Unlock the files

This week, California lawmakers can match words with deeds when it comes to disclosing police misconduct. A bill before the Legislature would end the special protections that seal off personnel records of officers who harm the public, break department rules or face legal trouble.

Incredibly, at a time when law enforcement faces scrutiny over shootings and scandals, the cops involved don’t need to be named. That’s due to an overly broad court decision in 2006, known as the Copley case, that shields law enforcement in serious cases. A timid state Legislature, cowed by police groups, has dodged meaningful reform.

Legislative leaders can change the picture when they consider SB1421 by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Berkeley Democrat. Her measure to release personnel records faces a test before her chamber’s Appropriations Committee, whose members can stall or advance the bill. Past efforts led by former state Sen. Mark Leno, now running for San Francisco mayor, had the same goal but went nowhere against strong opposition from police unions. They object that opening the files intrudes on privacy and will subject officers to danger, fears that haven’t been borne out in other states.

Skinner’s bill trims the costs of releasing personnel files and narrows the scope of public access, compared with Leno’s past efforts. The result removes the excuses raised in the past against the idea.

A wave of police shootings, along with a sex scandal that has shaken Bay Area law enforcement, show it’s past time to provide the details and names of those responsible. The public is more concerned than ever with police oversight. It’s Sacramento’s turn to acknowledge reality and end an unduly restrictive rule that bars access to police misconduct records.