HB 1538 does not have public interest in mind
Police in our country are trusted with an important, yet often dangerous and difficult task. They must — in real time — make decisions about how threatening a person or situation is and react accordingly to enforce the law and protect citizens.
But law enforcement officers are ultimately public servants, and as such, should be held to a high standard. If we are to believe that laws are being applied to all citizens fairly, then there must be a level of transparency with our police, especially regarding the decision to use deadly force against a suspect.
One way to do that is to make sure the public is aware of who is involved in those incidents. But if the Pennsylvania Senate follows the lead of the state House of Representatives and votes in favor of House Bill 1538, there will be much less openness in our commonwealth.
HB 1538 would prohibit the release of the identity of a law enforcement officer involved in a “use of force” that results in serious injury or death. The amended proposal states that, unless criminal charges are filed, the officer’s identity may only be released if the officer consents, 30 days have passed since the incident or after a completed official investigation. And even then, it can still be withheld.
That means that if this bill becomes law, the identities of nearly all law enforcement officers involved in these types of incidents can be shielded from public view because it will be solely up to the discretion of police whether to disclose that information.
Having the involved police agencies making that decision is a conflict of interest and will too easily lead to a lack of accountability.
We feel that police agencies should be required to release identities of officers involved in use-of-force incidents unless a compelling reason against doing so can be provided. The burden of proof should be on the police to keep that information secret, not on the news media or private citizens to make it public.
We also believe that an automatic 30-day delay before releasing the information will interfere with police being able to do their job. There are situations where the public has a right to know about dangerous situations unfolding in their communities.
In December 2015, the Northern York Regional Police Department released footage from a dashboard-mounted camera of an officer-involved shooting in an effort to help locate the suspect. The department’s chief released a statement with the video warning citizens in the area.
“I want the public to know and understand that this is a dangerous man,” NYCRPD chief Mark Bentzel told the York Dispatch.
Had HB 1538 been in effect at that time, NYCRPD would have been committing a crime by releasing that information when it did, as it was within the first 30 days after the shooting. How many lives could have been put at risk due to a needless and overreaching government rule like that?
Police officers serve vital roles in our society. But they also carry and use weapons that can seriously affect or even end a person’s life in an instant.
When law enforcement officers use such force in the line of duty, the public has a right to know the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the identities of the suspect and the officer. Police departments from Maine to Hawaii, from Minnesota to Texas and everywhere in between are moving toward — not away from — more transparency in police-involved use-of-force incidents.
The names of police officers whose actions cause injury to citizens has to be public in all but the most unique of circumstances. The hands of our police also must not be tied by bureaucratic mandates to withhold information, regardless of the situation.
This bill is bad public policy, it flies in the face of the public’s right to know and will only serve to further strain the trust between police and the community.
For those reasons, we urge state Sens. Jake Corman, John Eichelberger, John Gordner, Rob Teplitz and all their colleagues to vote a resounding “no” on HB 1538.
COMMENTS