Public deserves timely details after shootings

The Pennsylvania Legislature is again endorsing a limited news blackout after police shootings or other actions that result in death or serious injury.

Secrecy shouldn’t be the basis of a law that seeks to balance police powers with the public’s right to know.

HB 27, passed last month by the House of Representatives, would criminalize the release of the name of a police officer involved in such an incident for 30 days.

This is a bad law, even if it starts with the good intention to protecting officers from retaliation or harassment.

In the wake of police shootings or other serious uses of force, the public is best served by having detailed information about what happened.

In all but the most extenuating circumstances, that should include the identities of those involved.

HB 27 goes too far in promoting secrecy, especially when a community is expecting the knowable facts after a police shooting.

Across the nation, many police departments are stepping up and expediting the release of information after potentially explosive situations.

Pennsylvania is going in the other direction. Right now it’s up to police chiefs or district attorneys to decide when and how to release this information.

In Philadelphia, a local law requires the identity of police officer involved in a shooting to be released within 72 hours of the incident.

In many communities, however, local discretion can be used to conceal a police officer’s identity — sometimes indefinitely — whether there is a security threat or not.

That was the case in the shooting of Richard Scheuermann III by Easton police in October 2014. It wasn’t until the following March that authorities disclosed Easton Sgt. Dominick Marraccini had fired the fatal shot. Scheuermann crashed his truck after a high-speed police pursuit, and rammed a police car after he was hemmed in by police vehicles at 13th and Spring Garden streets.

Unless criminal charges are filed, HB 27 would prohibit the release of an officer’s identity for 30 days — earlier only if the officer authorizes it or the official investigation is finished before then.

Anyone who violates the law would face a second-degree misdemeanor charge.

Last year the Legislature passed a similar bill and sent it to Gov. Tom Wolf, who vetoed it.

This year the House and Senate, armed with larger Republican majorities, are promising to override a veto.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In rejecting the bill, Wolf argued that an increasing incidence of police shootings and public mistrust of police power demand more openness, not less.

There may be times when police officers need protection from mob reaction or other fallout from a shooting. That’s a valid concern.

We recognize and respect the difficult situations officers encounter in protecting the public.

But secrecy should not be the presumption of a law that seeks to balance police powers with the public’s right to know about the use of deadly force.

It should be the other way around — police departments should be required to get court approval, during a brief coolingoff period, to withhold the identities of police officers who have a case for protection.

Municipal police chiefs, the state police and district attorneys should be encouraged to disclose who did what in a police shooting in a timely manner — without the harness of a month-long gag.

Criminalizing the release of information that it is critical to public understanding in times of uncertainty or emergency is a bad precedent, to say the least.

Secrecy should not be the presumption of a law that seeks to balance police powers with the public’s right to know about the use of deadly force.