3 ms·

In September, California passed the law (S.B. 1421) described in the article, supposedly allowing access to records of police misconduct. It is restricted to ce

In September, California passed the law (S.B. 1421) described in the article, supposedly allowing access to records of police misconduct. It is restricted to certain circumstances, but should unambiguously allow for possession and publication, for example, of a list of officers who molested children (a sexual assault against a member of the public). Other states, like New York (CRL 50-a), have laws preventing public access to records of police misconduct, going so far as to hold proceedings against officers in secret [0]. Even efforts to post an anonymized list of violations have been blocked [1]. We require that other professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers, financial advisors) have complete, public records of professional misconduct as a matter of public safety (or awareness at a minimum). However, the very people who walk around with what amounts to a license to kill [2] are not held to the same standard. In fact, officers may be granted additional rights, shielding them from interrogation techniques that would otherwise be applied to members of the public [3]. [0] https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-50-shields-law-enforcement-records https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-5... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-discipline-records-garner.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-disciplin... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charge... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/...

gnopgnip 8y ago
There is certainly some grey area in how the law should be implemented. Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals?
- nickles 8y ago
  > Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals? Are civilians afforded that privilege? Consider the case of stockbrokers, for example. Regulations require that a broker immediately discloses, on a publicly accessible website [0], that they have become "a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration" [1]. This does not require a finding of guilt nor an exhaustion of appeals. While allegations of financial fraud are certainly concerning, a police officer convicted of molesting a child or sexual assaulting suspects is potentially shielded from similar levels of disclosure (as described in the article). Are stockbrokers subject to too much scrutiny, or are police officers subject to too little scrutiny? Furthermore, the gray area in the law, when assigning the benefit of the doubt to the officer, puts the public in danger. In the Washington Post article cited above, the following example is referenced: > In 2007, Shreveport police officer Wiley Willis arrested 38-year-old Angela Garbarino on suspicion of drunken driving. While in custody, as captured on the video below, Garbarino begins arguing with Willis about what she said is her right to make a phone call. About a minute later, Willis walks over and turns off the video camera. When the camera comes back on, Garbarino is lying on the floor in a pool of her own blood. She was later photographed with severe facial injuries she says were the result of Willis beating her. Willis’ attorney stated that she tripped and fell while the camera was off. After the video went viral, Willis was fired, but has never been criminally charged. > Last month, the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board voted to reinstate Willis on the police force. He’ll get full back pay and benefits for the year-and-a-half he was fired. The reason? During the internal investigation of Willis, a polygraph machine operator failed to record the results of his Q&A with Willis. This apparently is a violation of Louisiana’s “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” a set of guidelines every department must follow when investigating officer misconduct. > Garbarino won a $400,000 settlement from the city of Shreveport last year. This officer was reinstated on what is incontrovertibly a technicality. Since the appeal was successful, PO Willis' actions could be concealed from the public due to the gray area of the law. Is it in the public interest to hide such blatant misconduct? [0] https://brokercheck.finra.org/ https://brokercheck.finra.org/ [1] http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/

gnopgnip 8y ago

There is certainly some grey area in how the law should be implemented. Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals?

nickles 8y ago
> Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals? Are civilians afforded that privilege? Consider the case of stockbrokers, for example. Regulations require that a broker immediately discloses, on a publicly accessible website [0], that they have become "a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration" [1]. This does not require a finding of guilt nor an exhaustion of appeals. While allegations of financial fraud are certainly concerning, a police officer convicted of molesting a child or sexual assaulting suspects is potentially shielded from similar levels of disclosure (as described in the article). Are stockbrokers subject to too much scrutiny, or are police officers subject to too little scrutiny? Furthermore, the gray area in the law, when assigning the benefit of the doubt to the officer, puts the public in danger. In the Washington Post article cited above, the following example is referenced: > In 2007, Shreveport police officer Wiley Willis arrested 38-year-old Angela Garbarino on suspicion of drunken driving. While in custody, as captured on the video below, Garbarino begins arguing with Willis about what she said is her right to make a phone call. About a minute later, Willis walks over and turns off the video camera. When the camera comes back on, Garbarino is lying on the floor in a pool of her own blood. She was later photographed with severe facial injuries she says were the result of Willis beating her. Willis’ attorney stated that she tripped and fell while the camera was off. After the video went viral, Willis was fired, but has never been criminally charged. > Last month, the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board voted to reinstate Willis on the police force. He’ll get full back pay and benefits for the year-and-a-half he was fired. The reason? During the internal investigation of Willis, a polygraph machine operator failed to record the results of his Q&A with Willis. This apparently is a violation of Louisiana’s “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” a set of guidelines every department must follow when investigating officer misconduct. > Garbarino won a $400,000 settlement from the city of Shreveport last year. This officer was reinstated on what is incontrovertibly a technicality. Since the appeal was successful, PO Willis' actions could be concealed from the public due to the gray area of the law. Is it in the public interest to hide such blatant misconduct? [0] https://brokercheck.finra.org/ https://brokercheck.finra.org/ [1] http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/