Naming names at the LAPD

FORMER LOS ANGELES Police Officer Bill Rhetts opened fire on three suspects during the 1990s. He shot and killed a gang member who had fired a handgun at him. He shot and paralyzed another man carrying a pistol. He wounded a teenager brandishing what turned out to be a BB gun. Then, after leaving the LAPD for the Riverside Police Department, he shot an unarmed suspect hiding in a doghouse.

We know about Rhetts' unusually prolific history of gunplay because for the last 25 years, police records of officer-involved shootings have been made available to the public. But under a troubling policy implemented silently last December and upheld Wednesday by the Los Angeles Police Commission, the names of officers involved in shootings and in many other uses of force (including with batons and even fists) will be kept secret. The public will never know about the next Rhetts, or whether individual LAPD officers develop a history of violence.

The commission's decision is an example of special-interest politics at its worst. The disclosure policy has worked well in allowing the media and the public to scrutinize the use of deadly force. But now the commission has undermined accountability by replacing openness with secrecy.

The policy of disclosing the names of officers involved in shootings was adopted after the killing of Eulia Mae Love by Los Angeles police in 1979. Officers inexplicably shot and killed Love as she was standing in front of her home complaining about an unpaid utility bill, saying she threatened them with a kitchen knife. The incident revealed a serious problem with the use of deadly force in Los Angeles; to increase accountability, the Police Commission required that the identity of officers be disclosed.

By knowing the officers' names, the media can track their conduct and see if some are repeatedly and disproportionately involved in deadly incidents. For example, in 2004, a Los Angeles Times study revealed that 1% of the Los Angeles Police Department's officers were involved in 20% of all shootings.

What is most troubling is that there is no good reason to keep the names secret. The city attorney's office has argued that the identities of officers in these reports are personnel information and therefore must be kept secret according to California law. Yet as the city attorney's memo also notes, the case law is conflicting, and several challenges are now before the California Supreme Court.