State push for police rights is under way

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Arizona police officers are seeking more protections from internal investigations prompted by residents and fellow officers.

Most Valley police unions now have contracts that spell out procedures for investigations of officers accused of misconduct.

The Glendale police unions negotiated a contract with the city requiring residents who file complaints against officers to sign affidavits that they believe their accusations are true. Other unions call for accused officers to be given information about the nature of the complaints and allow union representatives to serve as witnesses during officer interviews.

Mesa's police union, which started negotiations with city administrators last week, hopes to add similar guidelines.

Union leaders have also proposed state laws to regulate internal investigations.

Police unions said the changes are necessary to give officers the same rights and protections as anyone else. Police administrators and experts say the rights of officers and residents must be balanced.

A handful of bills sponsored by Republican lawmakers would change procedures across Arizona.

The proposed bills would allow fired police officers who believe they were unjustly terminated to file suit in Superior Court, allow police unions to report misconduct to an oversight board and require police departments to set a four-month deadline on internal investigations. Also, a polygraph examination could not be used as the sole evidence to fire an officer.

The proposals were sparked by last year's adoption of Arizona's "just cause" law, which bars excessive police discipline and requires the discipline be based on a "preponderance of evidence."

Police-union leaders say they have lobbied lawmakers to take action following a series of what they viewed to be unjust actions by police administrators.

"Basically, it's like a cancer that has spread to multiple jurisdictions," said Brian Livingston, executive director of the Arizona Police Association, a union that has lobbied for the proposed bills.

A review board of Surprise residents last year voted to reinstate two fired officers after it found other officers with similar violations had received lesser discipline. And the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association has spoken on behalf of Richard Chrisman, an officer indicted on charges of second-degree murder in the shooting of a domestic-violence suspect last October. The union objected when Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris initially said Chrisman's termination process would begin before his criminal trial.

Levi Bolton, lobbyist for the Phoenix union, said officers deserve due process when they're under investigation.

"We're not asking for rights above and beyond what citizens get," he said. "We're asking for the same thing - to give us a presumption of innocence."

The proposed state laws, and greater mention of police-disciplinary procedures in city contracts, would further clarify requirements for those accused of misconduct and those investigating misconduct, union leaders say.

Sgt. Fabian Cota, president of the Mesa Police Association, said inconsistencies in discipline and investigative practices can create confusion.

A deputy at one agency may be fired for driving under the influence, while an officer elsewhere is given a written reprimand. Or two officers at the same department may be treated differently for similar conduct. Then questions can crop up about whether supervisors targeted the officer who received the more-severe discipline.

"We're just trying to get things to where they're more consistent, that there's more equal treatment," Cota said. "This really isn't about trying to get away with stuff."

He added that guidelines for police leaders could also save taxpayers' money.

Thousands are spent to train one officer, and if she is fired without proper cause, the money goes to waste, he said.

Justin Harris, president of the Glendale Law Enforcement Association, has said his city's contract provides direction to police and residents.

"It gives both parties distinct guidelines to follow within the complaint process," he said.

But police leaders and experts emphasize it's important to maintain a careful balance between the rights of officers and the rights of residents.

Officers deserve a fair investigation, but police must maintain the public's trust.

Laws that impact the inner workings of a police department can be harmful if they hamper a police chief's discretion, said Hubert Williams, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Police Foundation, which focuses on law-enforcement research and reform.

"They can limit the police chief's ability to get the facts on officers who are deemed to be acting inappropriately," said Williams, a former Newark, N.J., chief.

John Harris of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, whose organization has discussed the proposed laws with police unions, agreed that chiefs need to be able to address problems that arise.

"We don't want to lose our management rights and our ability to run our organizations," said the chief of Sahuarita.

Kathryn Olson, president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, said it's most important that all sides agree on a system, regardless of what it is.

That means residents get a say, too.

"Law-enforcement agencies get their authority and their legitimacy from the public," Olson said.

State push for police rights is under way

[retdetsgt]

This is a copy of the old contract of ours. Page 32 has the Officer's Bill of Rights, which is fairly extensive. I remember when we didn't have that and IA investigations were pretty brutal. They just signed a new one, but that part was and is always left in.

http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/in...=10857&c=27840

[Cat_Doc]

http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/in...=10857&c=27840

Appears pretty fair to me. Our agency has been operating under similar policies for the last few years.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Our agency has been operating under similar policies for the last few years.

I think that's the crux of the poorly written article. There isn't consistency from one place to another, or sometimes even within an agency. The most recent example I can think of is Surprise PD's recent chief who resigned after inconsistent discipline couple with a huge majority of the department submitting a letter of no confidence to the council. It'd be nice to know the cops in Tucson, Williams, Flagstaff, Phoenix and Apache Junction were all disciplined similarly when required.

[retdetsgt]

There's nothing statewide here. It's all department to department. Sometimes Oregon's liberal courts do come in handy though in cases like these. They've routinely stood by the officer under uneven disciplinary practices so few departments get out of line. It gets too expensive for them.

[MikeG]

Sgt. Fabian Cota, president of the Mesa Police Association, said inconsistencies in discipline and investigative practices can create confusion.

A deputy at one agency may be fired for driving under the influence, while an officer elsewhere is given a written reprimand. Or two officers at the same department may be treated differently for similar conduct. Then questions can crop up about whether supervisors targeted the officer who received the more-severe discipline.

"We're just trying to get things to where they're more consistent, that there's more equal treatment," Cota said. "This really isn't about trying to get away with stuff."

I like Bill of Rights idea so that officers know what to expect when they are investigated. Whether it's a department complaint or a POST, there shouldn't be any surprises.

I don't like what the Mesa guy says about outcomes. Agencies should be consistent within their agency. POST should be consistent. Departments, though, shoule be able to set their own standards. If Glendale fires for a DUI but Peoria doesn't, that should be fine. Glendale police are on notice for that policy. It doesn't even have to be as flagrant as DUI. What about infractions such as violating pursuit policy? Agencies need to be able to develop and maintain their own standards for employment.

For certification, there is already one board so for the serious infractions it should already be standard on how an investigation is conducted.

I can see an unintended consequence of this is if termination for cause becomes too dificult, departments will just try to make it a certification issue and pass the buck to azPOST. Maybe I'm making mountain out of molehill. Just my 0.02.

[mobrien316]

That's been one of our biggest gripes at my department - inconsistent discipline. If a guy the admin likes does something, he gets told not to do it again. If a guy the admin dislikes does the exact same thing, he gets a few days off.

[retdetsgt]

That's been one of our biggest gripes at my department - inconsistent discipline. If a guy the admin likes does something, he gets told not to do it again. If a guy the admin dislikes does the exact same thing, he gets a few days off.

I noticed way back when I was in the Army that if someone consistently did dumb things and screwed up, they could get away with a lot more than the guy who rarely got into trouble. They seemed to have such lower expectations of the first person that they just thought, "Oh well, he did it again". But when the good guy did something out of line, they wanted to make an example of him. Seriously, I saw it time and again.

I saw this continue with the police until we got that bill of rights. I know people who had preventable car wrecks several times a year and get minor discipline for it. And they were the people that werre usually screwing up regularly in other minor areas too. But then another guy in my precinct went through a red light, got in a crash and was given 3 days off w/o pay. That was the first wreck he had ever had as a cop and to my knowledge had never had any discipline ever. For some reason, people like the second guy is the one they always want to make an example of. I never understood it, but I sure saw it a lot.

[MikeG]

Sort of related. Follow link for termination of local Sgt.

Peoria personnel board upholds police sergeant's termination

Apparently there are three/four forums? The court was the legal forum for the crime. There was probably an IA investigation that recommended termination. There was a Hearing Officer investigation/review. Then there was the Personnel Board. Is this "forum shopping" to get the opinion they want? Is this standard? I can't comment on the merits of this case but it would suck if there were unlimited options to get the opinion desired.

[retdetsgt]

Here the criminal is separate, but the outcome may or may not be used in determining the departmental discipline. If there are criminal charges, we always wait until the that is settled. The criminal investigation is done by detectives, not IA.

We have an IA investigation with no determination of punishment by that division. Their investigation is forwarded to the chief who decides the whether it's unfounded, sustained, not sustained (unable to prove) or exonerated. If sustained, then the chief decides the punishment.

The officer can file a grievance that goes to the mayor's office. If the mayor concurs with the chief and a further appeal can be filed with an arbitrator. An independent arbitrator listens to both sides and makes the final determination. The union actually makes the filing and they don't always agree to do it if they see no case for the officer.

We have sort of a police review board that really has no teeth. If a citizen files a complaint against an officer and they don't like the outcome, they can appeal to them. All the board can do is ask the department to review it, but that's about it.