USE-OF-FORCE REPORTS MAY WITHHOLD NAMES.

Byline: Dan Laidman Staff Writer

Despite its pledge to make ``transparency'' a higher priority, the Police Commission plans to restrict public access to LAPD records that reveal the names of officers investigated for using force against the public.

In response to threatened litigation by the officers union, the civilian panel intends to redact the identities of officers from the police chief's use-of-force reports obtained through the California Public Records Act.

The Police Protective League says the change, which will come before the commission today, is needed to protect cops and to comply with the state's strict privacy laws for peace officers.

Some civil libertarians, though, say the switch will make it more difficult for the public to track problem officers and they suggest that the city is in a strong legal position in a dispute with the union.

``It sounds to me like a serious abuse of the Public Records Act to contemplate redaction of those names,'' said First Amendment lawyer Doug Mirell.

The Police Commission is trying to tread a fine line in which it proactively gives the public summaries of use-of-force cases but removes identifying information, said Richard Tefank, executive director of the commission.

``It's balancing the public's right to know and need to know of incidents with the advice from the City Attorney's Office as to peace officer personnel information,'' he said.

The Los Angeles Police Department conducts an extensive review each time an officer uses serious force, which happens about once every three days. The chief analyzes the case for the civilian commission, which ultimately decides whether the force violated department policy.

The commission voted in December to begin posting summaries of its reviews on the Internet, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made a rare appearance at a commission meeting to support its decision.

At the time, Police Commission President John Mack called the postings ``a big step toward transparency,'' while he and Villaraigosa said they hoped the move would improve relations between the LAPD and the community.

While those online summaries omit the names of officers and suspects, such information is typically included in the chief's report to the Board of Police Commissioners, which is more difficult to obtain but is a public document under state law.

The officers union supported the anonymous online summaries but had long pressed the board to stop releasing the chief's analysis.

``Our approach is simply a concern over officer safety and their families,'' said Hank Hernandez, general counsel for the union. ``In this era of high-tech and Internet, the locations where officers live and work can be easily determined.''

The union indicated it would be willing to sue over the disclosure, Hernandez said. In closed-door meetings with city lawyers, the commission decided to continue releasing the chief's reports but without the names of officers and sensitive tactical information.

The decision was made in private without a vote because the reports will still be released, Tefank said. However, because of the public interest, the commission will have the matter on its agenda today for discussion.

A spokesman for Villaraigosa referred most questions to the City Attorney's Office. A spokesman there declined to comment, saying city lawyers gave privileged advice to their clients on the commission.

``The mayor is committed and has demonstrated increased transparency at the Police Commission; however, this interpretation of the law has been made by the city attorney and the Police Commission has been advised to follow it,'' said Joe Ramallo, a spokesman for Villaraigosa.

Terry Francke of the open-government group Californians Aware said such a move has the potential to decrease people's confidence in their government. However, he said peace officers have attained a high level of protection in the state, and the courts are currently considering some related cases.

``The cops will often say there's no other class of public employees that gets the level of complaints or the level of absolutely bogus complaints that police do so it's extra protection against extra exposure,'' Francke said. ``But this argument can keep going back and forth because there's no other class of public employee entitled to injure you or even kill you as a matter-of-judgment call which is almost never overridden.''

Stephen Yagman, a Venice-based lawyer who has filed numerous civil- rights suits against the Los Angeles Police Department, said the decision to withhold the names of officers is unjustified.

``Simply knowing the name of a police officer who uses force serves the very important purpose of the public being able to identify repeat offenders. And there isn't any legitimate purpose in hiding those names.''

Dan Laidman, [phone]

dan.laidman(at)dailynews.com