ST. LOUIS _ A judge is expected to rule soon on whether to block the release of names of 28 officers now forbidden from applying for warrants or serving as witnesses in criminal cases _ unless there's a court order.
Judge Michael Stelzer heard arguments Wednesday from the St. Louis Police Officers' Association and the circuit attorney's office about the police union's request for a temporary restraining order to prevent the circuit attorney's office and police department from releasing the names of officers on a so-called exclusion list.
Assistant Circuit Attorney Robert Dierker argued that the restraining order was unnecessary because his boss, Kim Gardner, was already refusing to disclose the list to those who have been asking for it. That includes defense attorneys, public defenders and media outlets, he said.
Police union attorney Neil Bruntrager, argued that as of Friday, Dierker would no longer be with Gardner's office and he could therefore "not bank on" Dierker's word that the list would not be released if Gardner changed her mind.
"They've created this monster and we're trying to contain this monster so we can have an understanding of how the officers got on the list and how they can get off the list," Bruntrager said. "But once this bell is rung, we can't recall the keeper."
The police union filed the motion for a restraining order on behalf of one of the officers on the list, calling him John Doe. His attorney, Nikki Moody, said her client and the others on the list were told to contact the circuit attorney's office to find out why they were on the list, and have not been given an answer.
"Kim Gardner has already stated these officers have 'credibility' issues, so releasing my client's name would have a negative affect on his career and put his safety in danger," she said.
Dierker argued that a restraining order could put the circuit attorney's office at odds with judges if another judge would order the office to release it.
"We could be held in contempt in two courts," he said.
He proposed that the court require anyone seeking the list to obtain a court order. Bruntrager agreed.
"This list is so toxic and incorrect," Bruntrager said. "To have a police officer's credibility questioned, there must be a reason. Every defense lawyer in town is going to be filing motions to disclose this list."
Stelzer said he would deliver his ruling within 24 hours on whether to require court orders to get the list.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Thursday that Gardner would no longer allow the officers to apply for warrants and would review their previous cases for "viability."
The newspaper filed a Sunshine Law request for the names of the officers. Her office responded to the request saying the list was a "work product," after the union served Gardner's office with notice of the restraining order application.
Gardner's office said the information is protected by attorney client privilege and could not be released.
There have been conflicting statements issued by Police Chief John Hayden and Gardner. Hayden has insisted no one from his department requested such a list, and has demanded to know why the officers were put on the list.
Gardner has said Major Michael Sack asked for the list.
During a news conference Wednesday about an upcoming traffic enforcement initiative, Hayden said he stood by his original statement and reiterated that no one from his department asked for the list. He said none of the officers on the list had been disciplined or transferred to administrative duty as a result.
"Nothing has changed as far as I'm concerned," he said.
The chief also appears to remain in the dark as to why his officers were put on the list. He said Gardner did not tell him during their meeting Tuesday.
Public Safety Director Jimmie Edwards issued a statement late Tuesday after the meeting between Gardner and Hayden, saying in part that the two "agreed that issues concerning a St. Louis City police officer's credibility shall continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis." A spokeswoman for Gardner said that was a joint statement.
Gardner has not publicly explained her reasons for the list, nor agreed to an interview. In statements, she has said the officers have "credibility issues."
Dierker refused to answer questions about why officers were put on the list.
"That would be making public something we don't want made public," Dierker said. As of Monday, Dierker will join the city counselor's office.
At Wednesday's hearing, Dierker said one of the officers on the list had recently been charged with a felony. Officer Adam Feaman was charged in August with felony assault and armed criminal action after prosecutors say he broke a man's jaw with a flashlight during an arrest attempt in 2017.
