Background DQ?

[RoadKingTrooper]

I know my Dept followed the same general set of guidelines as I see here for automatic DQ's.

My question is how about an applicant arrested for Assault on a Police Officer. There was NO amount of time or Judicial shenanigans that would pass one of these "reformed" criminals to the blue and grey. My buddy on Denver PD affirmed the same standard there.

[retdetsgt]

Any conviction for a crime of violence is a DQ. It wouldn't have to be on a cop. Any arrest, even if dismissed or found not guilty would be scrutinized closely and the rest of the applicant's history would be equally looked at for prior problems with violence.

[MountainMan]

RKT to a certain degree I agree. There isn't a giant difference between the three of ours ages. Except I'm younger and better looking:rolleyes:

Were you ever in a fight in highschool or in the military. I think the main difference now is society charges to many people for crimes that were never even blinked at years ago.

If you look at what will DQ you from post in this state it has actually hurt recruiting.

How fair is it that you got in a fist fight at 17 or 18 and get DQ'ed but you do a little cocaine and weed and you still get a shot.

But assault on a Peace Officer WTF

[GoDirectly2Jail]

"Oh, hey! You're that cop I took a swing at two years ago at my out-of-control frat party. Guess what? I'm your new partner!"

Yes, that always goes over REAL well. :D

[retdetsgt]

Were you ever in a fight in highschool or in the military. I think the main difference now is society charges to many people for crimes that were never even blinked at years ago.

I got in a lot of fights in high school and in fact was suspended several times for it. But that was in high school. And frankly, I was never the aggressor per se in any of them, I was just intolerant of dip****s. Even back then, the police arrested kids for assault now and then, but it was obvious assault, not mutual combat between teenagers with no weapons.

When I started in 1970, we'd possible arrest people for dis con if they were fighting in the street, but we've always distinguished between assault and mutual combat and I think police still do. You jump somebody, especially smaller than you, it's assault. Escalating confrontation is a fight. But getting into fights as an adult should cause some scrutiny.

[MountainMan]

I agree but In my state the schools have lost their mind. 3 rd degree assault gets thrown around like crazy. Thats an auto DQ here. No distincition between adult and minor convictions. Our legislature made an interesting choice in some of the things that prohibit POST certification. Apparently they felt they needed to add failure to register as a sex offender to the official list. I was pretty sure thats a DQ before you get to that point but a politician felt the need to add it. LOL

I'm a stickler about what I see on a background and extremely picky. If I were the man in charge we would only get about half of the ones that make it into the academy. I don't want my earlier statement to be taken out of context of what I was thinking when I typed it. I see that it could be pretty easily. I'm not a liberal everybody gets a shot kind of guy.

[retdetsgt]

Very true. The schools have been limited so much as to how they can discipline, they call the cops now. When I was a kid, if you created too many problems, that was the end of your formal education. No alternative school, no nothing and we all knew it. We also knew we had to have a diploma to get a decent job too, no going directly to welfare like they can today.

We have a different breed of cat applying to be cops now than when I was hired. We were all fairly big men with blue collar backgrounds. No drug use, no bad credit issues (you had to be 21 to even be considered for credit), and no with scrapes with the law after 18. A little over half my academy were veterans, but a significant number were just out of college and fairly clueless about real life. But none of them had any bad marks against them either.

I had an MIP beer at 16, but the BI looked at me and said, "So what?". I had just finished a 6 year Army stint with lotsa nice stuff on my DD214 so they didn't care. I don't know if they even contacted my H.S. or not.

[L-1]

In California, a problem arises when the applicant has been arrested but not been convicted of the crime. The California Labor Code prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant based solely on an arrest that did not result in a conviction, so you have to find something else to DQ them on.

This caused my agency a real headache many years back when we had a rapist for an applicant. At the time of his arrest there was a search and seizure problem, all the physical evidence got thrown out (including the suspect's fluids, hair, and clothing) and he was acquitted at trial, even though this evidence otherwise established that he was the attacker. I was told that because there was no conviction, I could not even hint at his rape in the background package. There were several minor discrepancies that I listed as DQ factors and he appealed. The only thing that saved us was that he apparently could not afford the cost of a full blown appeal battle and finally gave up. Even if he had won, we were going to play the Rule of Three with him until the list was exhausted or there were three candidates we didn't want to hire. Then we would call for a new test

[SnapShawt]

Holy crap and I thought I'd heard it all. California's really gone over the edge hasn't it?

[retdetsgt]

Holy crap and I thought I'd heard it all. California's really gone over the edge hasn't it?

That's what I was thinking. Even without a conviction, you can't use the allegation against him in hiring? There's no subjective thought to it anymore at all?

The potential liability of hiring someone like that and having him sexually assault someone when you knew of the arrest and allegation is mind-boggling.