Los
Angeles Times vs. POST
(Litigation)
Thursday,
February 14, 2008
Information
has recently been circulated in the
Department about POST being ordered to turn
over the names of law enforcement personnel
to the Los Angeles Times. Contrary to the
frantic nature of this recent communication,
AOCDS has been deliberately monitoring this
situation since its inception and remains in
contact with the Sheriff’s Department in
order to best represent its members’
interests.
The case
began when the Los Angeles Times made a
Public Records Act request to POST asking
for the names of all law enforcement
personnel hired and terminated from 1991
until the time of the request. The stated
purpose was to track whether officers were
leaving departments for better jobs, and to
see whether departments were hiring officers
who were fired by other departments.
POST refused
the request, claiming that the information
was confidential and exempt from disclosure
under the Public Records Act. The Times went
to court and the trial court directed that
the information be disclosed. The Court of
Appeal reversed, saying that the requested
information was confidential under the Penal
Code sections that relate to an officer’s
personnel file. The Supreme Court held that
an officer’s name was not information
derived from the confidential personnel
files; that no other exception to disclosure
under the Public Records Act applies, and
that the names would have to be released by
POST.
The Supreme
Court did discuss possible situations in
which officers’ names might not be
disclosed. It acknowledged that throughout
the state there are some officers working in
agencies who, because of their particular
responsibilities, require anonymity in order
to perform their duties effectively or to
protect their own safety, and said that
“[i]f the duties of a particular officer,
such as one who is operating undercover,
demand anonymity, the need to protect the
officer's safety and effectiveness certainly
would justify the Commission in withholding
information identifying him or her.”
Since the
issue of whether or not information “that
might threaten to reveal the identities of
undercover officers or other officers who
have an interest in maintaining anonymity”
was not fully explored in the trial court,
the case was sent back to that court to give
POST an opportunity to demonstrate that
information concerning particular officers
should be exempt from disclosure. The time
period was changed from 1991 to January,
1995 – December, 2007.
In response
to the trial court’s order, POST sent a
directive to all agencies asking whether the
agency believed that the names of any of its
officers should be withheld. The agencies
were directed to notify POST if they desired
to withhold names.
Wayne Quint
questioned the Department about its response
to the POST directive. He learned that POST
provided the OCSD with a forty page list of
officers whose names may be subject to
disclosure. A review of that list indicated
that a number of officers might fit the
criteria set out by the Supreme Court to be
exempt from disclosure. Of those, only a
small handful fell into the time period
specified by the court for disclosure, and
would need the protection of being formally
exempted. The Department, working with
County Counsel, has notified POST that these
names should be exempted from disclosure.
As to those
names being released, Wayne confirmed that
the only information to be provided is the
officer’s name, agency, appointment date,
termination date, and status as either a
peace officer or reserve – the information
specified by the Supreme Court.
AOCDS legal
counsel reviewed the Supreme Court’s
decision and determined that all of the
relevant arguments were ably made and
considered by the Court. As the case
evolved, the scope of the information sought
and subsequently found to be subject to
release was narrowed by the parties and the
court. In making its argument, POST made a
general claim for the need to protect the
identity of law enforcement officers, backed
up by reference to the confidentiality
provisions of the Penal Code. The Supreme
Court pointed out that it could “find no
well-established social norm that recognizes
a need to protect the identity of all peace
officers.” It noted that “[p]eace officers
operate in the public realm on a daily
basis, and identify themselves to the
members of the public with whom they deal.
Indeed, uniformed peace officers are
required to wear a badge or nameplate with
the officer's name or identification
number.” With the exception noted above, it
ordered the names released.
Unfortunately, this issue has been raised in
a manner that has produced needless anxiety
in the membership. Part of the Association’s
obligation to its members is to be aware of
issues that may affect them and to act on
their behalf. The Association takes that
obligation seriously and devotes substantial
resources to remaining informed and
active. We are sorry for the way that some
have chosen to exploit this situation, but
we are confident that the interests of AOCDS
and its members have been more than
adequately represented under the law as the
Court has interpreted it.
If you have
any questions, do not hesitate to contact
the Association.
