“In January 2007, a Los Angeles police disciplinary board ruled officer Steven Garcia was justified in shooting to death a 13-year-old boy who allegedly tried to back over Garcia with a stolen car after a chase two years ago. This finding outraged some in the community and contradicted the earlier finding of the civilian Police Commission, which said the officer should face discipline for the shooting of Devin Brown. Exacerbating this outrage, according to city leaders who spoke out after the case, was that the disciplinary board's hearing was conducted entirely in secret.” (Winegar, N. Hidden Behind a Badge?)
The recent California court case of Copley Press v. County of San Diego curtailed media access to documents generated in police misconduct hearings. In that case, the court stated, “Copley insists that 'public scrutiny of disciplined officers is vital to prevent the arbitrary exercise of official power by those who oversee law enforcement and to foster public confidence in the system, especially given the widespread concern about America’s serious police misconduct problems.' There are, of course, competing policy considerations that may favor confidentiality, such as protecting complainants and witnesses against recrimination or retaliation, protecting peace officers from publication of frivolous or unwarranted charges, and maintaining confidence in law enforcement agencies by avoiding premature disclosure of groundless claims of police misconduct.”
Which is more important, the privacy of the police officer or the community’s desire to know who is patrolling their neighborhoods?