Is It Ethical to Allow Police, Under Investigation, to Resign

[huntsab]

In a small CA county, a police officer, described by other police as a "screw-up," has floated from one small department to another. At his previous job he was allowed to resign. He was under investigation for a serious crime while on duty. When an officer leaves his job all internal investigations cease.
I imagine this would look like a good option for a police chief concerned about his appearance and the reputation of his department. He could get rid of his problem without having to disclose anything at all. Of course, the screw-up just gets hired in the next town and continues to screw up. The way he screws up is to abuse his power and use too much physical force, stalk women, etc.
It' like the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. Protect the church by moving pedophiles from one parish to the next.
This is one of the results of making police personnel files confidential and the all the unecessary secrecy police unions have cowed legislators into passing. Police feared their safety would be threatened unless complaints against them were top secret. What they did is protect the worst of the worst.

[Mr. Knowitall]

The alternative to allowing somebody to resign would be what? Indentured servitude? People are allowed to quit their jobs.

If a future employer fails to perform an adequate background check, there's potential liability for the negligent hiring decision.

[huntsab]

The alternative would be to terminate him after a complete investigation uncovered criminal wrongdoing and hand the case to the DA to prosecute. Fix the problem. I do not think an incomplete internal investigation would be open for anyone to check. Maybe I am wrong about that.

[cbg]

So he should be forced to continue working until the investigation is complete, and then he can be fired? But he is not allowed to resign? How is that different from indentured servitude, may I ask?

[huntsab]

He wasn't aware of the investigation. He didn't want to quit until he was told he was a suspect. He was not forced to do anything. He was given a chance to end the investigation which benefitted everyone except the public.

[cbg]

You asked a question so I will answer it.

Yes. It is ethical to allow a police officer under investigation to resign.

Hope that clears up the question for you.

[aardvarc]

And, quitting won't necessarily result in stoppage of an investigation, not if there are potential criminal charges involved - it could change from an internal affairs investigation into a standard criminal investigation. He can still be charged with a crime, regardless of his employment status within the department. Resigning won't get him off the hook for a criminal action.

[huntsab]

Does it matter what crime he was suspected of committing? That he resigned rather than face an investigation? That the police ended the investigation? That he was hired again? No, of course not. Thank you, Father.

[cbg]

Forcing him to remain employed so that they can fire him instead of him resigning is what I would consider unethical.

[cdwjava]

In a small CA county, a police officer, described by other police as a "screw-up," has floated from one small department to another. At his previous job he was allowed to resign. He was under investigation for a serious crime while on duty. When an officer leaves his job all internal investigations cease.

They cannot legally prevent him from resigning. No law in CA prevents an employee from leaving a job - even a government job.

While leaving the position does not statutorily prevent the agency from examining an incident or complaint further, it can become largely irrelevant. A non-employee cannot be compelled to provide a statement, nor can they discipline a non-employee. The accusation and the investigation to the point or resigning or termination of the investigation will still be part of the employee's record with that agency so any future law enforcement employers will have access to it all.

Many officers facing a bad IA are given the unofficial option of resigning in lieu of termination. It's easier on all involved and it allows the agency to rid itself of a problem without, potentially, having to go to court or mediation over an extended period as they try to force the employee out.

I imagine this would look like a good option for a police chief concerned about his appearance and the reputation of his department. He could get rid of his problem without having to disclose anything at all. Of course, the screw-up just gets hired in the next town and continues to screw up. The way he screws up is to abuse his power and use too much physical force, stalk women, etc.

The new agency - if they do even a half-assed background - will have access to the complaint and the investigation. What the prospective employer wants to do with it is up to them, but resigning does NOT make the incident just go away.

It' like the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. Protect the church by moving pedophiles from one parish to the next.

Not at all. If you were moving a rogue officer from one precinct to another in the same city, you might have a point. But, different cities are not all that likely to have any interest in hiring a problem officer. Why adopt a headache and a liability? If you can see the train a comin', get off the track!

This is one of the results of making police personnel files confidential and the all the unecessary secrecy police unions have cowed legislators into passing. Police feared their safety would be threatened unless complaints against them were top secret. What they did is protect the worst of the worst.

The laws protect intrusion into ALL public employee personnel records, not just law enforcers. In the case of law enforcement there are avenues through Brady and Pitchess that records can be sought, and a recent case decision can allow the release of witness statements taken in an IA under certain circumstances. These records might be shielded from PUBLIC view, but employing agencies have an absolute right under the law to review these records ... and, they do.

- - - Updated - - -

He wasn't aware of the investigation. He didn't want to quit until he was told he was a suspect. He was not forced to do anything. He was given a chance to end the investigation which benefitted everyone except the public.

By law, agencies cannot conduct Star Chamber investigations. Sadly, these do happen on occasion. I don't suppose you would like to be put on trial where you were not invited and then told later that you were found guilty, would you?

The officer must be made aware of the investigation and given an opportunity to make their statement should they choose to. Even if they do NOT choose to provide one, they can be compelled to speak under threat of discipline up to and including termination. An officer facing potential criminal charges may - on advice of counsel - decline to speak and suffer the possibility of termination for insubordination. And an officer who does not wish to be compelled to speak or be fired can quit.

- - - Updated - - -

Does it matter what crime he was suspected of committing? That he resigned rather than face an investigation? That the police ended the investigation? That he was hired again? No, of course not. Thank you, Father.

If the officer is accused of a CRIME then that is often conducted as a separate matter. When you have both an IA and a criminal investigation, the process generally involves what is referred to as a "bifurcated investigation." Legally, information obtained in the IA cannot generally be used in the criminal investigation. So, ideally, you would have the criminal investigation conducted BEFORE the IA so as to prevent the possibility of leakage or the appearance of leakage in violation of GC 3300 et seq. If both are done simultaneously, then the IA investigators have to make darn certain that no information from their investigation gets into the hands of the criminal investigators ... that can be a difficult thing. So, they tend to wait until the criminal investigation is done.

So, an officer accused of criminal acts does not get a free pass by resigning. A resignation may protect him from discipline, but not from prosecution.