Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Pictures of officers could become secret

Post by Jordan Schrader / The News Tribune on Feb. 8, 2010 at 6:13 pm with 8 Comments »
February 8, 2010 6:15 pm

The House Ways and Means Committee voted unanimously this evening that photographs in the personnel files of police, court and corrections employees should not be public records.

Nor would birth dates from the files be publicly available if HB 1317 passes.

It’s something police asked for in the wake of the death of four Lakewood officers. House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler said it reflects “a concern for the safety of not just the criminal justice employees but their families as well.”

Jamie Daniels of the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs told legislators Saturday that after the Lakewood slayings: “Lakewood was barraged with requests for children’s Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses of the officers.”

The thing is, all of that information is already protected under the law. But Daniels’ point, she said today, was that the department had to spend time fighting those media requests.

Public employees also wanted their birth dates redacted from a host of other public records, like court files and pension information, but newspapers said that would make it harder for the press to do investigations into where tax money goes and what lies in officials’ pasts.

Rowland Thompson of Allied Daily Newspapers said removing pictures from the public record could make it harder for the media to get images from the cameras that record police traffic stops or violent incidents inside jails or prisons.

“It seems odd to us,” he said, “that you don’t want to disclose something that is posted in the lobby of any police department and you generally make public employees wear them around their neck for everyone to see.”

Leave a comment Comments → 8
  1. That’s messed up.

  2. We’re drifting towards a society in which public employees have the upper hand over the public. I can see the reasoning behind the move but the KGB wore sky masks a lot too. Has community lost it’s appeal to everyone on the planet? What if you had to identify a police officer who beat a 5 y/o? How are you going to do that without a picture?

  3. fatuous says:

    This is a bad bill tailor made by the police union. They don’t want you to see any police abuse caught on camera.

    I hope everyone e-mails your legislator to express your dismay over this piece of garbage bill.

    Btw, if the police don’t want you to know their home address, why do they insist on driving a marked police vehicle home? Seems silly to me.

  4. Alinup,…DRIFTING??? ARE YOU KIDDING?? WE ARE LONG PAST THE TIME OF LOST RIGHTS AND PRIVACY…PLEASE VISIT AND GET A SMALL TASTE OF THE TRUTH..dannygetyouguns.townhall.com
    …our biggest enemies today, are the people who say they know better than us, and are here for our own good!!.NO THANKS,..I CAN HANDLE MY OWN BUSINESS!

  5. If 85% of the police in America, were not corrupt, lying,lazy, sob’s, they would not have to worry!

  6. purpledawgfan2 says:

    This is not good, not good at all.

    Since when did the shootings have anything to do with their public records. It was random.

  7. purpledawgfan2 says:

    Were getting closer to police being immune for their actions.

  8. nashabee says:

    the thing that bothers me is WHY does the media,or the public want to request address,birthrecords of their children,social security num for kids?thats going beyond reporting or curiosity.thats invasion of privacy..for that reason i do agree.i wouldnt want MY childs info out there.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0