3 ms·

> It's unconstitutional as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. The

> It's unconstitutional as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong. The government isn't actually required to provide 'due processes' unless someone is being deprived of their life or livlihood. That is to say, I don't believe employees of any stripe (government included) need to go through criminal processing before being suspended or fired. More so, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure what the specifics of 'due process' are. Simply, any non-arbitrary written policy can be considered a due processes. Its' how boarder guards can get away with harassing people when they step out of line at the TSA.

berberous 12y ago
When the parent says "adjudicated" he does not mean one needs to go through a criminal proceeding. If there is a property interest involved[1], the government cannot deprive you of it without due process. The level of process can vary depending on a balancing test and the facts involved, but usually will require some sort of notice and pre-deprivation hearing. [1] An at-will employee will not have a property interest, but a government employee with a contract will.