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

[huntsab]

Any criminal investigation of a police officer should be conducted by an outside agency. The police chief has a personal interest in the outcome of the investigation. A serious crime committed by one of his officers could end the Chief's career.
A police officer shall fully cooperate in any official investigation is one of the standards promised in the Police Officer's Code of Ethics. These are not pie in the sky ideals we hope you strive for. This is the deal. We turn over tremendous power to police to use against us and you meet a certain standard for that privilege-a higher standard-a reasonable and necessary standard given the powers of police.
Thank you for your detailed reply, cdwjava. I was worried the hiring agency would not be able to see details of an IA investigation.

[cdwjava]

Any criminal investigation of a police officer should be conducted by an outside agency.

Many are, so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety and limit the possibility of contamination by the IA process. Another method often employed is to use a mixed investigative team including investigators from one or more outside agencies within the same county.

The police chief has a personal interest in the outcome of the investigation. A serious crime committed by one of his officers could end the Chief's career.

Good thing he won't be the one conducting the investigation.

A police officer shall fully cooperate in any official investigation is one of the standards promised in the Police Officer's Code of Ethics.

The IA investigation is not mentioned in the Code of Ethics. And if you have an officer that is knowingly and intentionally committing criminal acts, do you think he gives a whit about any code?

Thank you for your detailed reply, cdwjava. I was worried the hiring agency would not be able to see details of an IA investigation.

Nope. They will. I conduct such background investigations, and you get to see the good and the bad. The prospective employer can choose to overlook allegations that lack support, but if someone resigned in lieu of termination or simply prior to the conclusion of the investigation, that would raise a huge red flag and most agencies would likely not be willing to run the risk of employing such an officer.

[huntsab]

An IA investigation is an official investigation. The career of a police officer who invokes his 5th Amendment privilege should end. The only police that are protected are those who should not be police officers. Have you ever refused to cooperate in an official investigation? You would uphold the code of ethics. It is not too demanding of you. Why do you allow your fellow police officers a lower standard? I am not suggesting police should not have Constitutional protections. There is no right to be a police officer. Acting with governmental powers to commit a crime and then invoking a private citizen's rights offers too much protection. Just take away their police powers.

[cbg]

Okay, fine. From now on, as soon as a police officer is accused of a crime, we'll just take them out back and shoot them. Will that make you happy finally?

[cdwjava]

An IA investigation is an official investigation. The career of a police officer who invokes his 5th Amendment privilege should end.

Really? Should your career end if you invoke your Constitutional rights during an "official" investigation?

Why do you think an officer should lose his Constitutional rights?

As a note, most officers WILL assert their 5th Amendment rights during an IA investigation. What that does is it forces the agency to issue what is called a Lybarger admonition where the investigator informs the officer that failure to answer the questions can be considered insubordination and can result in termination up to and including termination. When the officer acknowledges this, and goes on to answer questions, these responses are generally protected because they are coerced and as such cannot generally (with some exception) be used in any criminal proceedings.

As a matter of course, agency association legal representatives generally advise their membership to invoke their 5th Amendment rights and thus compel the statement.

The only police that are protected are those who should not be police officers.

We can also say that the only people who are criminals are protected by Constitutional rights. That's kinda how the system was designed. That's the way the law works. There are protections in place to try and prevent the tyranny of the state.

Would you advocate removing Constitutional protections for ALL citizens and residents of the US? Or, do you just believe that they should not apply to law enforcement officers?

Have you ever refused to cooperate in an official investigation?

No. But, I have invoked my 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a matter of course, and I expect that every officer I conduct an internal investigation on to do the same.

Why do you allow your fellow police officers a lower standard?

I don't. I expect them to uphold the standards as set by law. While I might seek to exemplify the Code of Ethics in both my professional and personal life, I cannot legally compel others to do so unless those values are also reflected in concrete, legally binding form through agency policy.

For instance, the Code of Ethics states that I shall keep "my private life unsullied as an example to all." But, how do you define "unsullied?" To me, that means (among other things) that I will not commit adultery, lie, cheat, or otherwise act in a manner that might be seen as hypocritical. But, adultery is neither a crime or a matter that can be directly made a policy matter in an agency. As such, I cannot hold my officers to the same standard I might hold myself to.

I am not suggesting police should not have Constitutional protections.

Actually, you did. You said that when they exercise said protection they should lose their job.

There is no right to be a police officer. Acting with governmental powers to commit a crime and then invoking a private citizen's rights offers too much protection. Just take away their police powers.

The end result of most any act where it can be shown that the officer committed a crime while on duty, he will - at the very least - lose his job. And if the evidence is strong enough, the policy violation egregious enough, then an officer will lose his job either through resignation or termination.

Note that Constitutional rights are NOT just those belonging to a "private citizen" (whatever that means), they belong to all of us in the US - even non-citizens.

[huntsab]

"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."

This is the scenario I am talking about. It is easier on all involved. The chief can avoid any criticism- continue to look like he is running a professional organization. No one wants to prosecute a cop. It's a lot easier on the DA, too. He doesn't have to worry about the public safety vote which guarantees he will keep his job. Cops don't have to testi-lie. The decision to terminate a police officer should be decided without any thought of the process of terminating. Is it ethical to make things easier, cheaper, less embarrassing?

We are the ones that get stuck with these nut cases because they don't get prosecuted and they do get another job and things get worse. There are victims that are never even acknowledged as victims of crime.

[cdwjava]

"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."

This is the scenario I am talking about. It is easier on all involved. The chief can avoid any criticism- continue to look like he is running a professional organization.

It's not like he can prevent a person from resigning even if he wanted to. Like it or not, the officer can resign and sometimes the writing is on the wall and you'd have to be blind not to see it. If it looks like you might be prosecuted, or, it looks like you will be terminated, you are going to want to resign to avoid being compelled to answer questions.

No one wants to prosecute a cop. It's a lot easier on the DA, too.

Nobody WANTS to, but they do. It depends on the offense. Not every unlawful act by an officer constitutes a crime.

He doesn't have to worry about the public safety vote which guarantees he will keep his job. Cops don't have to testi-lie. The decision to terminate a police officer should be decided without any thought of the process of terminating. Is it ethical to make things easier, cheaper, less embarrassing?

It is ethical to adhere to the law on the matter. Employers cannot force people to stay employed just so they can investigate and terminate them. Even police officers have Constitutional rights. And a criminal investigation is NOT DEPENDENT upon an internal investigation, so if there is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing that investigation can continue even if the officer resigns.

It is not common for someone to be actually GIVEN the option to resign in lieu of termination, but I know it has happened. Generally, this is a decision made by the officer under investigation on the advice of his legal representative.

We are the ones that get stuck with these nut cases because they don't get prosecuted and they do get another job and things get worse.

Hard to get another job with a significant complaint against you, even if you did resign! The complaint doesn't go away, neither does any investigation done. As i explained, a new agency has an absolute right to that file and information and they WILL get it.

[huntsab]

cwdjava, Commercial airline pilots give up their Constitutional protections to do their job. They can be drug tested. Drivers give up their rights at every DUI checkpoint. The government's interest in the public's safety trumping individual's rights. People who we are forced to submit to: pull over, exit our vehicles, allow to arrest us, people who are heavily armed with police powers should be willing to give up some of their rights for the privilege of being in a position of authority. Police, while on duty are the government with special privileges. You do not have a right to be a police officer. If you want that job, you must be more accountable. You will risk your life for the public but you won't drug test or answer every question an investigator asked you?

cbg, This is "Debate the Issues." It is irritating to be treated as a cop-hater because I have a complaint about an issue in law enforcement. I had a relative in law enforcement. He retired as an assistant commissioner with the CHP. We can criticize without hating the other side. So, no, it would not make me happy, finally, to take a cop out back and shoot him. That kind of imagery is offensive, in fact.

[cbg]

And so is your suggestion that people should be required to give up their Constitutional rights offensive. (No, there is nothing in the Constitution about freedom from drug testing.)

[cdwjava]

cwdjava, Commercial airline pilots give up their Constitutional protections to do their job. They can be drug tested.

There are many employers require drug testing. But, the employees do not give up their rights, they AGREE to the conditions or find another job. They can NOT be forced to remain employed, they cannot be forced to provide incriminating statements, they cannot be forced to submit to a search without due process or probable cause - even by their employer. If the employee fails to give in to contractual and lawful obligations of their employment, the employee can be terminated ... or, they can resign.

Drivers give up their rights at every DUI checkpoint.

Actually, no. They give up no rights. Name one RIGHT that a driver at a DUI checkpoint is forced to give up?

The government's interest in the public's safety trumping individual's rights.

Not true at least at the state and local level.

People who we are forced to submit to: pull over, exit our vehicles, allow to arrest us, people who are heavily armed with police powers should be willing to give up some of their rights for the privilege of being in a position of authority. Police, while on duty are the government with special privileges. You do not have a right to be a police officer. If you want that job, you must be more accountable. You will risk your life for the public but you won't drug test or answer every question an investigator asked you?

Look, if it is a condition of employment to submit to random drug testing, then so be it. There are a few agencies that require it. Most do not. If it is not a condition of employment, then the LAW must be adhered to. The state - even when in the position of employer - cannot compel any employee to give up their Constitutional rights against their will.

And, as I mentioned, in an IA an officer CAN be compelled to answer all questions put to them. These statements simply cannot be used against them in criminal proceedings (under most circumstances).