There is a need for police officers' disciplinary records to be available to the #public in order to build public trust.
Following the ongoing police reforms across the country, one of the crucial provisions involves a high level of transparency surrounding officers' actions and disciplinary history. The D.C. council adopted a proposal to expand access to body-worn camera footage and strengthen the Office of Police Complaints. Among the recommendations that are being investigated is the plan to make officer records public. Although the plan was not included in the adopted legislation, there are hopes that it will be considered in the near future. Voting to allow police officers' disciplinary records to be public would be a tremendous step towards police reforms.
Traditionally, the District's Metropolitan Police Department has routinely rejected freedom of information requests for preliminary complaints and investigations of officers. There has also been secrecy in disciplinary action taken against rogue police officers in the pretense of officer privacy. As a result, the community's trust in the police department has been hurt. According to Monica Hopkins, executive director of D.C.'s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, "In our dealings and history with the Metropolitan Police Department, transparency and accountability have always been difficult. They have multiple disciplinary issues on their records, and accountability doesn’t exist.” She adds that by denying the public access to information concerning officers, it makes the matters “incredibly, incredibly detrimental.”
The unsealing of police disciplinary records has been made law in multiple states, and has had positive results. Therefore, Washington DC cannot even be considered a "guinea pig" for this testing out the policy's implementation. Information about officer's prior complaints and disciplinary actions is relevant to members of the public. For instance, the recent protests forced New York state legislators to vote to change their law-binding officers' disciplinary records. D.C. Councilman Charles Allen, the chair of the Public Safety Committee which oversees MPD, seems to be inspired by the step taken by New York. Allen says that it would be a great step to increasing accountability. Although D.C. cited a lack of funds for failure to include the law to put police records public, the cost of not enacting that policy could be higher.
By sealing investigations and prior disciplinary actions, D.C.'s chances of passing on bad officers to other departments are higher. It’s even more of a disaster when other locations hide those records. Making the records public is crucial for the hiring process. It enables MPD to identify whether the officer before them was fired or resigned in lieu of another agency's termination. If the officer's disciplinary records are made accessible, the public will have an opportunity to see how the department operates. Understanding how and why decisions in the police department are made is crucial to increasing public trust.
Therefore, DC’s council should fast track the process of fronting legislation to put police disciplinary records public. This will be a significant step ahead in police reforms ensuring a department that enjoys total trust from the public.
