COVINA - An appeals court has upheld a decision that the Covina Police Department acted properly when it fired an officer for tapping into a criminal records database and releasing the information publicly.

The unanimous ruling of the 2nd District Court of Appeals panel came down Oct. 11, and the court decided to publish the opinion on Wednesday.

Richard M. Kreisler of the law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, which represented the city, said the court's decision to publish the case could be significant for local law enforcement agencies.

"In a police department, one of the jobs of a sergeant is to provide training and counseling to officers," Kreisler said. "That duty could be negatively impacted if each time you need to have a conversation you have to wait for an officer to have a representative present."

Officer Stephanie Steinert was fired from the Covina Police Department after a meeting she had with her commanding officer, Sgt. John Curley, in July 2003.

In September 2004, Steinert filed a lawsuit to overturn her termination on the grounds that the statements she made to the sergeant should have been suppressed under the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

The law provides certain protections for officers when they are questioned by a supervisor, including the right to have a legal representative at the interview when the officer faces disciplinary action.

Steinert, according to Kreisler, accessed a computer database and downloaded background information on man who was suspected of vandalizing a car. She then shared the information outside of the department.

"A woman came to the department to file a vandalism report because someone had keyed her car," Kreisler said. "And the officer shared the man's rap sheet information with the woman."

Steinert's attorney, Michael A. McGill, did not return phone calls Thursday.

Kreisler said that Steinert told her sergeant she did not give the woman any information about suspect's past. However, the woman later said the officer did share with her information about the suspect.

"An issue was immediately created when the officer had been dishonest," Kreisler said, "and from that point an internal investigation commenced that led to disciplinary action."

Kreisler said the court decided the officers' Bill of Rights did not protect Steinert.