We have been staunch supporters of law enforcement officials and will continue to be in their efforts to protect our communities and residents.

We must, however, part company with the Pennsylvania State Police brass on their dogged determination to keep a grand jury report in Northampton County from public view. This is a continuation of the dispute between the state police and county District Attorney John Morganelli involving the fatal shooting in May of a demonstrably suicidal Lower Mount Bethel Township man by two state troopers.

Morganelli wanted a county detective to be the lead investigator in the case, but the state police insisted that it would handle the matter in-house. Morganelli noted that the state District Attorneys Association developed best practices guidelines as to how police-involved shootings should be handled. In it, the recommendation is for an independent agency to conduct the inquiry.

We originally weighed in against the state police, pointing out that the decision to handle the investigation in-house would be viewed with suspicion by the public.

Morganelli convened a grand jury, which determined that the troopers — Eddie Pagan and Jay Splain — were justified in their actions that resulted in the shooting death of Anthony Paul Ardo, 47.

Morganelli also announced that the grand jury would release a second report with recommendations about the state police’s decision to investigate the incident in-house. The district attorney acknowledged that the grand jury’s report would be merely advisory, but thought it could serve as guidance for legislators and Gov. Tom Wolf.

We were appalled when the state police went to court to block the grand jury report. Thankfully, Judge Stephen Baratta ruled that the grand jury should continue its deliberations, despite protests from Richard Zack, the state police’s legal counsel. There is no deadline for the grand jury to issue its report.

We applaud Baratta’s tongue-lashing of Zack in which the judge accused the state police of trying to muzzle criticism.

Zack disagreed that the state police were trying to sidestep what is likely to be a critical report, saying that the state police are “entirely transparent about their conduct and their investigations.”

Hmm. Odd. If they are so transparent, why try to block the report of a group of 23 ordinary citizens who have investigated the question? Baratta agreed, asserting that it seems as if the state police are basically saying that no one is allowed to tell them what to do.

Morganelli joined Baratta in castigating state police efforts to block the report. He accused the state police of obstructing justice and blocking the administration of the law. Morganelli labeled the heavy-handed attempt as “arrogant” and “outrageous.”

With national attention on shootings involving police officers, Morganelli believes police should go the extra mile in being as transparent as possible in incidents such as these in an effort to ensure public support and confidence. In asking to keep the report secret, Zack maintains that this question is beyond a grand jury’s scope of inquiry. Morganelli disagrees, saying that grand juries are frequently empaneled to weigh in on critical questions of public interest.

Even the hearing was originally scheduled to be held beyond closed doors, but thanks to the efforts of three news organizations, the proceedings were opened.

The appearance of a conflict of interest can be just as damaging as a conflict itself. It raises needless questions of a cover-up, improper behavior and controversy.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com