Projo 7 to 7 News Blog

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The House approved by a wide margin late Friday night a bill that would bar the public identification of police officers in "deadly force" incidents -- those involving a killing -- until they have been reviewed by a grand jury.

The measure, whose cosponsors include current and retired officers, would conceal the names of officers whether the fatal shooting took place on the job or not.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Kenneth A. Vaudreuil, D-Central Falls, at the request of that city's Police Department. Key sponsors include Peter F. Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket, a retired Pawtucket police officer; Roberto DaSilva, D-East Providence, a Pawtucket police lieutenant, and John M. Carnevale, D-Providence, a retired Providence officer.

Supporters of the legislation say that deadly force incidents already place heavy stress on officers and their families. Opponents, including the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, question officers' rights, as public servants, to secrecy.

The proposed amendment to the Access to Public Records Act comes as both the House and Senate are considering changes that would expand the public's right to government documents.

A number of representatives spoke in favor of the bill, oftentimes expressing hostility towards those that were skeptical of its necessity.

State Rep. Peter S. Palumbo (D-Cranston), addressing "my colleagues that don't like police officers," pointed out that the name of the officer would eventually become public, but not before it was determined whether the officer was justified in the killing.

"The media will have time to drag 'em though the mud," said Palumbo. "This just buys [the officers] a little time, is all this does."

State Rep. Arthur J. Corvese (D-North Providence) said that police officers are "first line of defense for society, and society has a responsibility to protect them."

State Rep. Joseph S. Almeida (D-Providence) said that "no bill that can go far enough to protect these officers and their families."

The bill still requires Senate approval.

 Tags  General Assembly police

Comments

bruce said:

if i shot a criminal my name would be all over the left wing media and i would be tried for shooting one of kennedys constituents.

Link | June 27, 2009 2:39 PM
Report Abuse

---

cy young said:

Of couse they always protect themselves,which is why they call it the brotherhood, anyone else it hits the papers and so on.

Link | June 28, 2009 5:26 PM
Report Abuse

---

sara said:

"State Rep. Peter S. Palumbo (D-Cranston), addressing "my colleagues that don't like police officers," pointed out that the name of the officer would eventually become public, but not before it was determined whether the officer was justified in the killing."

So we, the citizens, who are supposed to trust these uniformed workers to serve and protect us, shouldn't receive reports of their conduct? In real time?

The state thinks we should wait until they are cleared by grand juries. What about the occasional officer who is found not to be "justified in the killing"? A case in which an officer is found guilty of reckless endangerment? Hah, right, it doesn't happen. Criminal behavior shielded by a badge goes without legal consequence.

When a government injures or kills its own civilians, details should undoubtedly be available to the public. This is a blatant civil rights issue.

Rhode Island, get yourself together.

Link | June 29, 2009 1:17 AM
Report Abuse

---

jason james said:

Good job by the above listed Reps.
Police Officers need the same protection as the public.

Link | June 29, 2009 7:12 AM
Report Abuse

---

Leave a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.

Name:

Email:

URL:  

Remember personal info?

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.