Morgan Hill Police Chief David Swing initiated an internal investigation shortly after it was brought to his attention that an officer posted “intimate photographs” from a suspect’s mobile phone to her Facebook account while she was detained. That was last July. But it took until early February before word got out that two officers were disciplined in the matter.
The suspect filed a claim with the city, which was denied. Now, the woman’s lawyer said he plans to file a lawsuit against the officers involved in the July 16 incident in Santa Clara County Superior Court this month.
Swing and other city staff members have declined to name the officers who were targeted by the investigation. In fact, the chief said he is prohibited by law from releasing their names as well as other personnel information such as what kind of discipline – if any – officers received.
California penal code section 832.7 says “peace officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency … or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding” except by due process. The Times printed their names after filing a Public Records Act and learning who the arresting officer and supervising offiers were.
The fact that two respected officers can make such a mistake in judgement, yet their names and what punishment they received cannot be released, is anathema to transaparency. It’s awfully difficult to build trust, and the police department – like most – needs to build, and rely, on trust within the community.
The officers identified in the July 16 police report are still employed by the city. City staff cannot disclose if any employees are on any type of leave, city attorney Danny Wan said. So, we know they weren’t fired. Were they put on paid administrative leave, or unpaid? Was it for a day, a week or month? How, as citizens, are we to evaluate the job the chief is doing when we can’t evaluate his decisions?
In a similar case, a California judge temporarily blocked the planned March 6 release of a report about last year’s UC Davis pepper spray incident. The Federated University Police Officers Association filed a restraining order March 5 against the report, claiming that it named and incriminated several police officers involved in the incident. The officers’ union that requested the postponement hopes to censor the names of involved police personnel and replace them with pseudonyms. The union believes that the inclusion of officer names and actions is a violation of the state law, which protects the confidentiality of on-duty officers’ privacy, despite the fact that one officer – Lt. John Pike – was caught on video.
Given that the chief cannot, by law, divulge the names of the officers involved, maybe it’s time to lobby for the law to change.
