5 ms·

Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when th

by pc86 2y ago

Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. Any union contract requiring the deletion/obfuscation of any disciplinary records for any reason other than clerical error or pardon should be illegal.

aidenn0 2y ago
> Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. I don't think requires any union pressure; the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was. I have a friend who is a cop in Indiana (a "right to work" state), and after talking with him, I've realized that the department, as an organization, can largely be modeled as an entity that takes action to minimize its liability (individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability, but the department is much less so). Apropos to this subject: - They want to minimize the number of apparent past bad actors that will be revealed during discover because a lot of past bad actors could be presented as a pattern of poor hiring and/or training. Allowing officers to resign to kill an investigation is golden). - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability.
- chaps 2y ago
  "the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was." ...have you not seen the extents that LE agencies and the FOP will go to make sure these folk aren't fired? There's a reason LE have FOP cards in their wallets that include a statement to be read verbatim into a transcript for disciplinary meetings. - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability. You have a very rose-stained perception into these things. I highly recommend you do some court watching to really understand how these systems work. These sorts of retrospective analyses of misconduct truly don't exist as deeply or as strong as you think they are. I recommend reading: https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ (disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)
  - defrost 2y ago
    As a US outsider (Australia) I see the Tulsi Gabbard hearing has stirred a barely tangential can of worms re: disclosure and keeping secrets. It's national security related, Was Snowden a traitor or a whistleblower and pokes the bear on whistleblowers and duty to disclose poor and outright illegal behaviour. Not sure if that's your beat or interest as a reporer .. but it goes to a core issue wt public institutions. related: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-confirmation-hearing-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard...
    - chaps 2y ago
      Transparency is indeed a large focus of mine, but it's mostly focused on local transparency and not federal.

by pc86 2y ago

aidenn0 2y ago

> Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. I don't think requires any union pressure; the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was. I have a friend who is a cop in Indiana (a "right to work" state), and after talking with him, I've realized that the department, as an organization, can largely be modeled as an entity that takes action to minimize its liability (individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability, but the department is much less so). Apropos to this subject: - They want to minimize the number of apparent past bad actors that will be revealed during discover because a lot of past bad actors could be presented as a pattern of poor hiring and/or training. Allowing officers to resign to kill an investigation is golden). - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability.

chaps 2y ago
"the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was." ...have you not seen the extents that LE agencies and the FOP will go to make sure these folk aren't fired? There's a reason LE have FOP cards in their wallets that include a statement to be read verbatim into a transcript for disciplinary meetings. - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability. You have a very rose-stained perception into these things. I highly recommend you do some court watching to really understand how these systems work. These sorts of retrospective analyses of misconduct truly don't exist as deeply or as strong as you think they are. I recommend reading: https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ (disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)
- defrost 2y ago
  As a US outsider (Australia) I see the Tulsi Gabbard hearing has stirred a barely tangential can of worms re: disclosure and keeping secrets. It's national security related, Was Snowden a traitor or a whistleblower and pokes the bear on whistleblowers and duty to disclose poor and outright illegal behaviour. Not sure if that's your beat or interest as a reporer .. but it goes to a core issue wt public institutions. related: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-confirmation-hearing-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard...
  - chaps 2y ago
    Transparency is indeed a large focus of mine, but it's mostly focused on local transparency and not federal.