 |
| Stephen Hayne |
When the state Supreme Court decided two weeks ago that police internal-investigation reports should be publicly disclosed even when accusations against officers are not upheld, the justices based their ruling on a healthy sunshine element of document releases: The public had a "legitimate interest" and would be better off knowing how the investigations were done, even if the cops' names weren't revealed.
The underlying suspicion was that a police department wasn't as concerned about protecting a wrongly accused officer from exposure as much as it was worried about keeping the details of the probe and the department's internal actions under wraps. Now, thanks to some digging by The Seattle Times and documents provided by a helpful attorney, we have a good example of the legitimately interesting details the Seattle Police Department, for one, had kept hidden by invoking the non-disclosure claim.
More >>