Reporters like to talk about "the public's right to know".

But when it comes to many police records, we are all in the dark now.

Here's why:  This summer, the State Supreme Court ruled that the public may not have access to most police discipline records.  It's a big change, and it's affecting your right to find out what your government (and your police force) are doing.

In the past, reporters could learn a lot of information about officers who came before boards and commissions.   As an example, if an LAPD officer was involved in a shooting, investigators would present their findings to the L.A. Police Commission.

We'd learn the name of the cop.  We could find out if he or she had a history of misconduct or discipline problems. And we might find out what tactics were used, and whether any policies were violated.

Not anymore.  Those records are now confidential.  They are secret.

Journalists have spoken out about this.  The head of the California Newspaper Publishers Association says the ruling means "we have pretty much of a secret police force in this state."

This week, the Police Commission discussed the case of Suzie Pena.  She's the 19-month-old girl who was killed in her father's arms during a gun battle with an LAPD SWAT Team in South L.A.

The LAPD spent 15 months investigating the shooting.

But commissioners could not discuss the results of that probe in public.  They had to go into closed session, thanks to the court ruling.

The L.A. Times reported some bits of the investigation based on confidential sources.

Top police administrators are not happy about these new rules that favor officer privacy.  LAPD Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell told me the department would rather have "transparency." 

In the Pena case, prosecutors also conducted their own investigation.  Apparently, they are not bound by the court ruling... They released some of the details of the shooting, including the names of the officers involved.

It was a small victory for the public's "right to know."