> Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals? Are civilians afforded that privilege? Consider

> Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals? Are civilians afforded that privilege? Consider the case of stockbrokers, for example. Regulations require that a broker immediately discloses, on a publicly accessible website [0], that they have become "a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration" [1]. This does not require a finding of guilt nor an exhaustion of appeals. While allegations of financial fraud are certainly concerning, a police officer convicted of molesting a child or sexual assaulting suspects is potentially shielded from similar levels of disclosure (as described in the article). Are stockbrokers subject to too much scrutiny, or are police officers subject to too little scrutiny? Furthermore, the gray area in the law, when assigning the benefit of the doubt to the officer, puts the public in danger. In the Washington Post article cited above, the following example is referenced: > In 2007, Shreveport police officer Wiley Willis arrested 38-year-old Angela Garbarino on suspicion of drunken driving. While in custody, as captured on the video below, Garbarino begins arguing with Willis about what she said is her right to make a phone call. About a minute later, Willis walks over and turns off the video camera. When the camera comes back on, Garbarino is lying on the floor in a pool of her own blood. She was later photographed with severe facial injuries she says were the result of Willis beating her. Willis’ attorney stated that she tripped and fell while the camera was off. After the video went viral, Willis was fired, but has never been criminally charged. > Last month, the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board voted to reinstate Willis on the police force. He’ll get full back pay and benefits for the year-and-a-half he was fired. The reason? During the internal investigation of Willis, a polygraph machine operator failed to record the results of his Q&A with Willis. This apparently is a violation of Louisiana’s “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” a set of guidelines every department must follow when investigating officer misconduct. > Garbarino won a $400,000 settlement from the city of Shreveport last year. This officer was reinstated on what is incontrovertibly a technicality. Since the appeal was successful, PO Willis' actions could be concealed from the public due to the gray area of the law. Is it in the public interest to hide such blatant misconduct? [0] https://brokercheck.finra.org/ https://brokercheck.finra.org/ [1] http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/