In a well-intended but misguided attempt to shield police officers across Pennsylvania, state legislators are considering a House bill that would prohibit the release of the identity of a law-enforcement officer involved in a "use of force" incident that results in serious injury or death.

We believe that such a law would hamstring even the police, to say nothing of the public relations disaster it could create.The bill is sponsored by Martina White, R-Philadelphia, and is signed by 57 co-sponsors - 39 Republicans and 18 Democrats. That's 28 percent of the total number of 203 state representatives. Among the co-sponsors are state Reps. Doyle Heffley, R-Carbon; Gary Day, R-Lehigh; and David Parker, R-Monroe.The way the bill reads now, unless criminal charges are filed, an officer's identity would be released only if he or she gives consent in writing - now, you know that will never happen - or 30 days will have passed, or after the investigation is completed. Even then, investigators would still be able to withhold the name if they choose to do so. In an amended version of the bill, the word "shall" replaces "may," eliminating any discretion in the matter. The proposed bill would make it a crime to release this information prematurely.This bill pierces the heart of freedom of information in an open society. Residents have a right to know all of the key information involving an incident, including the suspect's name, age and address. Shielding the police officer involved in a serious shooting or shooting death perpetuates the notion that police are trying to hide something. This further opens the chasm of mistrust between the public and law enforcement officials.Our society operates on the premise that if we are given all of the facts as quickly and accurately as possible, we are able to come to an impartial decision. Nothing is more important than in these types of cases which create such emotional responses."I don't think you can shoot someone and expect to remain anonymous," said former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, who retired at the beginning of this year. Ramsey instituted a rule in the City of Brotherly Love to release the name of an involved officer within three days of the incident, unless there are extenuating circumstances calling for a delay.In backing Rep. White's bill, Jack McNesby, head of Philadelphia's powerful police union, called Ramsey's decision "insane and absurd." White said the identities of officers who use deadly force should be kept secret to protect police from harassment and possible attacks. Several police officers who back the legislation said that these days "police are guilty until they are proven innocent."We agree that law enforcement officials should be able to withhold the officer's name briefly if there are overt threats on his or her life or on the lives of family members. This would allow time to put safety procedures into effect. As incidents in other parts of the country have demonstrated, it may be in law enforcement's best interests to release key information, including the officer's name, in response to changing dynamics in the investigation. A mandatory 30-day delay could interfere with the police's ability to respond to rapidly developing and changing tense situations.We join the Pennsylvania Newsmedia Association in urging defeat of this bill. When a person is injured or killed by police action, it is crucial for community members to understand the circumstances surrounding the incident. "Police already wear name tags, are well-known in their communities, and are being recorded by citizens every day," the PNA said.By approving this legislation, it seems to us that the General Assembly would be doing just the opposite of what many police organizations are doing nationally. These agencies are moving in a more transparent direction, not hunkering down in self-protection mode.Release of this and similar key information in a timely and official manner can calm community residents, prevent unfounded rumors from spreading and assure the community that the criminal justice system operates in a fair and unbiased way.We agree with PNA that this bill is poor public policy, contrary to the public's basic right to know and understand what is happening in their communities and detrimental to police/community relations and trust. If the General Assembly passes this bill, we urge Gov. Tom Wolf to veto it.By Bruce Frassinelli |

tneditor@tnonline.com