In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the public has the right to know the names of police officers involved in on-duty shootings.

The state’s highest court ruled 6-1 in favor of disclosing the names of officers, stating that public interest in police conduct outweighs police privacy concerns. The ruling affects law enforcement agencies across the state and will likely make it difficult for agencies to prevent releasing the names.

“The public’s interest in the conduct of its peace officers is particularly great because such shootings often lead to severe injury or death,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the majority.

The case stemmed from the death in 2010 of Douglas Zerby, who was unarmed and holding a garden hose nozzle when he was shot by police in Belmont Shore.

After the Zerby shooting, the Los Angeles Times requested the identities of the officers involved in the Zerby incident and the names of all Long Beach officers involved in shootings in the five years before that. The Long Beach Police Officers Association fought the request and launched a public records battle against the Times that worked its way through the California court system.

In 2012, an appellate court upheld a Superior Court ruling that said the names of officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

The California Supreme Court agreed last year to hear the case.

Safety concerns cited

The Long Beach police union, joined by the city of Long Beach, argued that releasing the names could lead to harassment of officers and their families, since phone numbers and home addresses are easily found on the Internet.

The high court, however, rejected that argument and agreed with an appellate court ruling that the union and city had provided no evidence of specific safety concerns about any particular officer.

“Vague safety concerns that apply to all officers involved in shootings are insufficient to tip the balance against disclosure of officer names,” Kennard wrote. “As we have said in the past, mere assertion of possible endangerment does not ‘clearly outweigh’ the public interest in access to … records.”

The court also rejected a blanket rule preventing the disclosure of officer names in any type of shooting, noting that such a rule would prevent disclosure of the name of an officer who acted heroically, where safety isn’t a concern.

The court said officers’ safety concerns are understandable in the case of an officer-involved shooting, especially if the shooting results in the death of an unarmed person, but “the Legislature, whose laws we must construe, has not gone so far as to protect the names of all officers involved in such shootings.”

Steve James, president of the Long Beach Police Officers Association, said he’s disappointed with the ruling.

“We believe that this ruling puts officers’ safety in jeopardy and puts their families in jeopardy,” James said. “We shouldn’t have to articulate a specific threat for the community to understand that we’re encountering gang members and people who clearly don’t follow the law. We shouldn’t have to wait for them to articulate a threat.”

James said the union is educating its officers on ways they can remove their personal information from the Internet and are looking into future legislation to provide more protection for officers.

“We just hope it doesn’t take the injury or death of an officer for this thing to get fixed,” he said.

Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, which backed the Times, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling is a victory for open records laws.

“The public has a right to know what officers are doing on their behalf out in the community,” Ewert said. “It’s important for people to understand the facts surrounding these incidents and without the facts, it creates doubt in our agencies.”

The Long Beach Police Department has faced recent scrutiny for its high number of officer-involved shootings.

Last year, the LBPD had 22 officer-involved shootings, well above its nine in 2012 and a five-year average of 12. Of the 22 shootings, 15 involved suspects, six of whom died, and the rest involved dogs or accidental discharges.

LBPD Chief Jim McDonnell, who’s running for Los Angeles County sheriff, said the department will look to the city attorney for direction on how to proceed with the court’s decision.

“In achieving the right balance and endeavoring to promote the all-important objectives of transparency and public access, we also need to consider the privacy and safety interests of officers and their families, as well as the privacy interests and safety of our community,” McDonnell said in a statement Thursday.

While the court rejected a blanket rule to prevent the release of names, it left exceptions for undercover officers or cases involving a credible threat on an officer’s life, said Deputy City Attorney Gary Anderson.

“The court places the burden on the city to prove that there is a critical need for withholding the name of the officer, so if we can show there is a credible threat, then we would be legally justified in withholding the name,” he said.

Anderson said Long Beach will look at each request for an officer’s name on a case-by-case basis.

O.C. acted early

In Orange County, the Anaheim Police Department has been complying with the release of officers’ names since the earlier appellate court ruling, said Lt. Bob Dunn.

“When there is an officer-involved shooting, with absence of articulable threats, we will by request release of the officer’s name,” he said. “We will comply with what courts determine is the law of the land.”

From 2003 to 2013, the Anaheim Police Department had 38 officer-involved shootings, 21 of which were fatal, according to Orange County District Attorney’s Office figures.

Santa Ana police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said the department submits all request for the identity of officers involved in shootings to its legal counsel for consideration.

The Santa Ana Police Department has had 46 officer-involved shootings, 25 of them fatal, between 2003 and 2013.

Tom Dominguez, president of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, said the Supreme Court ruling could have an adverse effect on officers.

“The California Supreme Court ruling adds yet another personal burden to the officer in an already anxious situation; the officer must now endure those incredible stresses knowing his identity has been publicized,” he said in a statement. “This additional stress is not just confined to the officer; it extends to their loved ones, their partners, their neighbors and their department.”

Ron Thomas, whose son, Kelly Thomas, died in police custody in 2011 in Fullerton, said he’s pleased with the Supreme Court ruling.

“I’m all for protecting officers when they need to be protected, but not when they need to hide,” he said. “But who now decides if their lives are in danger? It’s going to be the police departments and the police unions.”

Contact the writer: kpuente@lbregister.com, 562-221-8798sschwebske@ocregister.com, 714-704-3795