Pennsylvania FOP Sponsored Bill Defies DOJ Findings on Transparency in Use of Force
More one sided unwise proposals from the Fraternal Order Of Police. They seen to always opposed rules for police, but just love new warrantless surveillance and databasing the movements of us all. Funny how that works.
In July 2015, Philadelphia’s then-police commissioner Charles H. Ramsey instituted a policy that any police officer involved in an on-duty shooting would be publicly identified within 72 hours of the incident. The policy had a strong rationale: Adhering to recommendations from a U.S. Department of Justice report, Ramsey argued that the new policy would help to bring transparency to the city’s beleaguered police department. “This has been a major issue for a lot of the protests that have occurred in our city,” he said in a statement at the time. “People believe, rightfully, that the public has a right to know who these officers are.”
Fast-forward two months: On September 11, 2015, Pennsylvania State Rep. Martina White — who represents a district in northeastern Philadelphia, and who received a political endorsement from the local Fraternal Order of Police — introduced HB 1538. A direct response to Ramsey’s 72-hour policy, the bill was designed to shield the names of officers involved in shootings. HB 1538 would have made it illegal for any public official to release the name of an officer involved in a shooting unless that officer was charged with a related crime.
The backlash to the initial bill was swift. Not only did the bill go directly against DOJ recommendations, but it also undermined the idea that local governments should be allowed to make their own laws and set their own policies.
The initial bill was stymied in the state legislature, but a watered down version gained traction. On October 26 this year, Pennsylvania’s State Senate passed a form of the bill that sets a 30-day prohibition on releasing the name of police officers who use force on the job. The state House passed it the next day. Though it’s not quite as regressive and reactionary as the initial bill, it’s still a threat to transparency and local control.