Log in to WRAL.com with one click using your favorite social network:
OR
Log in using your WRAL.com account:



Wrong email/password combination.

Forgot password?

Register with WRAL.com using your favorite social network:
OR
Register for a WRAL.com account using our web form.

Login Options

4:11 a.m. • 2-9-12

Weather Forecast for Raleigh

  • Today: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 52° F
  • Fri: Mostly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 58° F
  • Sat: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 52° F

Other Locations

> 7 Day Forecast

Doppler Image

Marketplace Links

Social Links

Main Menu

Judge Rules Durham Officers' Names Can Be Withheld


e-mail print friendly
Durham Police Department generic
Durham Police Department generic

A judge on Wednesday ruled that the Durham Police Department doesn't have to release the names of officers put on administrative leave last week as part of a department investigation.

Several Durham officers were placed on leave pending the outcome of the internal investigation. WRAL learned the probe centers on allegations of sexual misconduct involving officers and prostitutes.

Police Chief Jose Lopez said the allegations surfaced shortly after he took over the department in September. Fewer than 10 officers, ranging from rookies to veterans, were involved, he said, declining to identify the officers or reveal other details about the case.

Capitol Broadcasting Co., the parent company of WRAL, sued the city of Durham, the police department and Lopez, maintaining that the names of the officers on leave should be provided to the media under the North Carolina Public Records Act.

"The public has a right to know who is being paid but not being allowed to work," said Bill Moss, an attorney representing Capitol.

Moss also said withholding the names was inconsistent with the police department's past practices concerning officers involved in shootings or official actions.

Others agreed that police department should release the names.

"I think police department has had well-documented problems over the last year and a half. They need to be transparent in what they're doing," Durham defense attorney Mark Edwards said.

Assistant City Attorney Kim Grantham argued that the public has a right to know only if a city employee has been promoted, transferred, demoted, suspended or fired and not whether an employee has been put on administrative leave. Under state law, public agencies must divulge to the public any change in status for employees when asked.

"It would be very prejudicial to employees to release their names while on administrative leave during an investigation before determination of any wrongdoing," Grantham said.

She also said releasing any names could jeopardize the police department's internal investigation. It was unclear how long the investigation would take to complete.

Superior Court Judge Carl Fox agreed with the city that being placed on administrative leave doesn't constitute a change in employment status.

Capitol hasn't decided whether to appeal the ruling.

RELATED TOPICS: Durham

e-mail print friendly

79 Comments


WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

View Comments VIEW ALL 79 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments
"You are all right Nancy. At least you are intellegent to spar with. Marco polo too. Why dont you move to Durham and put your money where your mouth is?? lol"

ncmickey, thanks but I think I'll stick it out in Wake County :)

and I appreciate the civil to and fro we've had!

I agree that the names should not be released until the investigation is complete. With the way the media and these posters convicts people who end up being innocent, I wouldn't want any names released until we find out who the "guilty" ones are. Then, release the names of the guilty!! What is the problem with that?? That way, if someone's name was given who turns out not to have done a thing wrong will not be threatened, condemned, etc in the media.

No way this happend in Durham. Lies, all lies.

Ok...charge was removed....but you get my point. OJ was found innocent also....

You are all right Nancy. At least you are intellegent to spar with. Marco polo too. Why dont you move to Durham and put your money where your mouth is?? lol

ncmickey, the charge was vacated, removed, but I won't play semantics games.

View Comments VIEW ALL 79 COMMENTS
Report It

Multimedia

Click Here