We've received plenty of press releases through the years from police agencies detailing arrests of people between the ages of 16 and 19, and police frequently have included the names of the teenage defendants.

We publish the names of these individuals if they are 16 or older and have been charged with at least one felony. If they are 16 or 17 and face just misdemeanor or violation charges, then we have not used the names. And if they're below the age of 16, we won't use the name unless there is some extremely unusual circumstance (such as a 15 year old charged with murder).

It's a policy that's aimed at balancing the public's right to know information about serious crime in the community with the special consideration that should be given to juveniles charged with crimes. We decided that if a crime is serious enough, then printing the name is the more responsible approach.

But the definition of “serious enough” can be quite subjective. We've tried to eliminate that subjectivity and establish more consistency by using the legal definitions of crimes - violations, misdemeanors and felonies - as the basis for our policies.

This effort at consistency, unfortunately, can be undermined when police agencies are inconsistent themselves.

As I noted above, we've been given identities of teenage defendants numerous times. But occasionally we run into cases where a police agency won't release the name, citing the defendant's age and the fact that the defendant is eligible for youthful offender treatment, a status which effectively seals the record in cases when a defendant commits a crime at the age of 18 or younger.

Aside from the inconsistency we see from police agencies, there's a significant problem when they refuse to release names in these cases - it's against the law.

Courts have been clear regarding youthful offender cases and the Freedom of Information law in New York state. The only people who have authorities to grant youthful offender status and thus seal the records in the case are the judges overseeing the case. Unless and until a judge does that, the records are open to the public. Merely being eligible doesn't cut it; a judge must actually grant youthful offender status.

We've run into a couple of these cases in the past few weeks and consulted with Robert Freeman, the executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, who said there's no question that police agencies have no legal basis for withholding the names without a judge's order.

Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's columns appear Tuesdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net