PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Recently the names of two officers, who were involved in a police shooting, were released to the media. Though it was initially unclear as to how the media received the names, it has since been verified the officers’ names were released at the instruction of Chief Isom. The release of these names was premature, at best.
The association has voiced its displeasure to Chief Isom. Chief Isom explained he, too, does not want any officer’s name released; however, due to a recent Circuit Court ruling and The Sunshine Law, the Police Department can be compelled to release an officer’s name.
There is some accuracy to Chief Isom’s statement. However, certain criteria must be met for these names to be released. I don’t profess to be an attorney; but, in a nutshell, an officer’s name should not be available to be released until an investigation is complete or deemed inactive. Nor should an officer’s name be released if such release is “reasonably likely to pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any victim (involved officer), witness, undercover officer or other person; or jeopardize a criminal investigation”. [Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 610, Section 100.]
Now we, as Police Officers know, or should know, that retaliation by an individual is always possible whether it involves a shooting or the issuance of a traffic ticket. We are police officers twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and three hundred sixty-five days a year. We should always be cognizant of this fact; however not consumed by it.
We, as Police Officers, expect, or should expect, peace of mind for our family. We perform our job, which sometimes entails physical and/or violent interaction, with individuals. The level of force we use is always necessitated by the actions of the individual. As long as our actions are appropriate and within the standards of the law, there is no need to have our names brandished about in video and print media.
The Legal Counsel of the Police Department, in accordance with the Chief’s Office, is currently drafting a policy for requests seeking the identity of an involved officer. This Association’s wish is that our names are never released; however, according to the opinions of the Police Department’s Legal Counsel and the Chief‘s office, the Police Department will be, at times, compelled to identify involved officers because of the laws of the State of Missouri.
Please read the following writing carefully. It is the opinion of the SLPOA attorneys as a whole. It is an opinion that I agree with and includes a suggestion I feel we, the Association, need to act on as a whole. If you choose to follow the suggestion of our SLPOA attorneys please copy your request to Legal Chairman Bill McDonough or myself. And, if you are allowed your right to review your IAD file, please contact Bill or me to discuss your findings.
Climate Change and Erosion
“We have met the enemy and he is us.” – Walt Kelly
Recently, members of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department have suffered alarming attacks upon basic due process rights found in Rule 7 of the Police Manual. Under Rule 7, an officer who is the subject of an allegation of misconduct has certain fundamental rights. These include notification of the allegation, the right of representation, expectations as to handling of an investigations and the administration of discipline. The purpose behind the Rule was to provide basic fairness to allow someone the chance to defend oneself. A part of this concept of fairness is setting up a predictable and “transparent process” (a favorite phrase these days). An alarming trend in recent months demonstrates that these basic and fundamental rights are under attack.
The best way to protect your rights is to ensure that you know them. Take the time to read Rule 7.
According to SLPOA lawyers, the number of allegations has risen over past months. It appears that all allegations of misconduct are now entertained by the Department, even anonymous allegations. When anonymous allegations are made they are simply signed by the Commander of Internal Affairs. All of this is in contravention of Rule 7. Officers are not being notified of allegations for which they are under investigation and are being disciplined for matters summarily. Even command rank officers are finding that they are not immune to these due process violations.
The current administration has recently asserted that they are willing to disclose names of Police Officers who have been involved in line of duty shootings. Words like “open process” and “transparency” are regularly used to apply to anyone except department members. It seems that the thought is to make all information available to the public including sensitive information, which could expose an officer and his family to retaliation and revenge. Yet, this same idea of “transparency” is not being applied to department members who want to know what allegations have been made, who made them, how was the investigation handled and what was the outcome. It’s difficult to avoid being a cynic when such an obvious double standard is being employed.
As a result, it is encouraged that all members review your personnel file and IAD files for accuracy. These files are personnel files and you have a right to review them. You should look for employee misconduct reports and follow the path set out by Rule 7. If there was discipline was it approved by the employee? Was the allegation signed? Did the recommendation for discipline follow chain of command? Make notes of any procedural violations. These audits are necessary to protect your rights.
It is suggested you make your request to review files in writing. A simple request would be as follows:
“Commander of Internal Affairs,
I would request the opportunity to review all closed internal investigations in which I have been the subject of allegations for which I have received some form of discipline. Please let me know of a convenient time for this review.
Name/DSN”
This sort of vigilance is essential to avoid further erosion of our rights. Note any problems or questions and pass them on to the Legal Committee for necessary legal actions. Transparency is not a one-way mirror.
?
