The police officers’ union attorney is saying that people just want to know for “idle curiosity”?!?! Is it idle curiosity to want to know who is killing people in our communities? After seeing multiple instances of police officers who had repeated questionable shootings we at Malcolm-Che fully support the disclosure of the police officers’ names in any case where someone is shot or killed (including taser incidents). We first reported on this story here.
Judge bars release of Pasadena police officers’ names in fatal shooting
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pasadena17-2009apr17,0,1393699,print.story
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Thursday tentatively sided with a police union in prohibiting the Pasadena Police Department from releasing the names of two officers who shot and killed a man during a traffic stop in February.
The union has argued that releasing the names could imperil the officers by exposing them to possible gang retaliation. Citing two recent California Supreme Court decisions, Judge David Yaffe ruled in a preliminary injunction that the officers’ names should not be released to the public because there is an ongoing internal investigation and the possibility of a criminal prosecution.
“It is definitely possible at this juncture that these officers will never be disciplined or be prosecuted,” Yaffe said. “When the situation changes, it may be a different decision.”
Police Chief Bernard Melekian had planned on releasing the names at a news conference last month but was thwarted when the union obtained a temporary restraining order. An attorney for the city argued in court papers that threats to the officers have subsided and that it was in the public’s interest for the names to be released.
After Thursday’s hearing, Richard Shinee, an attorney for the union, said that the officers’ privacy rights should take priority.
“The safety of the officers always outweighs the need of the public,” he said, adding that the public’s interest in such matters was “idle curiosity, as far as I’m concerned.”The order was granted over the objections of The Times, which sought to get involved in the case this week. An attorney for the newspaper, who also was representing the California Newspaper Publishers Assn., argued in court papers that the identity of officers who exercise lethal force is undoubtedly a matter of public interest.
“That anyone in a position of authority can kill someone and have their identity kept secret is fundamentally inconsistent with our notion of democratic government,” attorney Kelli Sager said after the hearing.
The union also had asked the judge to prevent the department from releasing other information in the officers’ personnel files, or the identities of any other Pasadena officers involved in similar on-duty shootings in the future. Yaffe denied those requests, saying they were overly broad.
“You’re going to have to file a separate application where you outline what it is you’re trying to hide,” Yaffe told the union’s attorneys.
“We’re not trying to hide anything,” Shinee replied.
“Just trying to protect these guys,” said his co-counsel, Elizabeth Gibbons.
Thursday’s preliminary injunction stems from the Feb. 19 shooting of parolee Leroy Barnes Jr., 38. Officers fired 11 shots at Barnes, who had one hand concealed in a backpack and eventually revealed that he was holding a gun.
Shinee said Yaffe’s decision will stand until it is made permanent or is appealed.
First Amendment and open government advocates said Yaffe’s decision undermined the public’s ability to hold the Police Department accountable for its officers’ conduct.
Merrick Bobb, executive director of the nonprofit Police Assessment Resource Center, said the ruling was inconsistent with the state Constitution and case law.
“At base, it is incorrect, and I would imagine that it will not last long,” said Bobb, who recently wrote an opinion piece in The Times criticizing the union’s efforts to withhold the officers’ names.
“Police officers have the right to carry guns . . . Individuals who go into that profession should realize that it is part of the normal function of government for them to be held accountable to the press and the general public,” he said.
Peter Scheer, an attorney and executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the recent Supreme Court decisions should be interpreted more narrowly to allow for greater accountability.
“The public needs to know that the police will not hold anything back in terms of a rigorous investigation of the incident,” he said.
