Sometimes Police Need Protection, Too : Privacy: Senate Bill 2764 would give officers that, at a time when news- papers are waging war on their rights.

Since I was first elected to the Legislature in 1982, I have never authored legislation as misunderstood or as misrepresented as my Senate Bill 2764, protecting the safety and privacy of peace officers.

While it is predictable that newspapers would oppose legislation that might in any way limit their access to information, I am disappointed that the stories and editorials have been so misleading. I guess it shows that Mark Twain was right when he said, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

Nevertheless, I would like to clarify why I am standing up for the rights of peace officers at a time when they have become the favorite whipping boy of San Diego’s media.

First, current law clearly states that “police personnel records are confidential,” except when sought through investigations by grand juries, district attorneys, the attorney general or when obtained through the discovery process in a criminal or civil court. This confidentiality is critical in protecting the safety and privacy of men and women given the unenviable task of protecting our lives and property from the most dangerous criminal elements in our society. Without it, they can’t do their jobs, and we, the public, are the ultimate losers.

My legislation, which passed the Senate but stalled in the Assembly last week, seeks to protect this confidentiality from a legal assault being waged by California newspaper publishers. It does so by closing a loophole in the law that has allowed other agencies outside the department, such as civil service commissions, to obtain this confidential personnel information via the back door. Once in their hands, the information is subsequently available to the public and media. Keep in mind that these are situations when an officer is not charged with a crime, but is appealing a departmental action concerning discipline, promotions, demotions and other personnel matters.

Police misconduct is deplorable. It should not be tolerated, and, when discovered, it must be dealt with firmly. But, in our enthusiasm to provide the proper public oversight of law enforcement, we should not sacrifice due process, fairness and privacy for these law-abiding men and women.

Apparently, lawyers representing newspaper publishers have led victims of police misconduct to believe that civil service commissions provide them with some sort of recourse or accountability. This is a cruel deception. In the city of San Diego, for example, only a rare handful of cases involving excessive force are ever heard by the city Civil Service Commission. Only one was held last year.

Where can a citizen get information? Last year the Legislature, with my support, amended the confidentiality law to allow law-enforcement agencies to release detailed information including “the number, type or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, exonerated or unfounded) made against its officers, if that information is in a form which does not identify the individuals involved.”

The law also allows, but does not require, a person who has filed a complaint against a peace officer to be notified of the disposition of that complaint. My legislation would go an important step further by requiring every department in the state to provide this information. In other words, a citizen who files a complaint would now have an undeniable right to know the disposition of that complaint: more information, not less.

What about public oversight of the department? The city of San Diego now has a voter-approved Citizens Review Board on Police Practices, an independently appointed 20-member panel that reviews all complaints and disciplinary actions in response to those complaints. My bill ensures that this board, and many others like it throughout the state, will have access to the records in question.

Finally, I must disagree with those who argue that my bill would close an important “window” into the operations of a police department. At best, this window, as viewed through a civil service commission, is a peephole that provides only distorted views of the rare cases in which an officer appeals. At worst, this window allows the media to peer into the living rooms and bedrooms of officers and their families, places I believe the public has no business entering.

Instead of peeking through a window of an officer’s private life, we should walk right through the front door of the department and get the facts. That’s what the Citizens Review Board is all about.

My bill provides balance. It protects individual privacy while at the same time providing more necessary information to the public.

After all is said and done, this bill, if passed and signed, will lead to more direct accountability for police misconduct, while discouraging fishing trips through other agencies by the media in search of sensationalized stories that may sell more newspapers and boost television ratings but do not contribute to a thoughtful review of police department procedures.

We go to great lengths to protect criminals from being unfairly tried in the press. I think it is only fair and reasonable that a law-abiding peace officer be given at least the same, if not more, respect.