Protecting Guilty Officers Against Telling A Damning Story
It turns out there's a police tenure system that keeps bad cops on the job by delaying the questioning of the officer long enough that he or she has ample time to piece together a less damning story. Walter Olson writes at Cato:
The problems of the teacher tenure system, especially in big cities where powerful unions defend members against dismissal, are familiar enough. Less well known is the newer, parallel-and arguably more alarming-rise of police and prison-guard tenure under what are known as Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR or LEOBOR) laws.Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, for example, has blamed Maryland's LEOBR law for frustrating the investigation into the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody. Maryland's law provides that after an incident superiors cannot question an officer without the presence of a lawyer of the officer's choosing, and that officers have 10 days to line up such representation. Critics say that by the time those suspected of misbehavior have to commit to a story, they will have had ample opportunity to consult with others about what to say. Most of the officers present have cooperated with the investigation of Gray's death, the city says, but at least one has not.
...Prison and jail guards are often covered by these laws as well, and scandals of corrections administration (the state-run Baltimore jail had a huge one in which the Maryland LEOBR was implicated) are often hard to investigate because of the law's barriers. Union contracts often add further layers of insulation from discipline. In its coverage of abuse allegations at New York's notorious Attica prison, for example, the New York Times reported, "Under their union contract, corrections officers are obligated to answer questions only from their employers and have the right to refuse to talk to outside police agencies. State Police investigators attempted to interview 15 guards; 11 declined to cooperate."
Declined to cooperate? Declined to cooperate?! Like it's a fucking tea party, and they just weren't feeling up to attending?
Funny - this blog often encourages people not to talk to police without a lawyer present. Why shouldn't the police have the same right? Why should they get in trouble for exercising their rights?
> Declined to cooperate? Declined to cooperate?!
> Like it's a fucking tea party, and they just
> weren't feeling up to attending?
According to the article, they don't have to talk to outside police. Why should they talk if they aren't required to? You have a recent blog post where you also refused to talk to police to when you weren't require to.
Snoopy at May 1, 2015 3:38 AM
+1 Snoopy. I don't want police/corrections officers to have any more rights than anybody else - but I don't want them to have any less, either.
You don't have to 'cooperate' with any criminal investigation if you don't want to. They don't have to either.
One part of these 'bill of rights' laws that does need to change is the parts in some of them where officers have the right to review video and other evidence before deciding whether or not to answer questions. That's a 'special' right that the rest of us don't get, so ixnay on that. Same with all the 'reasonable times' and 'personal breaks' during questioning.
As other commenters have pointed out, these 'bill of rights' laws also create fertile ground for police departments to squash investigations of their officers. If some trivial part of the 'bill of rights' provisions is breached, oftentimes, the whole investigation is scrapped. Ooops, we didn't give him enough bathroom breaks when we were questioning him - the murder investigation cannot proceed. What a shame. This makes it much too easy for investigations to collapse before any charges are brought, and nobody is ever punished for doing this sort of thing. Note that I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights that we all get to enjoy, but the LEOBR 'bill of rights' provisions.
llater,
llamas
llamas at May 1, 2015 4:41 AM
Snoopy: If anyone who isn't a cop breaks a man's neck, he can refuse to talk without a lawyer - or at all - but he'll be in jail during the investigation. Cops get a paid vacation while things are being investigated, by their buddies.
markm at May 1, 2015 8:56 AM
Funny - this blog often encourages people not to talk to police without a lawyer present. Why shouldn't the police have the same right?
Pretty sure I wouldn't be given 10 days of paid vacation to find me a lawyer.
drcos at May 1, 2015 9:13 AM
Yeah, you can decline to answer questions but to skip out entirely on the interrogation? To get extra time to review evidence and compare notes with other accused? All while out free on paid leave? Just try to exercise those "rights" as a private citizen.
Astra at May 1, 2015 10:45 AM
I don't think you scofflaws and commies get it.
Cops do a DANGEROUS job - in 2014 police killed by gunfire jumped 56% to 50 - that's FIFTY OFFICERS!
Although it's difficult to compile complete statistics, in 2014 the police only killed about 1,000 citizens.
So you can see how - wait, what?!
Um. Never mind. Carry on.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2015 12:05 PM
Somewhat tangential, but not really: Warrants issued in Baltimore, with six to be indicted.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 1, 2015 12:14 PM
Oh, Mr. Caesar Goodson. I look forward to finding out what exactly it was that you did when you went and checked on Mr. Gray during that stop in the van, after which he wasn't moving/breathing.
gooseegg at May 1, 2015 2:42 PM
markm, drcos, Astra - I agree with much of what you're saying, but you're conflating issues.
The article is talking about how the police officer's right to counsel and silence hinders investigations.
> Cops get a paid vacation while things are being
> investigated
Sure, that's in their employment contract. Most powerful unions negotiate that sort of clause - for instance, I've seen teachers in the same situation. But it really has nothing to do with police officer's right to counsel and silence.
> investigated, by their buddies
Agreed, this is terrible - but it really has nothing to do with police officer's right to counsel and silence. They would have these rights regardless of who was investigating them.
> he'll be in jail during the investigation
Only if there are criminal charges. There's no mention of any of these police officers being criminally charged.
> Pretty sure I wouldn't be given 10 days of paid
> vacation to find me a lawyer.
As a practical matter, how would that even work?
> but to skip out entirely on the interrogation?
You have the right to remain silent.
> To get extra time to review evidence and
> compare notes with other accused?
Isn't that what attorneys do?
> Cops do a DANGEROUS job
So, they should have fewer rights than you or me?
Snoopy at May 1, 2015 2:54 PM
"So, they should have fewer rights than you or me?"
Yes, that's exactly what I said. You can see it right there in my post, next to the painting of Jesus as a football player.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2015 3:15 PM
If you had a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't job, with people who despise you wanting to catch you in any mistake, you might decline to cooperate without representation too (you know, that pesky right we all have....). Especially when the people slavering to damn you have never faced a situation that could kill them before in their life. Most especially when the people waiting to judge you are the sort who defend violent, criminal, destructive rioting.
momof4 at May 1, 2015 5:44 PM
"Most especially when the people waiting to judge you are the sort who defend violent, criminal, destructive rioting."
I only defend violent criminals when they're wearing police uniforms and breaking unarmed, handcuffed and shackled prisoners' spines, thankyouverymuch.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2015 6:28 PM
I wonder how many people will think that because they read a newspaper or watched TV -- that they actually saw evidence in this case. It'll be a huge media circus, tailored for the audience more than Running Man.
People enamored of their own opinions couldn't - and can't! - deal with the plain fact that they didn't see any evidence at all during the O.J. trial (you and I didn't either - NO, we did NOT), but that doesn't keep them from demanding for others what they would never accept for themselves.
Radwaste at May 2, 2015 2:37 AM
> but to skip out entirely on the interrogation?
You have the right to remain silent.
Yeah, but I meant getting out of actually sitting in an interrogation. The accused has a right to remain silent but generally the police won't then just cancel the interrogation if you say you won't talk. They will force you to sit there and repeatedly invoke your 5th amendment rights because, as Popehat notes, interrogation techniques police use but don't want used on themselves often elicts information they can use against the suspect:
http://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/
Astra at May 2, 2015 7:34 AM
Leave a comment