Public must rely on information police agencies choose to share, even if it's wrong.

Across Virgina, there are almost no details available to the public about crime that happens every day. From petty larceny to murder, Virginia police officials routinely deny access to basic documents such as incident reports. In the case of Hailu Brook, his father Brook Beshah can't even get a copy of the investigation conducted by Arlington County officials detailing how Fairfax County police officers shot and killed his son — even though the case is closed. 

When the Associated Press tested the effectiveness of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act in 2006 by sending reporters to each county to ask for public records, only 43 percent had success. The rest were told that the records would not be released or would cost thousands of dollars in fees. Earlier this year, a State Integrity Investigation ranked and graded each of the 50 states on government accountability, transparency and corruption. Virginia got an F, largely because police agencies use an exemption clause in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to withhold basic documents in all cases, regardless of what the case is about and regardless of whether the case is open or closed.
There is no question that under some circumstances that it is in the public interest to protect the identities of some victims and some witnesses," said Lucy Dalglish, director of the Arlington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I just don't think it is necessary to protect the identities of all victims and all witnesses in all circumstances."
This Week , law enforcement leaders and advocates for open government will meet in Richmond to consider the fate of Senate Bill 711, originally introduced in 2010 by state Sen. John Edwards (D-21). The effort has languished for years as police chiefs and prosecutors from across the commonwealth have spoken out against any effort to undermine their broad power of exemption, which includes withholding "complaints, memoranda, correspondence, case files or reports, witness statements, and evidence relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution." The bill currently under consideration would add the words "ongoing investigation" to that list, allowing for the public release of documents in closed cases such as the one conducted by the Arlington Police Department about the death of Hailu Brook.
"There's no policy reason why they should remain confidential once the case is over," said Edwards. "My bill even allows law-enforcement officials to shield confidential informants or techniques that are considered confidential."
Police chiefs, sheriff's deputies and prosecutors disagree. During a hearing conducted by a subcommittee of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council in 2010, law-enforcement officials from across the commonwealth descended on the capital to oppose any effort to weaken the exemption clause. Even if a case is closed, they said, releasing documents would be a bad idea. Now, two years later, the same subcommittee is set to meet yet again to consider the same legislation. http://www.arlingtonconnection.com/news/2012/jun/25/police-documents-remain-unavailable/

Supreme Court sides with newspaper in records dispute with Milwaukee police dep't.

The City of Milwaukee and the Journal Sentinel were in a dispute over whether a government body can charge for its employees to delete information deemed confidential from public records.

Reversing a Milwaukee County judge's ruling, the high court said Wisconsin's 30-year-old public records law has never allowed public agencies to charge requesters for redacting information from records.

The city argued it could charge for redacting under provisions of the law that allow fees to be charged for locating and copying records. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and said such fees could be used by governmental bodies to effectively deny release of records.

"This case is not about a direct denial of public access to records, but the issue in the present case directly implicates the accessibility of government records," Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote in the decision. "The greater the fee imposed on a requester of a public record, the less likely the requester will be willing and able to successfully make a record request."

Abrahamson wrote that Wisconsin's records law is to be "construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access."

"Wisconsin's commitment to open, transparent government rings loud and clear in the public records law," the opinion said. "The law reaffirms that the people have not only the opportunity but also the right to know what the government is doing and to monitor the government."

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who filed a brief on behalf of the Journal Sentinel, applauded the decision.

"This is the correct decision, and a decision which promotes open government," he said.

The lawsuit stemmed from a 2010 records request based on a Journal Sentinel attempt to do an audit of two weeks of incident reports for offenses such as assault, burglary and theft.

The department, which had produced 100 copies of incident reports for free, switched gears and sent the newspaper a letter saying the cost to obtain the additional 750 reports would be more than $4,500 and would take police more than nine months.

The lawsuit asked a judge to order the department to allow the Journal Sentinel to inspect and copy the records without prepayment of fees for redaction and without unreasonable delay.

"This ruling underlines what we have said all along: Unreasonable fees should not be used to hide information on vital issues from the public," said Greg Borowski, senior editor for projects and investigations at the Journal Sentinel. "This is a victory for the public, which is entitled to know how government is functioning."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/supreme-court-sides-with-newspaper-in-dispute-with-milwaukee-police-department-jl5tldj-160510565.html