Scott Greenfield, over at Simple Justice, put up a post yesterday about an incident in Broward County Florida where a plain-clothes police officer was accused of assaulting and falsely arresting a homeless man and the alleged incident was captured on video while also corroborated by a witness.
One of the questions about this incident that sparked a bit of discussion was why the name of the officer, accused of an act of misconduct, was kept a secret while the name of the homeless man wasn’t. Both were only accused, but one had more rights to privacy than the other.
Well, it’s a matter of police transparency and, as you can imagine, it causes a lot of confusion. To help clarify this confusion a little bit I’ve decided to put up a list of what each state’s laws say about how transparent law enforcement agencies can be about police misconduct via what they can release in response to a public records request.
Here’s that list, based on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Open Government Guide which contains the open records and meetings laws for all states, including how they may apply to police disciplinary records.
| State | Description | |
| AK | O | Presumed open in the absence of any specific or local statutory prohibition |
| AL | D | Open except that Police chief/Sheriff has discretion on what may be redacted. |
| AR | D | All closed except when an officer is fired or suspended, and even then it is discretionary |
| AZ | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| CA | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| CO | C | Closed so long as any disciplinary records are kept within an officer’s personnel file |
| CT | P | Open except for complaints of a personal nature (i.e. allegations of marital infidelity) |
| DC | O | Presumed open aside from specific privacy provisions |
| DE | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| FL | P | Open to disclosure only after an internal investigation has been completed |
| GA | O | Appear to be open |
| HI | P | Some information concerning employment-related misconduct may be open (murky) |
| IA | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| ID | C | All Closed except for performance review records |
| IL | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| IN | P | Open after investigation if disciplinary action or dismissal occurred |
| KS | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| KY | P | Open after decision to discipline or take no action is made, officer has right to challenge release |
| LA | P | Appear to be open except when involving undercover officers or pending criminal charge |
| MA | P | Disciplinary records are closed but some internal investigation records may be open |
| MD | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| ME | C | Closed except for the official written decision filed upon termination and after all appeals |
| MI | P | Open after action taken on sustained complaint and only if no civil or criminal action pending |
| MN | O | Appear to be explicitly open, including names of those filing complaints |
| MO | P | Presumed closed, yet internal investigation files might be open if personal info redacted (murky) |
| MS | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| MT | C | Appear to be closed with no apparent exceptions (somewhat murky) |
| NC | D | Closed except at discretion of officials if release needed to maintain public confidence |
| ND | P | Apparently open, yet laws recently enacted appear to possibly close personnel files |
| NE | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| NH | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| NJ | P | Mostly closed except for date and reason of termination if fired, otherwise challengable (murky) |
| NM | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| NV | O | Appear to be open (murky) |
| NY | P | All closed except for civilian review board documents (very murky) |
| OH | O | Appear to be open |
| OK | P | Appear to be open only upon final disciplinary action, closed if no action taken |
| OR | D | Generally closed while the officer is still employed, discretionary upon resignation |
| PA | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| RI | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| SC | O | Appear to be open, yet sometimes challenged based on privacy law provisions |
| SD | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| TN | P | Open except for undercover officers or if officer can prove release would threaten officer’s safety |
| TX | P | Some are open if an investigation finds the complaint is valid (murky) |
| UT | P | Open if misconduct sustained, disciplinary action taken, and all appeals fail (murky) |
| VA | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| VT | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
| WA | P | Internal investigation records are open but all indentifying information must be redacted |
| WI | P | Appear to be open upon conclusion of disciplinary action except for undercover officers |
| WV | P | Partially open depending on the type of request and discretion (murky, but mostly closed) |
| WY | C | All Closed, no apparent exceptions |
So, in looking at our Broward County Florida example and Florida’s laws on disclosure of police misconduct records it seems as though state law there prohibits the release of information until any investigations into that incident are completed. Not that the BCSO would have released his name if they had discretion about it, but Florida state law allows them to keep it secret while it’s being investigated.
While state laws do have the most influence on how transparent law enforcement agencies are about police misconduct, each individual agency varies as well dependent on the collective bargaining agreements those agencies have with their respective police unions about what they can and cannot release or even how they can go about investigating complaints or discipline officers. So, while this list can answer a lot of questions about why one report of police misconduct in the media might have a lot of details and another might not have any at all, there is still some other ways in which police misconduct can be obscured locally.
Also, some of this analysis is a bit of guesswork since the legalese can vary from being straight-forward to being downright complex or suspiciously vague. So, where it gets murky, I’ve marked it as such and if anyone has any contradictory information from what I’m presenting in the above list, please do let me know.
Hopefully, this will help clear up some of the questions people have about police transparency.
Hey Packratt, Thanks for taking time to clear up this matter. The related info. you provided over at SJ is appreciated very much also.
I see that a follow up has Mr. McGovern being freed Mon. w/o bail. The quality of the Chan. 7 video is very bad, but I hope it’s good enough to be used in a law suit. He deserves a little compensation for his troubles.
Maybe someone will lead him towards employment, housing & away from Broward County where he’s marked as easy pickens.
The records need to be checked to see if any of his prior arrest have anything to do with this rogue cop? As usual, thanks.
[...] that can be released. 1.0 is the most transparent while 4.0 is the least transparent. (read here for more [...]
[...] dismissed. Other states leave the issue entirely to the police department’s discretion. (See chart for comparison of state [...]
[...] is dismissed. Other states leave the issue entirely to the police department’s discretion. (See chart for comparison of state [...]
[...] is dismissed. Other states leave the issue entirely to the police department’s discretion. (See chart for comparison of state [...]
[...] Finally, in West Virginia, the ultimate outcome of several recently publicized incidents involving West Virginia State troopers will never be known as the state legislature and department spokespersons insist that the public has no right to know. While West Virginia law regarding release of disciplinary records involving police allows for discretionary release, legislative rules apparently outright forbid the release of any disciplinary information regarding state police and an anonymous state police internal affairs officer told reporters that this does lead to some abuses. Curious about how your state feels about your right to know about cops abusing their authority and the public they serve? Well, you can look that up here. [...]