An impenetrable shield

At a time of increasing public demand nationwide for transparency from law enforcement, in at least one important respect, the NYPD seems to be drifting in the opposite direction.

We enter into evidence last week's administrative hearing for James Frascatore, the police officer involved in the 2015 takedown of former tennis star James Blake during a mistaken-identity arrest.

The judge in the hearing, Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonado, limited the cross-examination by a Civilian Complaint Review Board prosecutor of retired police officer Daniel Modell, who testified as an expert witness on Frascatore's use of force. The prosecutor, as anyone in his position would, sought to challenge Modell's credibility by probing his own disciplinary history. Maldonado reined in that line of questioning and even briefly closed the otherwise public courtroom - citing 50-a, the portion of state civil rights law that the NYPD insists prevents it from making any and all police disciplinary records public. This makes no sense.

In an earlier hearing this year, Maldonado saw no need to take such an extreme action when Modell testified in a similar capacity.

Regardless, it defies credulity that retired cops should get the same privacy protections as those currently on the job, as the law is supposed to shield records that could impact upon promotion, termination and other job-related consequences.