 |
Truth
or
Consequences
Departments are sticking their necks out and creating liability for themselves every time they use this charge against one of their members. This is a lose/lose proposition for both the officer and the Department alike. It undermines the integrity of the Department, destroys moral and opens both the Department and the Officer to lawsuits.
By destroying an officer's credibility, the Department prevents the officer from doing his job. An officers integrity and discretion in making split second decisions are rights that are guaranteed by law. These rights have been tried and challenged throughout the years and the Courts have ruled that an officer cannot perform his duties without both integrity and the ability to apply it through its discretion.
The sole duty of the officer is to determine the truth. Whether it be determining "probable cause" for a motor vehicle stop, or for an arrest. He is charged with task of gathering evidence which has to be done without violating rights. He has to swear out charges, be it a summons, warrant, or traffic ticket. He has to fill out affidavits for search warrants. He is responsible for maintaining an evidence log,and chain of custody. For writing reports which accurately and truthfully reflect the events that he is recording. If any of these events are tainted with dishonesty/untruthfulness, they are all fruitless.
The biggest
challenge for the officer
in making the charges stick is his ability to withstand being
scrutinized by the defense attorney. Now that the Department
is doing the defense attorney's job for him, there is little chance
that the officer will be successful in court.
Worse, the Department that readily charges its officers with being untruthful opens itself up to a myriad of lawsuits from both within and outside its Department. Just how much liability a Department incurs will depend on the frequency that it uses this charge and the ability of its members to obtain this information.
INTERNAL
LIABILITY
Lets
use a Department who has charged 10 officers with this charge as an
example. We are all aware that during an internal
investigation that other officers are called upon to
submit internal reports with their accounts of the
incident. If the accounts are conflicting, which they
normally
are, the Department attempts to ascertain which accounts are accurate
and charges the officer(s) who rendered a conflicting account with
untruthfulness.
A few internal investigations from now, the Department exercises its same practice of requiring the officers to submit internal reports and this time, what they perceive to be, the accurate account is used to justify bringing internal charges against the targeted officer or officers. The problem becomes that the officer who gave the favorable account of the incident has been charged in the past with being untruthful. Meaning, the Department cannot substantiate bringing the charges against the targeted officer because the Department itself has tainted its own witness. Both the targeted officer and the officer who has the untruthfulness charge in his personnel file now have a cause of action.
This same theory applies to lateral transfers. If an officer with a untruthfulness charge in his personnel file is transferred over an officer who does not, this also creates a cause of action. This is magnified if the transfer is to a drug unit or other unit which primarily relies on obtaining and executing search warrants.
EXTERNAL
LIABILITY
Now, lets look outside the Department at the financial liability that this causes. Each time the officer is sued, along with the Department, (they are usually both named), the officer's credibility is called into question, his report scrutinized, and his decisions second guessed. The defense attorney will subpoena the contents of the officer's personnel file and discover that the officer has been charged by its Department for being untruthful. Yet the Department allowed this officer to continue to work, make arrest, etc. .... immunities are questionable as is a "good faith" argument.
What happens if
the law suit involves multiple officers, which is very common, and they
all have the "untruthfulness" charge in their file? How many
officers in your employ are
untruthful? What percentage of your Department is
untruthful? It just gets worse.
What happens if
the public finds out?
Officers that are charged with this are urged strongly to fight it. If the disciplinary action is small, involves multiple charges and the officer decides not to fight it, we urge you to make the removal of the untruthfulness charge a condition of your plea, and by all means, get it in writing.
Departments members that are being targeted with this charge may consider reaching out to the Department's Public Safety Director and Director of Finance with their concerns. The Departments insurance carrier may also be of assistance with this matter.