OFFICERS' NAMES TO STAY SECRET IN COMPLAINTS.

Byline: Dan Laidman Staff Writer

The Los Angeles Police Commission voted Tuesday to confirm its closed-door decision to withhold the names of officers who use serious force against the public, drawing the condemnation of civil libertarians.

With little discussion, the panel unanimously underscored a directive approved in December after the police union threatened to sue to keep officers' names secret. Civil libertarians, lawyers and the media have used the reports, with their context and thorough accounts of incidents, to track misconduct and hold the LAPD accountable.

Commission President John Mack denied that the decision was at odds with a pledge to be more open and accountable, saying the public is better served by the anonymous case summaries the panel has begun posting online.

``We're adding information,'' he said. ``We feel equally strongly about protecting and respecting the due-process rights of police officers.''

But Catherine Lhamon, racial-justice director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, called the change ``a serious step backwards'' and cast doubt on the city's legal rationale.

``The public needs to be able to have confidence in their police department, and sunlight on the activities of the police is an important component of that,'' she said. ``The decision to withhold the name of an officer who wears his name on his badge is preposterous.''

Neither the commissioners nor the City Attorney's Office would elaborate on the legal reasons behind the change.

Like most other law enforcement agencies, the Los Angeles Police Department will continue to release officers' names in the immediate aftermath of shootings. The change relates to the reports the chief prepares for the commission at the conclusion of use-of-force investigations.

The Police Protective League plans to keep pressing the panel to withhold the entire chief's report because it is based on officers' compelled statements and includes analysis of their actions, said Hank Hernandez, general counsel for the union.

``We still are of the opinion that the entire chief's report is confidential and should not be released,'' he said.

State law gives much deference to peace officers when it comes to their personnel information, but there are three cases before the state Supreme Court that could set important precedents, said Terry Francke of the open government group Californians Aware.

The high court is considering a San Diego case regarding the release of officer information in the disciplinary process; an Oakland case about the release of officers' names and salaries; and a statewide case on whether third parties such as the state Peace Officer Standards and Training agency can release information.

Meanwhile, California has a patchwork of policies that vary from city to city.

``I don't think there's a practice that most departments follow. It's an individual decision by each agency how they handle it,'' said Steve Krull, president of the California Police Chiefs Association. ``There are some things that are governed by state law, but this isn't one of them.''

Dan Laidman, [phone]

dan.laidman(at)dailynews.com