PA Bill Number: HB335
Title: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons.
Description: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons. ...
Last Action: Removed from table
Last Action Date: May 1, 2024
After a shooting: The police officer's name should be divulged :: 09/21/2015
When police discharge their guns in self-defense or to protect others, the public has a right to know the circumstances. Because every police shooting generates high public interest, the details must be thoroughly investigated to determine whether the shooting was justified.
Civilians take for granted the right to know the names of everyone involved in police shootings. That’s why a bill recently drafted by Rep. Martina White, a Philadelphia Republican, is such a bad idea.
House Bill 1538 generally would block the public release of names of officers involved in shootings unless the officer is criminally charged. The proposal, which is opposed by civil liberties groups, police accountability advocates and the media, has bipartisan support. The head of Pittsburgh’s Fraternal Order of Police and various police unions in the state support the plan.
The justification for this measure is specious, ranging from a concern for keeping a lid on community anger to protecting the families of officers from retaliation. Some illogically link the release of officers’ names to an uptick in assaults and killings of police across the nation. The reality is, an officer who fires on a civilian is working on behalf of the public, ostensibly to maintain public safety; for that reason alone, the officer’s identity should be divulged immediately after the shooting takes place.
Withholding the names of police will only lead to more protests and further set back the cause of police accountability. It is also an affront to the people’s right to know.
Ms. White has admitted that the bill addresses fears that have not been borne out in reality. It is a preemptive measure designed to stop a nonexistent assault on police. Pandering to that constituency comes at the expense of public-agency disclosure. Thoughtful legislators who believe in holding taxpayer-funded services to account will reject her proposal.
