Judge: Officers Names Can Be Released in UC Davis Pepper-Spray Incident

Union attorney Michael Morguess, who participated in Tuesday’s court hearing by telephone, indicated that the organization would do so. He could not be reached for further comment.

UC officials had cited Grillo’s earlier injunction in denying Public Records Act requests by both newspapers for the complete reports. But university attorneys said little during Tuesday’s hearing, allowing Burke and Morguess to spar over the law.

“We’ve been in full support of the entire report being released all along,” UC spokeswoman Brooke Converse said after the hearing. “We’re prepared to abide by the court’s ruling.”

Morguess on Tuesday unsuccessfully reiterated his arguments from the earlier case –- that the officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy and their names were protected because they were contained in a report that is comparable to a police personnel file compiled for disciplinary purposes.

Again, Grillo rejected those concerns. He had based his earlier decision to withhold some names not on those points of law but on a declaration from Lt. John Pike, whose spraying of seated protesters with the industrial-grade pepper spray spread worldwide via the Internet.  In his declaration, Pike said he had received thousands of letters, texts and  emails, many of them harassing, along with unwanted deliveries to his home.

But in his ruling Tuesday, Grillo wrote that the officers who worked during the Nov. 22 campus demonstration wore name tags and were visible to the public. Furthermore, he pointed out that no information had been put forth by the union to suggest that Pike has suffered any harassment over the last three months, or that other lesser-known officers whose identities have leaked out have suffered any.

Grillo noted that his balancing test might tilt in favor of police privacy in cases involving undercover officers or officers involved in shootings, but that the public’s right to transparency was lessened in a case involving “uniformed officers involved in making arrests of non-violent protesters.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which had intervened in the earlier case to push for the report’s full release, participated in the current case by filing a brief in support of the newspapers’ position.

“It’s a great result,” ACLU attorney Linda Lye said after Tuesday’s hearing. “Transparency is paramount in cases involving police officer misconduct.”