.png)
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/officer-home-grove-2059126-police-garden[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Tuesday, June 3, 2008[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Off-duty officer wounds man he believed was burglarizing his home[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Injured man leaves trail of goods when fleeing Garden Grove house, police say.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]By KIMBERLY EDDS[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Orange County Register[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Comments 30| Recommend 5[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]GARDEN GROVE - A midmorning burglary at an Anaheim police officer's home came to an abrupt end in Garden Grove on Tuesday morning when the burglary suspect was shot in the jaw and chest by an off-duty police officer who surprised the man in the middle of the heist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The officer came home about 9:45 a.m. Tuesday to find the door to his Hazard Avenue condominium open and a longtime member of a local Vietnamese gang inside. Authorities said the off-duty officer pulled out his gun and, believing the intruder was armed, began shooting, said Garden Grove police Lt. David Kivler.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]After being shot twice, the suspect ran, leaving a trail of items believed stolen from the officer's home. A 911 call started a search through the neighborhood for the wounded man.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Officers found a bleeding Hoang Van Le, 27, hiding in the back yard of a home in the 14500 block of Bushard Street, around the corner from the home that had been burglarized. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Paramedics treated the man for a gunshot wound to the jaw and a grazing wound to his chest, and took him to UCI Medical Center in Orange, where he underwent several hours of surgery to repair the damage done to his jaw, said Kivler. He is expected to be booked at the Orange County Jail on residential burglary and parole violation charges.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Le was sentenced to 16 months in state prison in 2005 after being convicted of burglary, weapons and gang charges in Garden Grove. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In May, Le was sentenced to three years probation after pleading guilty to drug possession. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Under California law, a person who uses deadly force within his or her residence must have an imminent fear that the intruder is going to seriously hurt them and that fear would have been felt by a “reasonable person.” Residents are not required to retreat, even though retreat may be possible. Murder, mayhem, rape and robbery are all forcible and life-threatening crimes under California law.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Orange County District Attorney's Office is investigating the incident, as is normal procedure with all officer-involved shootings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Officials have not released the identity the police officer, fearing gang associates of Le may be after the officer or his family. The shooter is a male police officer in his 30s, according to Garden Grove police.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]An opinion released last month by the state Attorney General's Office said the public generally has a right to know the names of police officers involved in critical incidents, including those involving lethal force, but there are exceptions when releasing the officer's name would put the officer or the investigation in jeopardy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]At the heart of the issue is balancing the public's right to keep watch over the men and women responsible for enforcing the law and the rights to privacy and security of the law enforcers themselves. The opinion, released by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, was rendered in response to a request from Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Brown reasoned that the California Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego did not overrule the "central holding" of a 1997 California Appellate Court decision New York Times Co. v. Superior Court that a peace officer's name is generally subject to disclosure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The court ruled in the New York Times case that the name of an officer involved in an incident must be disclosed if the disclosure would not reveal confidential information from an officer's personnel file or endanger the integrity of the investigation or the safety of the officer. The Copley case was more restrictive, ruling that an officer's name may be kept confidential if it is sought in connection with information pertaining to confidential matters such as an internal investigation or disciplinary proceedings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In the wake of the 2006 Copley decision, numerous law enforcement agencies across the state denied public records requests for the names of police officers, basing their denials on the 2006 Copley decision, which they interpreted as prohibiting them from disclosing disciplinary records and from opening disciplinary hearings to the public because the proceedings are considered confidential personnel records.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Many cities, including Los Angeles, have argued that the Copley decision simply does not allow the names to be made public.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]But releasing the name of an officer involved in a critical incident, such as a shooting, would "merely communicate a statement of fact that the named officers were involved in the incident," Brown wrote. Disclosing the information would not reveal confidential information in an officer's personnel file or imply any judgment on the officer's actions, Brown argued.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Brown noted the public's interest in the identities and activities of its law enforcement officers has been repeatedly upheld by the courts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"The public's legitimate interest in the identity and activities of peace officers is even greater than its interest in those of the average public servant. 'Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers,'" the Copley decision said, quoting the New York Times decision. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In his opinion, Brown notes there may be certain circumstances where the potential danger to the officer or to the crimefighting mission would outweigh the public's right to know the officer's identity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]A situation involving an undercover officer or an incident involving a gang member where there is a significant risk of retribution against the officer from other gang members, Brown said a law enforcement agency could make the argument there is a "clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality," but barring that, the name of the officer must be released.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Contact the writer: 714-796-7829 or kedds@ocregister.com[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]ZARASTER[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]5th Generation TEXAN[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]12th Generation American (sailed over before 1600)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Tuesday, June 3, 2008[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Off-duty officer wounds man he believed was burglarizing his home[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Injured man leaves trail of goods when fleeing Garden Grove house, police say.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]By KIMBERLY EDDS[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Orange County Register[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Comments 30| Recommend 5[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]GARDEN GROVE - A midmorning burglary at an Anaheim police officer's home came to an abrupt end in Garden Grove on Tuesday morning when the burglary suspect was shot in the jaw and chest by an off-duty police officer who surprised the man in the middle of the heist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The officer came home about 9:45 a.m. Tuesday to find the door to his Hazard Avenue condominium open and a longtime member of a local Vietnamese gang inside. Authorities said the off-duty officer pulled out his gun and, believing the intruder was armed, began shooting, said Garden Grove police Lt. David Kivler.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]After being shot twice, the suspect ran, leaving a trail of items believed stolen from the officer's home. A 911 call started a search through the neighborhood for the wounded man.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Officers found a bleeding Hoang Van Le, 27, hiding in the back yard of a home in the 14500 block of Bushard Street, around the corner from the home that had been burglarized. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Paramedics treated the man for a gunshot wound to the jaw and a grazing wound to his chest, and took him to UCI Medical Center in Orange, where he underwent several hours of surgery to repair the damage done to his jaw, said Kivler. He is expected to be booked at the Orange County Jail on residential burglary and parole violation charges.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Le was sentenced to 16 months in state prison in 2005 after being convicted of burglary, weapons and gang charges in Garden Grove. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In May, Le was sentenced to three years probation after pleading guilty to drug possession. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Under California law, a person who uses deadly force within his or her residence must have an imminent fear that the intruder is going to seriously hurt them and that fear would have been felt by a “reasonable person.” Residents are not required to retreat, even though retreat may be possible. Murder, mayhem, rape and robbery are all forcible and life-threatening crimes under California law.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Orange County District Attorney's Office is investigating the incident, as is normal procedure with all officer-involved shootings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Officials have not released the identity the police officer, fearing gang associates of Le may be after the officer or his family. The shooter is a male police officer in his 30s, according to Garden Grove police.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]An opinion released last month by the state Attorney General's Office said the public generally has a right to know the names of police officers involved in critical incidents, including those involving lethal force, but there are exceptions when releasing the officer's name would put the officer or the investigation in jeopardy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]At the heart of the issue is balancing the public's right to keep watch over the men and women responsible for enforcing the law and the rights to privacy and security of the law enforcers themselves. The opinion, released by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, was rendered in response to a request from Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Brown reasoned that the California Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego did not overrule the "central holding" of a 1997 California Appellate Court decision New York Times Co. v. Superior Court that a peace officer's name is generally subject to disclosure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The court ruled in the New York Times case that the name of an officer involved in an incident must be disclosed if the disclosure would not reveal confidential information from an officer's personnel file or endanger the integrity of the investigation or the safety of the officer. The Copley case was more restrictive, ruling that an officer's name may be kept confidential if it is sought in connection with information pertaining to confidential matters such as an internal investigation or disciplinary proceedings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In the wake of the 2006 Copley decision, numerous law enforcement agencies across the state denied public records requests for the names of police officers, basing their denials on the 2006 Copley decision, which they interpreted as prohibiting them from disclosing disciplinary records and from opening disciplinary hearings to the public because the proceedings are considered confidential personnel records.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Many cities, including Los Angeles, have argued that the Copley decision simply does not allow the names to be made public.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]But releasing the name of an officer involved in a critical incident, such as a shooting, would "merely communicate a statement of fact that the named officers were involved in the incident," Brown wrote. Disclosing the information would not reveal confidential information in an officer's personnel file or imply any judgment on the officer's actions, Brown argued.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Brown noted the public's interest in the identities and activities of its law enforcement officers has been repeatedly upheld by the courts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"The public's legitimate interest in the identity and activities of peace officers is even greater than its interest in those of the average public servant. 'Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers,'" the Copley decision said, quoting the New York Times decision. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In his opinion, Brown notes there may be certain circumstances where the potential danger to the officer or to the crimefighting mission would outweigh the public's right to know the officer's identity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]A situation involving an undercover officer or an incident involving a gang member where there is a significant risk of retribution against the officer from other gang members, Brown said a law enforcement agency could make the argument there is a "clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality," but barring that, the name of the officer must be released.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Contact the writer: 714-796-7829 or kedds@ocregister.com[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]ZARASTER[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]5th Generation TEXAN[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]12th Generation American (sailed over before 1600)[/FONT]
