PUBLISHING THE NAME OF AN UNDERCOVER DEPUTY

Last week, The Ledger's yearlong tussle with the Polk County sheriff
over publishing the name of an undercover deputy ended.

Thankfully, the Lakeland-based 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled
quickly, rejecting the sheriff's lawyers' flimsy arguments favoring an
unconstitutional attempt at censorship.

Now that the case is over, I believe it's important to more fully
explain our reasons for publishing the undercover deputy's name in
August 2002. It was not an abrupt decision. But I realize it is a
decision that many people may abhor. Even one of the appellate judges
made some strident comments questioning the newspaper's judgment
during the recent hearing. Fortunately, he did not permit his emotions
to interfere with sound legal thinking.

Over the past year, I have received several phone calls and letters
about this topic, most of them critical. I have written to those who
have called, explaining The Ledger's position. Following is a slightly
edited version of the letter:

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your letter concerning The Ledger's decision to print
the undercover deputy's name. It was my decision, as executive editor.

Permit me to explain my thinking.

First, it is my strong belief that the role of the press is to hold
all levels of government -- including law enforcement -- accountable
for actions that have a serious impact on its citizens. The shooting
and killing of a drug suspect by an undercover drug agent falls into
that category.

The Ledger knew the name of the undercover deputy for several weeks
before we published his name. I paid the Sheriff's Office the unusual
courtesy of notifying them, well in advance, of our intent to publish,
so they could take whatever measures they felt might be necessary,
including transferring the deputy out of undercover work.

As this is written, the Sheriff's Office has chosen not to do that.
(The deputy was moved to an agriculture unit a year later.) One might
conclude, then, that our publishing the name did not pose the
immediate serious threat, as first claimed. If it did, why not
transfer the deputy to a less perilous job?

Initially, we were told by the Sheriff's Office that there were
credible threats against the deputy's life. But during a court hearing
on the situation, the deputy's supervisor said under oath that the
threats were unsubstantiated, and could neither be proved nor disproved.

In a personal meeting with the undercover deputy and his supervisor
before we published the name, I was told by the deputy several times
that one reason he opposed publication of his name was because he had
worked hard to get assigned to the undercover job, enjoyed that form
of work and was proud to work for this elite unit. He did also claim
there were threats against him, but I found it revealing that he
stressed his opposition to a transfer because he worked hard to get
this job.

I think I understand why law enforcement sometimes argues so strongly
for secrecy, and in some rare cases the arguments may be legitimate.
But government agents acting secretly and killing people secretly
without a trial (even when justified) is not what America is all
about. There are plenty of examples of other societies in our history
where government agents had or still have unbridled and unaccountable
power, and the citizenry was abused as a result. Fortunately, in their
wisdom, our founding fathers saw the dangers of that, and courts since
then have repeatedly reaffirmed why an open society is the best society.

The press has an important and historical role -- and an obligation --
to uphold these principles. And one of the ways we do this is by
printing names of people, including police, who shoot or kill other
people.

We also print the names of judges who preside over major criminal
cases. We print the names of prosecutors who try those cases. Often,
threats are made of them as well. But before they took those jobs they
should have understood the public nature of their jobs. So, too,
should police understand the public nature of their work and its
perils. (Even undercover agents must testify in open trials using
their true names).

A point of curiosity for me is that many or most people understand the
press's role -- and may even respect the press's role -- when it comes
to scrutinizing major government actions. But when that government is
law enforcement, a different standard is sometimes applied. And, what
I find curious, is not only that some people hold law enforcement to a
lower standard of exposure, they automatically accept law
enforcement's arguments as being sound and valid -- as if law
enforcement is exempt from questioning, or being required to defend or
prove its arguments for secrecy.

Our system of government has a forum for testing those arguments --
the courts. As you know, The Ledger's arguments were tested in the
courts and we prevailed. In my view, the law-enforcement arguments
were not sound on any level. So we published the name and will
continue to when we deem it relevant. You may recall the circuit judge
who ruled in our favor is a former Lakeland policeman and former prosecutor.

Perhaps these arguments lack merit, in your view. I regret losing even
one reader because of a dispute like this. But a wise editor once
said: You don't get into this business to win popularity contests. So
while you may still disagree, I respect your viewpoint. Thank goodness
we live in a society that tolerates -- even encourages -- competing
opinions.

In any case, I hope you now have a better understanding of why I made
the decision.

Sincerely,

Skip Perez

Executive Editor