DELETING OFFICERS' NAMES NOW BACK ON FRONT BURNER.

Byline: Dan Laidman Staff Writer

Supporters of the Police Commission's move to reverse a long-held policy and remove officers' names from use-of-force reports have said cops' identities will still be made public right after violent incidents.

A Daily News review of city records, however, found that the Los Angeles Police Department issued public statements with officers' names in less than one-third of serious-force cases in 2005.

The findings are drawing renewed concern because without the full reports, news releases are the main way for the public to learn the identities of officers who shoot at, strike, choke or otherwise seriously injure members of the public.

While the LAPD investigated 91 such incidents in 2005, it put out public statements with officers' names in just 23 instances.

``It reinforces the need for disclosing those names,'' said Catherine Lhamon, racial justice director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which opposed the commission's decision to omit officers' identities.

Chief William Bratton defended the department, saying it is not withholding any information, just publicizing only the most serious incidents.

``We only put out press releases for officer-involved shootings,'' Bratton told the Police Commission recently.

The chief compiles a detailed report for each serious use of force. Before the officers' names were taken out, the news media and civil-rights groups used the comprehensive accounts to track possible misconduct.

Now the public is left with a patchwork of information gathered through the press releases the department issues, as well as possible lawsuits, certain disciplinary hearings and the now-anonymous force reports.

That piecemeal approach could lead to people confusing incidents and drawing the wrong conclusions, said Councilman Bernard Parks, a former LAPD chief.

``Why create a larger misinformation channel?'' Parks said.

The Police Commission moved to withhold names from the chief's reports after the officers' union recently threatened to sue the city to keep the information private. The union maintains that they are confidential personnel records because they contain evaluations of cops' actions.

In its decision to withhold officers' names, the civilian panel said the public will be better served by summaries of its own use-of-force reviews available on the Internet - without names.

That leaves the information in news releases provided by the LAPD soon after a use-of-force incident as the primary way for the public to learn officers' identities.

While the LAPD automatically investigates all serious use-of-force incidents reported, the department typically notifies the public through statements when an event has drawn queries, said Lt. Paul Vernon.

``If there is any interest in the story, I'm writing press releases all day long,'' he said. ``If I've got the initial information and no one's called and asked me about it, no one's doing a story about it, I don't always do a press release on it.''

Police Commissioner Andrea Ordin said it could be that not all the cases last year were divulged in news releases because there ``was the thought that it was not of as much public interest.''

Vernon said that even if the LAPD does not issue a release, it will give out details - including officers' names - if someone inquires about a specific incident.

But some civil-rights activists say that does not go far enough because it requires members of the public to already know about incidents to inquire about details.

Chief's reports, on the other hand, are compiled for each incident, creating a full accounting of officers who use serious force.

``I do think they should make it more comprehensive,'' said the ACLU's Lhamon. ``If they're going to live with this decision - which I think is a serious mistake - they must release the names of officers involved in shootings and other serious uses of force. Those names are not confidential.''

While Bratton said he is comfortable with the current policy of putting out press releases only for shootings, LAPD officials said they will probably add some more information to the statements in light of the Police Commission's policy shift.

Vernon said the nature of the extra information will probably depend on what kind of public queries he receives.

``I've already anticipated that now, because of this change, there will be greater scrutiny,'' he said.

Ordin said she thought the commission would support more upfront disclosure about serious use-of-force cases.

While Ordin and Commission President John Mack have said they want the panel to continue discussing the issue - even calling for more critics to share their views - the board has shown no sign of reversing its decision to omit officers' names.

In the meantime, LAPD officials constantly weigh how much information to disclose each time an officer uses serious force.

Cops shot people 32 times in 2005, according to Police Commission records, and they fired and missed an additional 20 times.

Officers struck people on the head 19 times and performed two chokeholds. There were five in-custody deaths, three ``law enforcement activity related'' deaths, and 10 other ``law enforcement related'' injuries.

Almost all the statements issued with officers' names were in connection with shootings.

Vernon said he typically prepares news releases the day after an incident, using preliminary reports from the LAPD's Force Investigation Division.

The law has long held that the basic facts of such incidents - including officers' names - can be made public.

``When I put out the press release, that's just a matter of fact that a shooting occurred and these are the officers involved,'' Vernon said. ``That's the distinction of why we can say it upfront but later down the line, when it comes to the matter of policy, if an officer is in or out of policy, we can't.''

The mere facts of many of the violent incidents - in which suspects frequently come at officers with guns or knives - usually speak for themselves.

But some of the statements went further and seemed to comment on the propriety of the officers' actions.

A February 2005 news release about a bicycle officer shooting a pit bull, for example, said the officer was ``fearing for her safety.''

Leaders of the Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers, have said they will keep pressing the panel to withhold the entire chief's report regardless of whether names are omitted.

Dan Laidman, [phone]

dan.laidman(at)dailynews.com