Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Three (3) essential steps in changing the culture of a police department.


Some police departments are steeped in tradition and comprised of several generations of employees with common family ties.  The department might have been operating for years with practices contrary to even its own written policies and procedures.  Marginal officers may have been avoided by supervisors and managers and allowed to remain a cancer within the agency.  Malignant officers may have been successful in eluding termination by effective discipline challenges or simply moving on to another unsuspecting agency.  There are some successful steps that might change history for this type of police agency and effectively change the culture of the agency.

Develop a cadre of concerned officers.  In all police departments problem employees are the minority.  But the majority of the officers who do the right thing will remain silent by a belief that management is inept in successfully disciplining these malignant officers.  There also is a realistic belief that the retaliation of coming forward will target them…the good officers who stand up and break the “Code of Silence.”  It’s this majority of well meaning, professional and dedicated officers who have to be encouraged and supported to come forward and band together to create a new base for the department.  These officers know the ones who are abusing their oath of office and tarnishing the reputation of the agency.  These officers need to stand up and say they will no longer idly stand by and keep their mouths shut or avoid and evade being forced to confront the misdeeds of the few malignant officers in the agency.  But these good officers need to believe that the Chief or Sheriff will support them and provide the required commitment to change the past and get rid of the few malignant officers.

Many chiefs of police lately have been bemoaning the trend to throw them out of office earlier than in past years.  They contend it’s because of crime increases.  That’s really absurd.  For years we’ve taken the credit when crime went down and pointed the finger at societal issues when it went up.  Countless cases have demonstrated that the pressure on troops has lead to the manipulation of crime stats.  The real task for chiefs and sheriffs, however, is to inspire their troops to do good, professional work.  As former management guru Peter Drucker contended, managers spent 80 percent of their time with the 20 percent non-performers rather than the bulk of their time with the performers.  When is the last time you saw your chief or sheriff in a patrol car with an officer during the graveyard shift?  How many of you can recall when any chief or sheriff rewarded an employee who blew the whistle on police misconduct or corruption?  Chiefs and sheriffs seem more secure when no one makes ‘waves’ and brings an agency’s warts out in the open.

The chief or sheriff doesn’t make the image of the police department.  The uniformed officers in the community, the plainclothes crime impact teams, and the investigators who conduct the menial tasks of follow-up work on minor crimes create this image in the eyes of the community.  Why should a citizen come forward with information about criminal behavior, when we can’t even encourage our own officers to come forward and help root out misconduct? 

Fill your station(s) with members from the community.  “To know us is to love us,” many have found to be true when community members are brought into the department and have the ability to interact with police employees.  Some of the more common techniques are Citizen Police Academies, community oriented committees, Senior Volunteers, and a layered Reserve/Auxiliary program.  Other recent successful inroads have been made by the community collaborations in programs such as the one in Cincinnati.  Bringing in a cross section of members of your community will allow them to see the policing operation first hand and their presence can create a subduing atmosphere within the day-to-day operations of the police agency.  When the local police station becomes “my station,” they will become a positive force to support this cultural change.

I recall a couple of unique uses of senior volunteers.  In one agency these dedicated volunteers were use to conduct call backs to victims of crimes that really had no leads for follow-up.  The victim didn’t know these weren’t investigators.  They were simply identified as working the detective bureau and were concerned about the victim’s loss and whether there might be any further information they had which could be added to the investigative reports.  To the victim it meant the agency cared, even for their lost porch plant or vandalized fence.  Another agency was using an retired IT person to develop and maintain its intelligence computer system.  Of course, many agencies use these types of volunteers in the property and evidence room.  We’ve seen other being used to enforce “handicap” parking provisions.  Our tasks are not so secret that we can’t effectively use vetted volunteers.

Cut the consequence of past employment practices.  Reading the large volume of police employment cases that seemingly always seem to go against the police department discipline decisions says we’re doing something wrong.  Most of these focus on two failures.  The first is that we don’t adequately articulate our ‘rational reasoning’ for the discipline decision.  This task takes time and effort, but seems to be the essential key to success.  It paints a good picture for anyone beyond the agency who might be evaluating your discipline decision during an appeal.  Too often we act in haste when dealing with an inexcusable or egregious act of misconduct.  In these extreme cases where the probable disciplinary action will be termination it’s time to pump the brakes, use administrative leave until you’re ready to finalize this extreme action, take time to organize and articulate your rational reasoning.  Resist any effort to make your paperwork “short and sweet.”  Arbitration and court decisions frequently expound on this rational reasoning when their rulings are supportive of the agency. 

The second failure is our lack of consistency in our discipline and the failure to upgrade or create written policies that reflect the current challenges we’re facing with our current employees.  It’s important to determine the common areas of police discipline and develop specific written policies and in-service training to introduce these changes to each and every member of the community.  The employees need to be put on notice that there are new provisions/rules in place and the agency won’t be guided by past conduct and disciplinary decisions.  As an example, sexual misconduct is a known potential area of police impropriety.  Relying on a generic misconduct charge of conduct unbecoming, moral turpitude or “idling and loafing” is no longer adequate.  Create realistic training and specific policies that fully describe the misconduct act.  Your agency has to monitor rates of discipline to ensure that there is some orderly consistency to these decisions.  These actions can effectively cut the cord from past practices and create a new playing field for your employees, agency and those who may be tasked with evaluating the employee’s appeal.

Videotapes: Can law enforcement come together on this pressing issue?


The issue is ‘how will officers be allowed to use police incidents captured by video?’  Currently most everyone, including law enforcement personnel, is divided on this issue.  This is even more apparent when the police incident involves a ‘critical incident’ such as a use of force, pursuit, officer-involved shooting or custody death.  I believe the officers should be allowed to use this video evidence just like any other piece of evidence.  If we in law enforcement don’t take a consistent, united stand on this issue, someone else will ram an unacceptable practice down our throats.  But, let’s take a moment and look at some of the more obvious areas of controversy.

Criminal suspects don’t get to review video evidence before they give a statement is an issue raised by outsiders.  This really is totally irrelevant.  Criminal suspects aren’t required to write reports concerning their actions and they aren’t compelled to give statements to the police agency.  Actually they will eventually have access to this evidence during discovery in their criminal proceedings and before they make the decision to grant an interview or testify in court.  Police officers don’t have that protection unless they personally are being investigated criminally for their conduct and refuse to give a statement.  But, even then the involved officer can be compelled to write reports and give a statement during any administrative investigation regarding the exact same incident.

Officers may change their version of events if they are allowed to view this video evidence before they write reports or give a statement.  Yes, that may happen.  But, in the end, our ultimate goal is to get the best account of what occurred.  If evidence, whether it’s video or some other form, will assist in reaching that goal we should pursue it.  Few persons say the officer can’t use contemporaneous notes s/he may have made, reflections from a walk through conducted, scene observations after the event concluded, or extemporaneous statements made at the scene.  Even civilian complainants who have made allegations of police employee misconduct should be allowed to view video evidence that may refute or mitigate their allegations before they are questioned further in the administrative interview.  We shouldn’t be playing a game of ‘gotch ya!’ with either these civilian complainants or our own officers. 

Officers currently use a variety of evidence in preparing their reports and giving compelled statements.  A police officer regularly will use available evidence when preparing contemporaneous reports of any police incident, including his/her use of force.  Audio recorders, CAD documentation, photographs of injuries or equipment damage, training documents and written policy/procedures are commonly used by a well-trained officer. What makes video evidence any different?  Nothing and we should resist any effort to carve out an exception on this value piece of evidence. 

Will an officer’s knowledge of evidence, including video, necessarily slant his/her version of the events?  Some state police officer bill of rights legislation and collective bargaining agreements mandate that the entire administrative  investigative file be open to the accused officer before s/he is compelled to give a statement.  In reality if we haven’t made the case before the compelled statement, it’s rare that it will be made by the admissions of the officer during the compelled statement.  Police officers frequently meet with their representatives, including attorneys, and discuss their upcoming compelled statement.  An officer’s representative would be remiss if they didn’t discuss the events with the involved officer in an effort to more factually present the circumstances of the officer’s involvement.  If the action of the officer is inexcusable, any review of the video evidence won’t let that officer off the hook.  S/he still will be accountable for his/her action or lack of action.

Would this give an officer the opportunity to lie about the circumstances of the police incident?  I don’t believe that would be true in nearly all circumstances.  We need to address this issue with the assumption that all officers are professional and want to conduct themselves appropriately.  We shouldn’t create our policies on this critical issue based on what the minority, unprofessional officer might do at the expense of our good officers.  Our investigative techniques are adequate to ferret out those who may abuse their position.  Most of our officers are good and want to prepare reports and give statements that are as accurate as possible.  Access to all of the evidence directly connected to their role in a police incident is the best course to assist these officers in this task.  Consider these examples: “During the shooting I shot until the threat stopped.  At the time of the shooting I really didn’t count the number of rounds I fired.  It was only after my magazine was checked that I realized I had fired eight rounds.”  Or, “During the shooting I believed I remained in one location.  It was only after I viewed my body camera video that I realized I moved several steps to the right while firing my weapon.”  Any concern with these more accurate accounts?

The ‘appearance of evil’ is often worst than the evil itself.  We’re got to be concerned with those who will attack the credibility of our good officers.  This often occurs when the officer is required to write a report, give one or more statements even when compelled, followed through a walk-through, and then evaluated against mounds of evidence found later.  Resist this urge.  Involved officers should be required to give only one compelled statement after they have had the opportunity to review all relevant evidence.  If we don’t allow this, there will undoubtedly be variations in the officer’s account, however slight, that gives reviewers (even our own personnel) the belief that the officer is not being fully truthful.  We want the most factual account from the officer who is now facing potential criminal (state and federal), civil and administrative charges.  Let’s not handcuff our good officers at the expense of those few who might abuse their badges or others who might hide in the shadows exhibiting ‘hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil.’

Monday, October 26, 2015

Is Maryland out of step on police misconduct?


Competing stakeholders in Maryland are fighting each other on the issue of police misconduct and holding officers accountable.  Current issues are the State’s Police Officer Bill of Rights giving officers 10 days before they can be ordered to give a statement concerning an allegation of use of force.  Public elements in Maryland are bemoaning that officers can’t be suspended without pay unless they are charged with a felony.

In the Chicago area collective bargaining agreements with several agencies prohibit a police agency from disciplining an officer who shows up for work with a BA level as high as .08.  This is not an isolated incident.  There are other seemingly ridiculous provisions tucked into other CBAs involving public safety officers.

Many folks contend these are ridiculous provisions that aren’t afforded to someone who isn’t a police officer.  Don’t blame the police unions.  Blame the governmental agencies that agree to many of these provisions.  They had a choice and chose to take the easy way out.  In some cases it also reflects that the government forces don’t know the law.

Let’s take the requirement to pay an officer who is under investigation for an allegation of misconduct, unless the officer has been indicted for a felony.  That provision has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1997 case involving a campus police officer (Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924).  Otherwise the officer has the rights provided to public employees under the 1985 Loudermill decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now the 10-day rule in Maryland.  Opponents contend that this same privilege isn’t given to the average citizen.  Well, the citizen can’t be compelled to answer questions under threat of losing their livelihood.  The citizen can rely on the 5th Amendment and keep quiet.  The officer in Maryland, as well as all other states, must answer the questions posed by the agency and must be truthful or be subject to being fired.  Of course the officer’s answers in most cases can’t be used against the officer in a criminal matter involving the same allegation.

Now the matter of the ridiculous provisions of some CBAs with police officers.  I recall discussing this with a Chief of one of the Chicago area towns who had this provision.  He contended he didn’t know the town had accepted it, as he wasn’t a part of the bargaining team.  Well, shame on him!  How can a Chief turn over running the agency to someone who doesn’t have the same level of knowledge of what tasks are required to keep a police agency professional?

Police discipline is essential to maintain the professional level of policing and ensure that esprit de corps isn’t compromised.  All of the stakeholders have a rightful place in these decisions including the public, agency employees, agency management and the community served.  Don’t blame if one of those stakeholders has fallen down on the job.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

New book on police misconduct by Lou Reiter


My second novel about police misconduct is off the press.  “Shattered Badges” continues to follow the police misconduct and liability cases being unraveled by my fictional consultant, Taylor Sterling.  Some might find Taylor to be a little like the author, Lou Reiter.  This version is a little longer pushing 500 pages.  The format is the same with each chapter being a separate police case with a beginning and an end.

The first chapter finds Taylor in New Jersey working on a case of a misdirected prosecution of an officer for a fatal shooting.  The young cop is caught between the political power plays of the local and state prosecutor.  What could an outside consultant do?

The second case weaves its way into the wrongful conviction of a drug dealer in Indiana.  Of course the drug dealer now expects to get a big payout for his eight years on death row.  Taylor is there to give the insurance carrier some ammunition that might lower that payout, but gets involved in the sloppy operation of the drug unit.

It's a steamy chapter about civil demonstrations that takes Taylor to a small college in Oregon.  This chapter gets into the underlying concepts of crowd and demonstration control and the different style of policing on a college campus.

Two fatal SWAT operations in a small town in Kentucky frighten the insurance pool covering the agency.  Taylor is there to evaluate these incidents and the inherent hazards of this type of unit.

The fifth chapter deals with speed…police pursuits…highway interdiction.  The small sleepy town in the middle of nowhere Kansas has got itself into a pile of trouble with some police fatal crashes.

The last chapter deals with police greed and choices.  How can a department turn its head when the devil is active inside the agency and good people are being hurt?  It’s Taylor task to uncover what went wrong in this town outside the sprawl of Cleveland.

Cops should like these stories.  Bosses might cringe.  For the person not directly involved in police misconduct these cases will be informational.  In the end, the book is a good read.  I’d appreciate some feedback on your read.

You can get your copy at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, iBook, Deeds Publishing Marietta GA, or Public Agency Training Council.

Sunday, July 5, 2015

How to create a cultural change in a police agency


This discussion isn’t for the vast majority of police agencies that are smaller than 25 officers.  Many of these, at times, need a culture change.  But the challenges for them are somewhat different than those required for the medium to large sized agency. 

Just change the top cop!  That’s a solution that seldom works.  Most of the people in the agency can sit back and wait this ‘carpetbagger’ out.  I recall a retired Deputy Chief from Dallas who had been a chief in two agencies after his retirement commented that the live expectancy of a change agent is about 2 years and the agency is usually back the way it was in a matter of months after the change agent leaves.  Of course there are exceptions.  Reluctantly I’ll give Bill Bratton credit for the changes he made during his 7 years with the LAPD.  Chief Craig in Detroit seems to be fighting his way to create changes in that legacy agency.  But we see too many apparent failures…Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Chicago, Oakland, Portland OR, and Seattle are prime examples.

It takes staying power and the ability to develop a command layer that is supportive of the top cop’s efforts.  Then too you have to have the political support of more than just the mayor or city manager.  Does the new top cop have enough time to develop the necessary social capital with the community?

Is training the key?  It could be if the training was relevant to changing the culture of the agency.  Regional training units have no real allegiance to any specific agency and today deliver most training to all but the very large police agency.  Many larger agencies may have their own training units and that quality varies.  Usually both of these training delivery systems really focus on meeting whatever the state standard is.  Unfortunately police still equate training to the number of hours devoted rather than the outcome performance.

Whatever the delivery system, the quality of the instructor is still the key.  Many of you may have seen a recent report from the Seattle Police Department.  The instructor, facing hostility from the group being trained, simply retorted that this was what DOJ wanted…not him.  I found this scenario particularly interesting since it was almost exactly the same as what occurred in a television documentary concerning the implementation of the DOJ consent decree in Pittsburgh in 1997. 

Training to change an agency’s culture can’t be done in a number of hours.  It will take months of interactive methods with instructors committed to the task.  I’m afraid today’s agencies aren’t committed to that outlay of personnel time.

Is an influx of new blood at the street level the answer? It could be, but are you in a position to hire that many and are you able to eliminate the ‘toxic officer?’  It will take money for settlement agreements to get that type of thorn out of the agency, since the chance of termination will be remote.  And then you have to find enough qualified new candidates that now must meet some reasonable ratio to the complexion of your community.  And then you have the problem of bringing on new blood only to be trained during the FTO program by old bad blood.  Those of you serving inner city communities will still have to face the allegation that you’re nothing more than an ‘occupying’ force.  Is there any reasonable solution to bringing your new young officers to live in the inner city?  How many young officers with school age kids can afford private school?  All the attempts to invoke residency requirements have not worked.  Maybe the Japanese model of police compounds for employees…but that’s really ridiculous to even consider. 

In the end, I don’t think anybody is committed to changing the current culture of policing in America.  There’s too much inertia.  What you may not hear, but it’s present are sentiments like:  It’s too hard.  I’ve got only a few more years to go until I can get out of this damn place.  The politicians don’t care.  The community isn’t behind it.  I’ve got resumes out everywhere and expect a call any day.  The union won’t back me.  We’re fighting a war out here.  Where’s the money going to come from?

Then, too, few cops can really articulate what they envision the agency will look like with whatever cultural change might occur.  Vision.  Commitment. These may be lacking.

I recall a presentation made by a retired Fire Chief…Alan Brunacini who grew and changed the culture of the Phoenix Fire Department with the mantra of ‘be nice.’  It was his way to ensure that his employees focused on treating the public respectfully.  He was successful with this narrow effort.  Unfortunately, Chief Brunacini relates that his agency slid backwards with the new administration not continuing his commitment to the public. 

The culture of an agency must be cultivated continuously.  It is a tenuous quality.  It takes total commitment by the entire agency, not just the top cop.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Policing in Cuba - some casual observations


I had an enlightening and educational tour of Cuba in April with a ‘people to people’ Smithsonian group.  I was very impressed with the tour, organization and steadfast attention to keeping it educational.  The police operation was not a feature of this trip, but I was able to make some observations during our travels.  We spent about half of the time in Havana and the other half about three hours south on the coast in Cienfuegos and Trinidad.

My two main observations were that the police presence was much less obvious than in the USA, Puerto Rico and my recent trip to Mexico City.  The officers also were much less militant in appearance.  The officers I observed were not wearing combat vests and appeared to be carrying only a sidearm, reserve ammo, handcuffs and a baton.  Now I realize this is still a communist country and guns are not readily available.

Outside of Cienfuegos we were hosted at a block party in a neighborhood adjacent to a power plant.  We were late arriving, yet the nearly 100 persons of all ages were waiting and were very hospitable.  Hugo Chavez of Venezuela built this subdivision of 100 homes in 2007.  These are the poor, rural people of Cuba who have been devastated by the policy of both of our governments.  The meeting was organized by the local CDR (Committee for the Defense of the Revolution). 

I spoke with the Director of Ideology and Safety about crime.  Apparently they have very little in this subdivision, but then there’s someone always looking at the goings on.  He said that a representative from the local police station came to their monthly meetings and discussed other crime and law enforcement issues and that the relationship was good.  The subdivision had given one of its units to a police officers who now was retired.  I assumed it was similar to our community oriented policing.

We talked with about 12 youngsters from ages 5 to 9.  Most wanted to go to university, but two young boys were hell-bent on being “police officers.”  There was an obvious pride in their desires.

The only real policing efforts I observed were traffic enforcement by motor cops on the highways (all in terrible condition) and at night in downtown Havana.  I was riding in one of those 1950s convertibles that are privately owned for taxi service.  The young man who owned the car, a cherry Oldsmobile with original engine and transmission, said that he felt the cops hassled him on traffic stops.  They would make these stops on trivial issues knowing the operator had money from the tourists.  Usually he was able to get out of the ticket with a small bribe to the officer.  Unless the person is in private business, the government worker gets only the equivalent of $20 a month.

Cuba is on the cusp of facing radical changes with the warming of relations with the US.  Cruise ships will be on the horizon.  The government is in the process of converting its money to one system from the current two.  More and more Cubans are starting their own businesses, currently most are restaurants (paladares) and renting rooms to tourists.  The real Internet hasn’t arrived yet!  Unfortunately the Cuban government isn’t prepared to this type of rapid change.  Hopefully, the common people will be.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court considers accommodations under the ADA for cops on the beat


On Monday I had the experience of being present during oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case at point was Sheehan v. San Francisco Police.  I was the police practices expert on this civil case.  The case was originally dismissed at the District Court, and then reversed by the 9th Circuit that returned it for a jury trial.  The 9th found that there were issues in dispute on the second entry into the apartment of the Plaintiff and whether the ADA required the officers to make reasonable accommodations to her knowing that she was diagnosed as being mentally ill.  The City/County appealed the case to the USSC.

Of course this case could have significant implications for law enforcement.  I feel comfortable saying that the majority of people shot during police encounters could be classified as “persons of diminished capacity.”  For those of us in police work, that covers a lot of subjects we encounter.  They could be mentally ill, intoxicated, high on drugs, or suicidal. 

This was my first experience being present during oral arguments at the Supreme Court.  Justice Breyer recused himself as his younger brother was the Federal judge originally dismissing the case.  Each side gets 30 minutes to make its case.  Well, not quite.  I found the process somewhat disorganized.  It was more like 8, well really just 7 since Justice Thomas never speaks, taking potshots at the attorneys during their presentations.

For the most part, the Justices didn’t seem to be very interested in making ADA accommodations a requirement for the cop on the beat.  They seemed to be siding with the claim of the City/County that the officers’ safety was more important than the disability of the subject being confronted.  Two Justices kept coming back to the potential that the subject could commit suicide while the officers waited for back-up, special teams or weapons, or negotiation efforts. 

Justice Sotomayor seemed to be the one most interested in the welfare of the mentally ill person.  Surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts gave the attorney presenting the Plaintiff’s case the best opportunity to hit a home run at the very end of the presentation when he asked, “Could you give us a two minute version of what the officers should have done in this situation?”  All of the Justices truly appeared to be interested in the case.

In a few months we’ll see what decision they make.  It could be monumental and force us to intensify our training and oversight of officers when they deal with this huge group of persons with some form of diminished capacity.  Or it could be just business as usual.  Hopefully, law enforcement will continue to train and supervise our officers to respond safely and effectively on these potentially dangerous calls, but still exercise restraint and compassion for these struggling members of all of our communities.  The issue won’t get any better; just bigger for the cop on the beat.