Disciplinary
Processes
Processes
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
As you ponder your decision to become a police officer, you should
understand that there are few other careers where you'd be exposed to
such a wide array of situations and circumstances that could result in
some kind of disciplinary action being taken against you. You should
also realize that the disciplinary processes of most police departments
are corrupt, misused, arbitrary, and incoherent.
One of the worst things you can do as a police officer is to jump to a
conclusion based on initial information you receive or even your initial
eyeball observation of a particular situation or incident. Since things
are rarely ever the way as they first appear, this is good advice, and
you'd think that most police officers have this acquired skill down pat.
Well...maybe not most, but many don't. If you ever find yourself being
accused of some wrongdoing, you'll find yourself surrounded by police
jumping to conclusions all over the place. This really isn't a knew
phenomenon. Police have always been their own most severe
critics...not of themselves, but of each other.
As a police officer, you've got to train yourself to put facts ahead of
everything else...not just facts you like, but all the facts. As long as you
chase facts, only facts, and -- most importantly -- all the facts, you'll
never go wrong. Unfortunately, you might well find yourself working
for supervisors, commanders, or others investigating your actions who
have a difficult time with facts which interfere with their preconceived
conclusions.
You'll come to learn that every police department has a means to deal
with every circumstance when those who are charged with applying the
disciplinary processes are themselves caught in wrongdoing. It's a big
black hole that sucks in all the facts so that those facts will never again
see the light of day. In the example I've just described, my subsequent
report detailing all the facts and exposing the "bias" and "gross
incompetence" displayed by the investigator was quickly sucked into
that hole. The good thing about those black holes is that they suck in
everything. The disciplinary action against my officer disappeared,
along with my report, never to be seen or spoken of again.
However, this story doesn't end here. Several months later, the
witnessing officer in the example was, herself, involved in a minor
departmental traffic accident. Can you guess who was assigned to
investigate the accident? This time, however, the investigator
comported himself as a true professional. His polite and respectful
demeanor toward the officer repaired the previous damage; even
though, no words were exchanged regarding the previous debacle. The
investigator's subsequent finding of "non-preventable" helped as well.
I know you're already familiar with the terms "presumption of
innocence" and "reasonable doubt" associated with the criminal justice
system. When it comes to police administrative disciplinary processes,
no such pretenses exist. If you become a target of your department's
disciplinary process, you'll be faced with a presumption of guilt and a
preponderance of evidence. While the presumption of guilt is easy to
understand, the preponderance of evidence is a difficult concept for
some. Preponderance of evidence simply means that only the barest
amount of evidence needs to be developed to indicate that you're
probably guilty of the allegation against you.
The preponderance of evidence standard is not a bad thing. As long as
evidence is not contrived or fabricated, it's an efficient and sensible way
to maintain a high level of discipline within a police department. If your
police department demands a high level of integrity from everyone,
including those administering the disciplinary process, you'll find
yourself exposed to a structured and relatively problem free disciplinary
environment.
On the other hand...you could find yourself working in a police
department where the corrupt and arbitrary administration of the
disciplinary process can create a very unpleasant working environment.
While the disciplinary process of every police department is subject to
the negative influences of politics and favoritism, some are far worse
than others.
The best way for you to avoid becoming a victim of your department's
disciplinary process is to simply follow the rules. While you could well
experience disciplinary actions for minor violations by virtue of your
imperfect nature as a human being, the more serious, and career
threatening, violations can be easily avoided. If you do find yourself
working in a police department where the disciplinary process is
continually compromised for the benefit of some to the detriment of
others, you'll have to be careful and always prepared to logically and
coherently articulate your actions for everything you do.
understand that there are few other careers where you'd be exposed to
such a wide array of situations and circumstances that could result in
some kind of disciplinary action being taken against you. You should
also realize that the disciplinary processes of most police departments
are corrupt, misused, arbitrary, and incoherent.
One of the worst things you can do as a police officer is to jump to a
conclusion based on initial information you receive or even your initial
eyeball observation of a particular situation or incident. Since things
are rarely ever the way as they first appear, this is good advice, and
you'd think that most police officers have this acquired skill down pat.
Well...maybe not most, but many don't. If you ever find yourself being
accused of some wrongdoing, you'll find yourself surrounded by police
jumping to conclusions all over the place. This really isn't a knew
phenomenon. Police have always been their own most severe
critics...not of themselves, but of each other.
As a police officer, you've got to train yourself to put facts ahead of
everything else...not just facts you like, but all the facts. As long as you
chase facts, only facts, and -- most importantly -- all the facts, you'll
never go wrong. Unfortunately, you might well find yourself working
for supervisors, commanders, or others investigating your actions who
have a difficult time with facts which interfere with their preconceived
conclusions.
You'll come to learn that every police department has a means to deal
with every circumstance when those who are charged with applying the
disciplinary processes are themselves caught in wrongdoing. It's a big
black hole that sucks in all the facts so that those facts will never again
see the light of day. In the example I've just described, my subsequent
report detailing all the facts and exposing the "bias" and "gross
incompetence" displayed by the investigator was quickly sucked into
that hole. The good thing about those black holes is that they suck in
everything. The disciplinary action against my officer disappeared,
along with my report, never to be seen or spoken of again.
However, this story doesn't end here. Several months later, the
witnessing officer in the example was, herself, involved in a minor
departmental traffic accident. Can you guess who was assigned to
investigate the accident? This time, however, the investigator
comported himself as a true professional. His polite and respectful
demeanor toward the officer repaired the previous damage; even
though, no words were exchanged regarding the previous debacle. The
investigator's subsequent finding of "non-preventable" helped as well.
I know you're already familiar with the terms "presumption of
innocence" and "reasonable doubt" associated with the criminal justice
system. When it comes to police administrative disciplinary processes,
no such pretenses exist. If you become a target of your department's
disciplinary process, you'll be faced with a presumption of guilt and a
preponderance of evidence. While the presumption of guilt is easy to
understand, the preponderance of evidence is a difficult concept for
some. Preponderance of evidence simply means that only the barest
amount of evidence needs to be developed to indicate that you're
probably guilty of the allegation against you.
The preponderance of evidence standard is not a bad thing. As long as
evidence is not contrived or fabricated, it's an efficient and sensible way
to maintain a high level of discipline within a police department. If your
police department demands a high level of integrity from everyone,
including those administering the disciplinary process, you'll find
yourself exposed to a structured and relatively problem free disciplinary
environment.
On the other hand...you could find yourself working in a police
department where the corrupt and arbitrary administration of the
disciplinary process can create a very unpleasant working environment.
While the disciplinary process of every police department is subject to
the negative influences of politics and favoritism, some are far worse
than others.
The best way for you to avoid becoming a victim of your department's
disciplinary process is to simply follow the rules. While you could well
experience disciplinary actions for minor violations by virtue of your
imperfect nature as a human being, the more serious, and career
threatening, violations can be easily avoided. If you do find yourself
working in a police department where the disciplinary process is
continually compromised for the benefit of some to the detriment of
others, you'll have to be careful and always prepared to logically and
coherently articulate your actions for everything you do.
I was a police sergeant when this example of stupidity,
prejudice, and incompetence occurred involving two female
police officers under my supervision.
The first officer responded to a call for a suspect believed to be
armed with a gun. She observed a suspect fitting the
description, and a foot chase ensued. Moments later, the
second female officer was assigned to a second, unrelated,
emergency call in the same general area.
The first officer lost sight of the armed suspect, and she was
returning to her vehicle to continue her search when she
observed the second officer responding to her call. The second
officer had her roof lights activated as she attempted to pass a
vehicle which she believed had yielded the right of way by
moving to the right. However, as she attempted to pass, the
vehicle moved back, and a collision occurred. Both the police
car and the civilian car were moving at slow speeds resulting
in minimal property damage and no physical injuries.
I responded to the scene where I quickly collected all the facts
pertaining to the circumstances of both incidents. Both
officers explained that the civilian vehicle did appear, by its
movement, to yield to the police vehicle. The department
classified departmental vehicle accidents into two
categories...preventable and non-preventable. I quickly gave
the bad news to both officers that this accident would
undoubtedly be determined "preventable." Both officers
simply nodded as if to say, "Yea, we know."
Since a departmental vehicle was involved, the accident would
be investigated by an "expert." A member of the
department's Traffic Investigation Section responded. I saw
the officer arrive and approach the female officer involved in
the accident. I walked over to the officers where I introduced
myself, and I told the investigator that I would be available to
him if he needed to clarify any information. The investigator
replied, "Thanks, Sarge...I got it." I left the scene shortly
thereafter since it appeared I wasn't needed. After all, it
wasn't a complicated situation.
Two weeks passed when the official notification of disciplinary
action came down for the female officer involved in the
accident. The accident was determined to be preventable with
the standard disciplinary action for an accident of its type. As
I reviewed that packet, I came to the "Investigator's
Summary." Now, I'd seen some real crap written by police
officers, but this guy's load of nonsense was some of the worst
I'd ever seen.
The full, single page summary barely addressed any details of
the accident. It went into extensive detail describing why the
witnessing officer's account was "not credible." The
investigator explained that since the witnessing officer was
engaged in a foot chase of an armed suspect, she would have
had to stop and turn around at a precise instant in order to
witness the accident. While the investigator had every means
to establish the facts of the two unrelated incidents, it turned
out that he didn't choose to use any of those information
sources available to him.
I learned that the only substantive conversation he had with
the officer, who was involved in the accident, was during their
initial contact when he simply stated to her, "I figured it
would be a woman." The only interviews he conducted were
with the operator and occupant of the civilian vehicle. As far
as the witnessing officer was concerned, he showed absolutely
no interest in her observation of the accident. The
investigator had obviously drawn his conclusions on two
circumstances: First, the operator of the police vehicle was a
woman. Second, he thought she was responding to back up
the witnessing officer who was chasing an armed suspect;
hence, his ridiculous assassination of the witnessing officer's
credibility.
prejudice, and incompetence occurred involving two female
police officers under my supervision.
The first officer responded to a call for a suspect believed to be
armed with a gun. She observed a suspect fitting the
description, and a foot chase ensued. Moments later, the
second female officer was assigned to a second, unrelated,
emergency call in the same general area.
The first officer lost sight of the armed suspect, and she was
returning to her vehicle to continue her search when she
observed the second officer responding to her call. The second
officer had her roof lights activated as she attempted to pass a
vehicle which she believed had yielded the right of way by
moving to the right. However, as she attempted to pass, the
vehicle moved back, and a collision occurred. Both the police
car and the civilian car were moving at slow speeds resulting
in minimal property damage and no physical injuries.
I responded to the scene where I quickly collected all the facts
pertaining to the circumstances of both incidents. Both
officers explained that the civilian vehicle did appear, by its
movement, to yield to the police vehicle. The department
classified departmental vehicle accidents into two
categories...preventable and non-preventable. I quickly gave
the bad news to both officers that this accident would
undoubtedly be determined "preventable." Both officers
simply nodded as if to say, "Yea, we know."
Since a departmental vehicle was involved, the accident would
be investigated by an "expert." A member of the
department's Traffic Investigation Section responded. I saw
the officer arrive and approach the female officer involved in
the accident. I walked over to the officers where I introduced
myself, and I told the investigator that I would be available to
him if he needed to clarify any information. The investigator
replied, "Thanks, Sarge...I got it." I left the scene shortly
thereafter since it appeared I wasn't needed. After all, it
wasn't a complicated situation.
Two weeks passed when the official notification of disciplinary
action came down for the female officer involved in the
accident. The accident was determined to be preventable with
the standard disciplinary action for an accident of its type. As
I reviewed that packet, I came to the "Investigator's
Summary." Now, I'd seen some real crap written by police
officers, but this guy's load of nonsense was some of the worst
I'd ever seen.
The full, single page summary barely addressed any details of
the accident. It went into extensive detail describing why the
witnessing officer's account was "not credible." The
investigator explained that since the witnessing officer was
engaged in a foot chase of an armed suspect, she would have
had to stop and turn around at a precise instant in order to
witness the accident. While the investigator had every means
to establish the facts of the two unrelated incidents, it turned
out that he didn't choose to use any of those information
sources available to him.
I learned that the only substantive conversation he had with
the officer, who was involved in the accident, was during their
initial contact when he simply stated to her, "I figured it
would be a woman." The only interviews he conducted were
with the operator and occupant of the civilian vehicle. As far
as the witnessing officer was concerned, he showed absolutely
no interest in her observation of the accident. The
investigator had obviously drawn his conclusions on two
circumstances: First, the operator of the police vehicle was a
woman. Second, he thought she was responding to back up
the witnessing officer who was chasing an armed suspect;
hence, his ridiculous assassination of the witnessing officer's
credibility.
| ...big black hole |
| ...presumption of innocence and reasonalbe doubt |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
| Online Video Learning Systems: Police Exam - U.S. Border Patrol Exam |