One of the most fundamental aspects of the United States Constitution is known as the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the document. Accordingly, the Bill of Rights are held in the highest regard as granting us, as citizens of this country, inalienable rights. Such rights include the right to freedom of religion and expression, a fair and speedy trial and the right to representation in court.
Amazingly enough, Florida has enacted a special bill of rights--but not to their citizens--but rather a certain occupation within it's state. The Law Enforcement Bill of Rights is a comprehensive statute that enumerates several special protections to the police all across the state.
As police accountability activists, this bill of rights poses a number of problematic features which are inhibiting a true state of police accountability within our cities and counties.
If our police are doing their jobs up to par, ethically and within the parameters of truly serving and protecting, then why must they be afforded extra protections as signed into the law? How does it make sense that they are provided extra protections at the expense of the taxpaying citizens who provide them with their paychecks and operational revenue?
Below we are breaking down the law as it is, including our take on the most problematic aspects of the law. You can sign our petition which includes requesting the repeal of this law, among other provisions.
(1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.—Whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his or her agency for any reason that could lead to disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal, the interrogation must be conducted under the following conditions:
(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is of such a degree that immediate action is required.
The civilians are not afforded this opportunity--rather, the police can come to our home or place of work at any time if they have probable cause or warrant and question us with impunity.
(b) The interrogation shall take place either at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct, police unit, or correctional unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or agency.
(c) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation shall be informed of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating officer, and all persons present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by or through one interrogator during any one investigative interrogation, unless specifically waived by the officer under investigation.
(d) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation must be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation begins, and he or she must be informed of the names of all complainants. All identifiable witnesses shall be interviewed, whenever possible, prior to the beginning of the investigative interview of the accused officer. The complaint, all witness statements, including all other existing subject officer statements, and all other existing evidence, including, but not limited to, incident reports, GPS locator information, and audio or video recordings relating to the incident under investigation, must be provided to each officer who is the subject of the complaint before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer. An officer, after being informed of the right to review witness statements, may voluntarily waive the provisions of this paragraph and provide a voluntary statement at any time.
This is just unnecessary! When we are under investigation for a crime, it is not likely that we will be afforded the opportunity to review all witness statements and video before we have to make our statements. In fact, often times, when we are investigated, we are sequestered away from that information. Allowing the police to review this evidence prior to making their formal statements only allows them to formulate a story of their own based on the evidence--and severely hinders the integrity of such investigation. Why would they need to be afforded this extra protection if they are not doing wrong on a regular basis?
(e) Interrogating sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.
(f) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation may not be subjected to offensive language or be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action. A promise or reward may not be made as an inducement to answer any questions.
Theoretically, this is not problematic--however, when you think about it, the police intimidate and threaten people they are interviewing--in fact, it is such a standard part of policing that it is integrated into media, such as in television shows like Law & Order. Why ought they not be subjected to the same intimidation tactics as we are?
(g) The formal interrogation of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, including all recess periods, must be recorded on audio tape, or otherwise preserved in such a manner as to allow a transcript to be prepared, and there shall be no unrecorded questions or statements. Upon the request of the interrogated officer, a copy of any recording of the interrogation session must be made available to the interrogated officer no later than 72 hours, excluding holidays and weekends, following said interrogation.
We support recording the investigation but it is categorically unfair for them to be able to review their audio before the closure of the investigation. This allows them to re-collaborate their own story, which should not be necessary if they are complying with the law and departmental procedures.
(h) If the law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation is under arrest, or is likely to be placed under arrest as a result of the interrogation, he or she shall be completely informed of all his or her rights before commencing the interrogation.
(i) At the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation, he or she has the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his or her choice, who shall be present at all times during the interrogation whenever the interrogation relates to the officer’s continued fitness for law enforcement or correctional service.
(j) Notwithstanding the rights and privileges provided by this part, this part does not limit the right of an agency to discipline or to pursue criminal charges against an officer.
(2) COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS.—A complaint review board shall be composed of three members: One member selected by the chief administrator of the agency or unit; one member selected by the aggrieved officer; and a third member to be selected by the other two members. Agencies or units having more than 100 law enforcement officers or correctional officers shall utilize a five-member board, with two members being selected by the administrator, two members being selected by the aggrieved officer, and the fifth member being selected by the other four members. The board members shall be law enforcement officers or correctional officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county. There shall be a board for law enforcement officers and a board for correctional officers whose members shall be from the same discipline as the aggrieved officer. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to sheriffs or deputy sheriffs.
This provision is not okay--it pre-emptively prevents cities and counties from creating their own autonomous civilian review boards. We should be able to enforce review boards at a city and county level, advised by regular civilians and staffed with professional investigators of whom do not work for the police departments. Internal investigations are unlikely to yield results and we would like to see true civilian review boards that are autonomous, independent and transparent. Again we stress--if they are complying with all the laws and the departmental policies and truly protecting the civilians, then why do they need to be pre-empted from accountability?
(3) CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.—Every law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall have the right to bring civil suit against any person, group of persons, or organization or corporation, or the head of such organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the performance of the officer’s official duties, for abridgment of the officer’s civil rights arising out of the officer’s performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed. This section does not establish a separate civil action against the officer’s employing law enforcement agency for the investigation and processing of a complaint filed under this part.
(4)(a) NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION.—A dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or other personnel action that might result in loss of pay or benefits or that might otherwise be considered a punitive measure may not be taken against any law enforcement officer or correctional officer unless the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is notified of the action and the reason or reasons for the action before the effective date of the action.
(b) Notwithstanding s. 112.533(2), whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is subject to disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal, the officer or the officer’s representative shall, upon request, be provided with a complete copy of the investigative file, including the final investigative report and all evidence, and with the opportunity to address the findings in the report with the employing law enforcement agency before imposing disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. The contents of the complaint and investigation shall remain confidential until such time as the employing law enforcement agency makes a final determination whether or not to issue a notice of disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. This paragraph does not provide law enforcement officers with a property interest or expectancy of continued employment, employment, or appointment as a law enforcement officer.
Determinations made in regard to the police officers employment should be made available to the public and viewable by all law enforcement agencies in the state before they offer employment to said officer.
(5) RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS.—No law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall be discharged; disciplined; demoted; denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment; or otherwise discriminated against in regard to his or her employment or appointment, or be threatened with any such treatment, by reason of his or her exercise of the rights granted by this part.
(6) LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.—
(a) Except as provided in this subsection, disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal may not be undertaken by an agency against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within 180 days after the date the agency receives notice of the allegation by a person authorized by the agency to initiate an investigation of the misconduct. If the agency determines that disciplinary action is appropriate, it shall complete its investigation and give notice in writing to the law enforcement officer or correctional officer of its intent to proceed with disciplinary action, along with a proposal of the specific action sought, including length of suspension, if applicable. Notice to the officer must be provided within 180 days after the date the agency received notice of the alleged misconduct, except as follows:
1. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for a period specified in a written waiver of the limitation by the law enforcement officer or correctional officer.
2. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that any criminal investigation or prosecution is pending in connection with the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct.
3. If the investigation involves an officer who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, the running of the limitations period is tolled during the period of incapacitation or unavailability.
4. In a multijurisdictional investigation, the limitations period may be extended for a period of time reasonably necessary to facilitate the coordination of the agencies involved.
5. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for emergencies or natural disasters during the time period wherein the Governor has declared a state of emergency within the jurisdictional boundaries of the concerned agency.
6. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that the officer’s compliance hearing proceeding is continuing beginning with the filing of the notice of violation and a request for a hearing and ending with the written determination of the compliance review panel or upon the violation being remedied by the agency.
(b) An investigation against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer may be reopened, notwithstanding the limitations period for commencing disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, if:
1. Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.
2. The evidence could not have reasonably been discovered in the normal course of investigation or the evidence resulted from the predisciplinary response of the officer.
Any disciplinary action resulting from an investigation that is reopened pursuant to this paragraph must be completed within 90 days after the date the investigation is reopened.
-------------
According to this resource, the police bill of rights was enacted due to public outcries for police accountability. "The call for a special bill of rights for law enforcement officers started in the late 1960s and early 1970s in reaction to the public’s demand for greater police accountability. The concept behind the the LEO bill of rights followed Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner vs. Broderick (1968)."
The Restorative Justice Coalition is calling for the repeal of this problematic law for the above listed reasons and some not included. We want community based solutions to police in every city and county across the state. This statute only inhibits the ability to create such accountability. We are asking everyone to sign our petition and continue to carry on the conversation about police accountability with friends, family members, civic and faith organizations, candidates for office and elected officials.
Here's some media about this problematic bill's impact:
"The unions seem more concerned about protecting officers who are very bad."
Across the country, dangerous officers remain protected by bill of rights.
Police officers use the statute to attempt to remain employed with agencies even after bad behavior.
Despite moral character violations--allegations of violence, drugs and forcible sex--Florida officers keep their badges.
No comments:
Post a Comment