s why we have public hearings, public notices and public comment on important issues that affect all of us. It’s also why we have the First Amendment.

So why do California police officers – who hold the most consequential power over the citizenry, the authority to detain or even use lethal force on people suspected of crimes – get an exemption from these long-established ideas of openness and transparency?

Under the interpretation of current laws in California, police disciplinary hearings have been closed to the public. Even complainants can’t learn what sort of punishment officers received in their own cases. The independent oversight boards and commissions that have been set up in many jurisdictions (often as a direct result of police misconduct) aren’t allowed to report these outcomes to the public, either. The public can’t learn the names of officers involved in lawsuits, shootings or other “personnel” matters. And the Legislature is too cowed by California’s powerful police unions to do anything about any of it.

No other state in the union has written its police officers a blank check like California.

Police interests claim that the frightening amount of secrecy protects their officers from violent retaliation, though they can’t point to any specific instances in which disclosing an officer’s disciplinary record has compromised his safety. They also claim that keeping disciplinary records secret protects police from being tainted in the public eye.

We would counter that the undue amount of secrecy unduly taints the profession. Why should we believe that any police misconduct is being disciplined if the public can’t get any evidence that it’s happening? And if it’s not, then why should we trust any police officer to treat civilians properly?

Such laws actually work to the detriment of police officers, since they erode the public’s trust. That’s why the Legislature must pass a bill to bring transparency back to the public safety sector.

We say “bring transparency back” because it wasn’t always this way in California. Until a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling, Copley Press vs. San Diego, the police were subject to some public disclosure rules. That decision, which has been interpreted in a wider way than it may have been intended, effectively shut down public access to any useful information about police misconduct and discipline.

For two years, state Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, tried to reverse the worst aspects of the Copley decision with SB1059. And for two years, peace officers organizations flooded the committee hearings in full regalia, taking advantage of a public process they refuse to have for themselves. They succeeded in killing the bill for two years in a row.

It’s time to revive it. And this time, the public needs to raise its voice about what’s at stake here: our safety and our trust.

Copyright 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.