Cops: We Need Rights More Than You, Citizen

[Dave70968]

http://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/

Let's take a look at Maryland's Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights that Canterbury mentions, and contrast the rights and procedures cops demand for themselves versus their habits in dealing with us.

Basis for starting an investigation.

Cops routinely start investigations based on hearsay tips from informants. Cops even take action based on wholly anonymous and uncorroborated informants. But when it comes to themselves, cops demand a sworn statement from a witness with direct knowledge:

(1) A complaint against a law enforcement officer that alleges brutality in the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties may not be investigated unless the complaint is sworn to, before an official authorized to administer oaths, by:

(i) the aggrieved individual;

(ii) a member of the aggrieved individual's immediate family;

(iii) an individual with firsthand knowledge obtained because the individual was present at and observed the alleged incident; or

(iv) the parent or guardian of the minor child, if the alleged incident involves a minor child.

Timeliness of investigation.

Cops start investigations whenever they want. But when it comes to them, they demand promptness:

(2) Unless a complaint is filed within 90 days after the alleged brutality, an investigation that may lead to disciplinary action under this subtitle for brutality may not be initiated and an action may not be taken.

Interrogation techniques

Many cops are experts at interrogation — the art of getting people to say things that, had they any common sense, they would not say. Cops want people to speak without a lawyer, speak against their best interest, speak based on a mistaken understanding of the situation, speak based on deceptive tactics.

They don't want any of that for themselves, though.

For instance, cops routinely lie about the scope of their investigation. But for them:

(2) Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation.

Cops routinely seek to interview subjects at times and places that will unsettle them and increase the chance of getting ill-considered statements. But for them:

(f) Time of interrogation.- Unless the seriousness of the investigation is of a degree that an immediate interrogation is required, the interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably when the law enforcement officer is on duty.

(g) Place of interrogation.-

(1) The interrogation shall take place:

(i) at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct or police unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer; or

(ii) at another reasonable and appropriate place.

Cops love to play good cop/bad cop and use other multiple-interrogator tactics. But for themselves:

(h) Conduct of interrogation.-

(1) All questions directed to the law enforcement officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogating officer during any one session of interrogation consistent with paragraph (2) of this subsection.

Cops routinely prolong interrogations to wear down suspects. They also routinely threaten dire consequences if the suspect doesn't "cooperate." But for cops:

(2) Each session of interrogation shall:

(i) be for a reasonable period; and

(ii) allow for personal necessities and rest periods as reasonably necessary.

(i) Threat of transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action prohibited.- The law enforcement officer under interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.

Cops routinely avoid recording interrogation sessions. This allows them to claim that the suspect confessed without contradiction and conceal their interrogation techniques. But for themselves:

(k) Record of interrogation.-

(1) A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all recess periods, of the law enforcement officer.

(2) The record may be written, taped, or transcribed.

(3) On completion of the investigation, and on request of the law enforcement officer under investigation or the law enforcement officer's counsel or representative, a copy of the record of the interrogation shall be made available at least 10 days before a hearing.

Right to review evidence.

Since this Maryland law was passed, cops have been demanding more protection during any investigation.

When cops interrogate you, they don't hand you all their evidence and ask you questions once you've had time to review it. They don't want you to know what they know. They're happy if you lie in a way they can easily disprove. That will help them prove guilt. So they'll pull the story out of you, a bit at a time, and show you pieces of evidence after you've committed to parts of the story, hoping to shake you.

But for themselves, cops want the right to review evidence, especially in an age of omnipresent video cameras. In Los Angeles, cops are demanding the right to view videos of incidents before giving statements about them:

The proposed policy would also allow officers to have a union representative with them when they review the video – and they can exclude the LAPD investigator looking into their actions during that process.

Similarly, in Dallas, the police chief announced a new rule requiring officers to wait 72 hours before giving statements about use of force incidents so that they can review any videos or witness statements. That change just happened to follow an incident in which a video of a police officer shooting an unarmed man turned out to contradict the officer's immediate statement about the shooting.

Read the whole thing, which includes links to support the claims made.

 

[Dave70968]

The Maryland law in question:
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/public-safety/title-3/subtitle-1/3-104/

Note that I didn't say "proposed" law; it went into effect five years ago. That means that, during the investigation of the actions that led to the current riots, the officers involved were protected by rules that let them see all of the evidence before they were questioned; not allowed to be threatened with disciplinary action; to only be questioned by a brother officer; to have knowledge of personally-identifying information of those involved in his questioning; to object to any question (by way of example, Oklahoma County deposition rules limit objections to "objection, leading" and "objection, form [of the question, such as a compound question]"; no such limits exist in this law); ordered tests (such as tox screens) are specifically made non-admissible, or even discoverable (we mere plebes can have our blood drawn forcibly, and it's admissible); and the accused can't have any adverse information added to his file without the right to submit written comments on same.

Show of hands: who thinks we mere subjects would get the same consideration if being investigated? Who thinks that it's fair that if I whack somebody in the head with a club, I live under a multi-year statute of limitations, but if I wear a shiny tin star, my statute of limitations is only 90 days? Anybody?

 

[jfssms]

the pendulum has swung way to far for certain civilian groups, hopefully a correction is on the way.

 

[dennishoddy]

Did these rules for LEO come from contract negotiations with the FOP, or through the legislature?

 

[53convert]

think about Weingarten and Garner....Both supreme court decisions that deal with officer investigations........once you understand those then you should take a look at Title 51 Okla. statues Police fire and arbitration act.......then you should take a look at the various police FOP contracts before you say further.............Those will open your eyes just a tad if you want them open

 

[Dave70968]

Did these rules for LEO come from contract negotiations with the FOP, or through the legislature?

The Maryland statutes linked are through the legislature, though you can bet the FOP lobbied aggressively. The California comments appear to be proposals.

 

[TenBears]

Those are good tips for criminals to remember, if ever interrogated.

 

[dennishoddy]

The Maryland statutes linked are through the legislature, though you can bet the FOP lobbied aggressively. The California comments appear to be proposals.

I asked, because the format of the language is very similar to the language when I was forced to be a member of the teamsters union.

 

[Dave70968]

I asked, because the format of the language is very similar to the language when I was forced to be a member of the teamsters union.

I'm happy to differentiate. I dislike when people conflate rumor with fact; I try not to myself, and when I make a mistake, I welcome correction. To the best of my knowledge, though, the justia.com link is actual statutory law, not policy or rhetoric.

 

[dennishoddy]

I don't disagree with your post and have supported it in the past by saying that I don't agree that LEO gets a pass on an immediate statement with a two day or so time frame to get their story together, while a fellow citizen is detained and locked up.

My question is that the union made it so or not?