For those, including the editorial board, who still don't get it - here it is again, in simpler language than I used before. Just because a person is arrested DOES NOT indicate they are guilty. How much more simpler does it need to be? Whether or not the editorial board or this column agree is irrelevant.

Prior to 1996, the California state legislature allowed the publication of name, address, telephone number and place of employment for every person arrested in the state. There was no limitation with regard to the arrested person's 5th Amendment right to self incrimination or right to privacy.

The editorial board cries foul, "Now, anyone seeking that information must sign - under penalty of perjury - that they need it for scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes." Twelve years ago the state legislature amended Cal. Govt. Code §6254(f) to permit release of the addresses of those arrested, and of crime victims, only where the requester declares, under penalty of perjury, both that "the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator," and that "address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals." In {528 US 32} Los Angeles Police Department v. United, The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction of the amended §6254(f) upholding that commercial freedom of speech was not affected by the amended code section.

The Gilroy Dispatch sells newspapers to individuals and groups of individuals. It is reasonable to assume that the Dispatch only publishes items that directly or indirectly help to sell more papers and in doing so increasing the commercial revenue of the company. The "police blotter" is printed in the two editions of the Dispatch that land on Gilroyans' doorsteps and are placed in the citywide vending boxes. That on its face seems to be a violation of §6254(f).

The editorial board wrote, "Those who support the change point say that an arrest is not a conviction and that shielding arrestees' addresses helps protect reputations. We disagree." It is a fact that an arrestee is not guilty of a crime until convicted by a jury of their peers. Under the umbrella of protection granted an arrestee by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as Miranda, the act of arrest is merely a governmental affirmation of suspicion of guilt. It cannot be misconstrued, as the editorial board does, to justify its deplorable position, into a decree of guilt.

A person's reputation is often a life's work. A reputation can be, and often is, used as collateral in business, education, and politics. People are not perfect. Police are often mistaken. Many arrests are thrown out for a myriad of reasons. Statistics, albeit years old, show in California there were over 300,000 arrests not prosecuted in the last decade. Call it 30,000 a year. There are 58 counties in California. Spread evenly each county would have 517 arrests not prosecuted. Santa Clara County is the fifth largest county in California.

For the sake of argument it is safe to assume we would have more than 517 bum arrests. Is the public's right to know more important than the ruined reputation of more than 517 individuals? I hardly think so.

Section §6254 also allows for the publication of victims' names with the same requester declarations as for arrestees. I haven't seen too many victims' names in the police blotter. Is this a form of discrimination? You decide. Remember, no one is guilty until convicted! I do not advocate victims' names being published for any reason, but the editorial board claims that neighbors deserve to know if who lives near them have been arrested. Along that same line of thinking, wouldn't neighbors also want to know who live near them that might need help? You decide. It is a tough road, think of that the next time you read the Dispatch police blotter.

Editor's note: The editorial board is capable of distinguishing between an arrest and a conviction. The point, simply, is that on balance the editorial board believes information about public safety - which includes the public's right to know information about those arrested - outweighs the right to privacy of those arrested.

Ben Anderson Columnist Ben Anderson is a long-time Gilroyan and father of two fantastic teens. You can reach him at heyben@bdkr.net. His column is published every Wednesday.