One Virginia police department has gone beyond concealing names of officers accused of crimes against constituents, announcing they will not reveal names of any officers on their force.
Chesterfield County Police Department announced a novel interpretation of Virginia’s open records act that it claims allows it to shield the names of all department members, according to a Fox News report.
It is unclear if police brass will conceal their identity during press conferences where they announce investigation results that portray them in a positive light.
Advocates of public transparency are alarmed the department’s move could set a concerning precedent.
Good governance advocates believe the public has a right to know the identities of those who are entrusted with the power to enforce the law.
“These are the people who are out there daily with the power and the authority to use coercive force against citizens in the enforcement of laws,” said attorney Andrew Bodoh, who represents activist Alice Minium.
“Certainly we want to be able to know who those people are in our community just to be able to monitor the actions of government.”
Alice Minium is the founder of OpenOversightVA, a platform dedicated to police transparency.
The database on her website encompasses the names and in some cases photos and disciplinary records of approximately 27,000 employees from over 200 Virginia law enforcement departments.
When Minium sought Chesterfield County Police Department payroll, the names of all staff below the rank of lieutenant were redacted. This amounted to over 500 of the approximately 530 officers in the department.
The department’s justification for this was the possibility the officers might undertake undercover operations in the future, and thus their identities are protected under an exemption in Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.
“Releasing the names of these officers would put the safety of undercover officers and the integrity of undercover investigations at risk,” a county lawyer elaborated in a letter to Minium, the Fox report noted.
However, the term “undercover” seems to have a broader definition for the Chesterfield County Police Department.
When questioned in court, police Major Andrea Riesmeyer clarified that the department differentiates between “undercover” and “covert” officers.
Their definition of “undercover” can include officers who might still be wearing parts of their official uniforms.
“I think that the common sense of what undercover means is that it’s somebody who has to use a cover identity,” Bodoh said. “When you start to describe anyone in plainclothes as an undercover officer, that creates serious problems.”
Despite these concerns, a substitute judge ruled in favor of the county, finding no violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Bodoh announced plans to appeal the judge’s decision, Fox reported.
Bodoh emphasized that transparency in terms of payroll can help identify instances of fraud, nepotism and other questionable hiring practices by public agencies using taxpayer revenue.
He cited a recent case where a sheriff from Culpeper County faced indictment on bribery charges.
“My biggest concern is that other departments may begin to use this approach to withhold the information about their officers from public release,” Bodoh expressed.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.
