Police Unions & Law Enforcement Rights

I’ve have thought about writing this for a couple of months, however, I felt that with all the animosity of this Presidential election people wouldn’t read or consider anything objectively.  Now that the election has occurred and people seem to have calmed down, at least for now, I wanted to share some thoughts.

 

First, I want to tell you a bit of my experience in order that you understand what I’m basing my thoughts on.  I was in law enforcement for 38 years (1981-2019) as a sworn officer (person with arrest powers), the last 6 years as a Chief/ Manager.  I spent 5 years investigating police misconduct and investigating or supervising investigations of misconduct of other employees.  I served as a Commissioner on the Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission which governs the certification (licensing) of Law Enforcement, Corrections and Probation Officers within the state.  During my career I’ve also served as an Employee Representative, elected officer and State President for a law enforcement “union” and met with State Legislators on police rights.  I point this out to also demonstrate that I’ve been on both sides, ensuring rights were observed and as a manager recommending and enforcing discipline when a complaint against an officer was sustained.  While most of my experiences are with the State of Florida statutes other states have similar provisions in their statutes or regulations.

 

In the weeks after George Floyd’s death there were protests around the country, some were violent.  During and after the protests politicians and police chiefs were criticized for not terminating “bad cops”.  Some responded to this criticism by blaming police unions and/ or police rights.  As they used this excuse people began to believe and agree with them!  If you say something long enough people will believe it, if people perceive something to be true than it is true regardless of the facts.  A major problem with this is that it can cause action to be taken that will actually harm people.  The rights that people complain are protecting “bad cops” only pertain to Administrative Investigations, if the investigation is criminal the Constitutions Rights apply, not the Administrative Rights. 

 

So, let me ask what is wrong with Administrative Rights?  In an Administrative Investigation the officer is compelled to give a statement and cannot refuse to answer questions because of the Constitutional Right that a person cannot be forced to give evidence against themselves.  The only exception in Administrative Rights is that if an officer lies; commits perjury, during the Administrative Investigation, then the information can be used in a criminal prosecution.  That is why an agency will normally interview the subject officer last, they will conduct an investigation and determine if there will is evidence of criminal behavior, if not then they will conduct an administrative interview.  If during an administrative interview an officer indicates that there may have been criminal behavior the interview will be stopped, and the subject officer advised of his/ her Constitutional Rights.

 

During an Administrative Investigation, an officer has a right to know their accuser, know the evidence against them, be interviewed during there duty hours when possible and that they be allowed to take breaks when necessary.  Citizens get upset when there is an officer involved shooting or incident in which a person dies and the officer choses not to give a statement on that same day, many will insist that the agency should have made the officer give a statement and because of their anger don’t realize why the officer wasn’t forced to provide a statement!  When a person becomes a law enforcement officer, they do not forfeit their Constitutional Rights.  In many states there are specific administrative rights for officers because in years past they were treated as if they had limited Constitutional Rights.  My question to people would be if you are angered when you believe an officer violated a person’s rights why do you support violating an officer’s rights?

 

Administrative Rights are not the evil that some have portrayed them to be.  When I was the Chief Steward for the City of Miami (FL) police union (FOP Miami Lodge #20) I attended a county Community Relations Board’s (CRB) Law Enforcement subcommittee meeting.  There were two activists that were arguing against the state’s Peace Officers Bill of Rights and wanted this subcommittee to recommend that the CRB go on the record and lobby the State Legislature to repeal that statute.  I sat there and listened to the activists presentation and argument for repeal.  After they finished, I was introduced to the committee by the staffer, I was asked if I would like to make any comment before they voted to support a repeal of the statute?  I asked the committee members if they had ever actually read the statute they were about to vote on?  None of the committee had ever read the statute so I passed out copies and asked the members to read the statute first and then I’d be willing to discuss their concerns.  After reading the statute the members asked me if that was it, was there anymore?  I replied that I had given them the complete statute, the chairperson looked at the activists and said that the statute was only fair for officers and asked them what specifically they objected to (I had given the activists a copy as well).  Those two men got up from the table and left the room without saying anything, the committee voted not to recommend or support a repeal.  I tell this story only to show that people should not react in the heat of the moment or while angry.

 

As far as Police Unions are concerned, they protect an officer’s rights and negotiate employment benefits, they DO NOT protect criminal behavior!  The union ensures that the police administration does not attempt to take short cuts in an administrative investigation which will cause a termination to be   overturned on appeal.  Some larger unions may hire professional people to assist in the running of the union but many (like the one I was involved with) are run by law enforcement officers.  They do not want “bad cops” on their department, but they cannot stand by and be quiet when an administration violates an officer’s rights.  You cannot pick and choose whose rights should be protected or else all will lose their rights.  If an administration violates an officer’s rights to gain a termination what is to prevent them from condoning someone violating a citizen’s rights during an investigation?  Police unions take on that fight to preserve the integrity of the profession.

 

Are there aspects of the judicial system that can and should be fixed or improved, of course, but the answer cannot be violating the rights of officers.  The hardest thing to do is to defend the rights of someone you dislike, the vast majority of law enforcement officers’ practice that philosophy every day and should be treated the same.  However, meaningful changes will not be made by first alienating people, police unions are willing to work with citizens to ensure that they have a police agency that all will be proud of.  Police unions and police administrations can provide an understanding of why there are certain procedures and practices, but we must be willing to listen to each other and stop shouting or blaming each other.

 

That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours

A re-introduction

I was just looking and since starting this blog back in 2009 there have been nearly 4,200 views, 72 this weekend alone so far (I didn’t always share posts on Facebook and Twitter).  Since I’ve begun writing again there are some new viewers of this blog, I thought I would take a moment to reintroduce myself and why I started this blog.

 

When I was in middle school a teacher encouraged me to write short stories.  I found that I really enjoyed writing and was encouraged to write speeches and enter Speech contests, I took first place in the local competition and second in a countywide contest.  Fast forward to adulthood, during my law enforcement career I became active in my agency’s fraternal organization and union.  I joined the executive board and I had to write newsletter articles from time to time, while I hated deadlines, I really enjoyed the writing to get my message out.  I became an executive officer with the state organization, eventually becoming State President.  I would have to write for the quarterly newsletter and when we created our web site.  As President I not only wrote a quarterly President’s Message, I also had a section created on the web site where I could write a message between the quarterly publication.

 

After my successor was elected, I missed writing so in 2009 I decided to begin a blog and write from time to time to share my thoughts and opinions on issues.  It was my hope and still is to have a forum to share ideas and engage in a civil dialogue.  I am asked from time to time for my opinion on issues based on my 38 years law enforcement experience and I will share those thoughts.  We may not always agree but without an exchange of ideas we cannot grow.

 

 

 

Consistency

(This was written prior to the election but I wasn't able to publish it at the time)

Is it possible to have some consistency any more when it comes to politics?

In 2016 information was “leaked” that became known as the Steele Dossier.  Immediately people condemned Trump as a traitor, without any verification of the information people insisted that Trump was guilty, politicians demanded that there needed to be an investigation.  Despite it being shown that the information and allegations were not true people to this day insist that President Trump was guilty and committed treason.

Fast forward to 2020, the NY Post published two articles about Hunter Biden’s business dealings.  There are emails that indicate that Former V. P. Joe Biden received a percentage of monies Hunter and his business received, in an email from Hunter to one of his children he says that his children don’t have to worry because they won’t have to pay him a percentage of any money they make like he has to do to his father the former V.P. A business associate confirmed the legitimacy of the business emails and that he attended business meetings with Joe Biden.

In 2016 when the “Steele Dossier” was leaked the media, including social media, they published the info and allowed people to share the info, even after it was proved to be false (it was also proved false in a British Court when Christopher Steele was sued).  Flash forward to 2020, the information on Hunter Biden’s business dealing and payments to Joe Biden come out and most media refuse to publish at first, some eventually mentioned it but claimed none of the information had been confirmed.  Social media blocked the sharing of the NY Post stories, Twitter not only blocked it they locked out the NY Post Twitter account and demanded they post a retraction before they can have access to their account again.  It was also learned that the FBI had the information a few months ago and has opened an investigation (some say the FBI case number indicates its a money laundering case) and yet those that demanded Trump was guilty and not qualified nor should he be allowed to serve as President without an investigation or even confirmation of the info are now silent or saying that this should be ignored because it hasn’t been confirmed (even though some has).  Until an investigation is completed I won't pass judgement on the Biden's.

What has helped make this a great country is consistency, our insisting that people we don’t like or hate are treated the same as those we support.  Right or wrong can’t have different meanings for different people, it has to mean the same for all.

People get upset when they learn of a person being freed from prison after years or even decades because it was learned that information was withheld or falsified, there was misconduct by government officials (prosecutors or law enforcement) and everyone should be upset! However, we can not accept or condone this when it happens to someone we have political differences with!

A DOJ attorney has pled guilty of falsifying information and presenting it to a court (FISA) to obtain a search warrant.  Specifically, the FBI had learned of a former Trump campaign person meeting with Russians.  The CIA was contacted and asked if they were aware of these meetings and if the former Trump campaign person was a CIA asset?  The CIA replied that the agency was aware of the meetings, that the person was an asset and reporting to the CIA about the meetings.  The DOJ attorney edited that email so that it read that the CIA was not aware of the meetings and that the person was not an asset and then presented that edited email to the court as justification for a FISA warrant (this is a simplified basic summary of what occurred).  Where was the outrage that a government official would falsify information to a court to target an American citizen.

Declassified testimony has revealed that people who were on television programs saying the Trump campaign colluded with Russians testified under oath during classified hearings that they had no evidence of collusion with the Russians, Russians tried but were unable to infiltrate the Trump campaign.  According to former Representative Trey Gowdy he even asked if they had any information/ rumors of Russian collusion that couldn't be used in court and the responses were no they did not have any information.  Where is the outrage?  If the same thing was done to the Obama campaign would your reaction be the same?  

Unfortunately even people involved in the law and law enforcement that did not support Trump have not expressed any problem with people violating the law since their actions were in an attempt to remove a President from office that they didn't/ don't support!  If you've been outraged by someone being sent to prison for years because officials either falsified information or withheld evidence/ information favorable to the defendant why aren't you angry, where has your outrage been?

Politics should not determine if you believe in our fundamental principle, innocent until proven guilty. Is it possible to have some consistency any more when it comes to politics?

That's My Opinion, What's Yours

Morning Rant: “Fact Checkers”

 There has been a lot of talk recently about Facebook, Twitter and other social media fact checking.  It has been shown that these so called fact checkers are not impartial, they either post a warning that pops up if you try to look at a post or they will take down a post or lock an account that they don’t agree with.  They’ve even gone as far as locking out a major news publication out of their account and demanding they take down a story they don’t like.  

As if interfering with the freedom of the press isn’t bad enough Twitter has even gone as far as censoring a political pundit’s Twitter account because these “fact checkers” didn’t like something he tweeted.  The comment that the “fact checkers” found offensive was a quotation from the U.S. Constitution!

There are a lot of things I see posted on social media that I disagree with and don’t like, there are friends that post political opinions that I disagree with but as long as these posts aren’t calling for violence or other criminal conduct they should not be censored!  People should be allowed to post their thoughts and opinions and I should be allowed to post my disagreement!

I have seen people cheer when “fact checkers” have taken some sort of action against a person’s post they disagree with or dislike!  I would remind anyone that approves or cheers censorship that a pendulum swings both ways!  History has shown that the pendulum of censorship will swing far left and eventually swing back in the other direction and go far to the right.  If you cheer “fact checkers” now be prepared for the time when your posts, people and causes you support, are censored by supposed “fact checkers”. To make it even simpler there is a popular saying, “What goes around, comes around”.

One of the things that has had people risking their life and family future to come to the United States since its inception was that they would be free to express themself even if their thoughts are contrary to the majority.  People need to stand up to censorship when they’re not the subject of it otherwise it will continue and someday will turn on them, when that happens people will be afraid to speak out for fear that they will be next.

That’s My Opinion, What’s Yours