Police Officer’s Bill of Rights Guarantees

Peace Officers Bill of Rights Guarantees: Case Studies Critique
Name:
Institution:
Date:
Abstract
Peace Officers Bill of Rights is meant to safeguard the rights of the peace officers while in their duties and when being investigated for various unlawful acts. Different states in the United States decided to enact the bill and amended them according to the opinions of their Association of Chief Police. Arizona Model Policy and Colorado Professional Standard are among the policies enacted by Arizona and Colorado states respectively. Their variations on the guidelines to be followed while investigating police officers differs slightly. The respective ACPs amended the POBR to suit their states.
These bills touch on the interviewing protocols and the places it has to be carried out. When and for how long the interviews should last varies although the times are reasonable (a maximum of 90 minutes). It further stipulates on the privileges the officer/employee will have in regards to their terms of the contract and the positions in the police force. Their disclosure of personal information including medical reports and financial data is guided by various laws in the bills. Although not all the decisions are in this bills are supportive of the rights of the police, most of them cultivate a culture of transparency and openness in dealing with the police cases under investigations.
Keywords: Peace officers, Rights, Arizona Model Policy, Colorado Professional Standard
Case Study One: Arizona Model Policy
Police officers safety and occupational rights are paramount.

The policies followed when an officer is involved in an illegal activity are guided by the federal laws. However, in the United States, the independent states have various statutory laws their state officers follow whenever they are being investigated. Arizona Model Policy offers several guidelines to be followed when an officer/employee is being investigated or interviewed and the procedures to be followed when undertaking such actions (Snell & Wilmer, 1993). It is based on the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights (POBR) which was championed by a congressman Mario Biaggi who was once the most decorated officers in NYPD history. The laws can either be subordinate or supersede the collective bargaining agreements. The codified prohibition and rights in one state may not be found in another state.
Facts
The POBR guides the rights and responsibilities of peace officers. The policy is supposed to cover all police officers both federal and state including those who are temporarily being used in community service. Good personnel practices foster and uphold the rights of officers during investigations of alleged crimes he/she had//have committed. The application of the POBR is mainly when an officer is under investigation. They are allowed to work as the inquiry continues. Scheduled interviews have to be carried out at the places of duty and officers given a chance to transcript the proceedings. The decisions of the court of either transferring the officers to unpopular posts o units, denial of secondary employment or probation is only justified upon completion of the scheduled interviews and collection of evidence to link the officer to a violation of state laws. Polygraph examinations may be requested from the officers under investigations but cannot be forcefully be undertaken against their will. Furthermore, every employee/officer has a duty to report misconduct and cooperate with agencies during investigations.
Decisions
The Arizona Model Policy stipulates some of the POBR that are not evident in other states. It advocates for continued employment of full-time and non-supervisory employees and which can only be taken away after the due process is followed. The decision to uphold such a rule is beneficial to the officers/employees and enables their rights to be protected and adhered to. The model also prohibits home interviews of officers under investigation. In their policy, the officers can only be interviewed while in their place of duty. This move is acceptable and encourages confidentiality and professionalism in investigations. The identity of the complainants is in most instances confidential and not availed to the officer accused unless the petitioner requests disclosure. Such a move is not effective in allowing the accused employee/officer to prepare adequately in answering for his/her violations of the law.
The policy adopted prohibition of ridicule, mockery or outrageous conduct acts during an interrogation. The interrogation takes a maximum of 90 minutes. The process has to be undertaken in a professional manner. The officer is also mandated to paying the transcription cost and allowed to tape the interview proceedings. The cost, however, should have been covered by management and avail a copy to the defendants (Balko, 2015). Arizona Policy also requires the officers to disclose their financial information and gives them a chance to access their files and add any rebuttal information to the allegations. Furthermore, the policy has no decisions on representations of the officers under investigations by the attorneys. This decision is against the POBR and violates right for representation of peace officers in a formal interview. It is therefore not suitable in some instances where the officers are not able to adequately defend themselves.
Alternative Solutions
The procedures and guidelines to be followed while investigating peace officers have to be streamlined to protect and adhere to their rights. Retribution laws have to be revised so that it allows the not to be accused of practicing some unconstitutional acts as long as it is out of goodwill and have a reasonable approach (Keenan & Walker, 2005). For instance, an officer who mistakenly kills a suspect for trying to flee with the intention of only stopping/disabling his/her movement should not be prosecuted by the law enforcement laws. In carrying out the interviews, the policy decisions can include a designated place and date of time to perform the proceedings in any case. This will allow uniformity in dealing with various cases in the law enforcement departments and ensure confidentiality of the officer’s information including photographs, financial data among others. If an officer/employee is in custody, all the constitutional rights should be accorded to them. This is analogous to the case of Garrity v. New Jersey in 1967 where the accused had the constitutional privileges of having an attorney, protection, and involvement in investigations.
Conclusion
The considerations of Arizona Model Policy have both strengths and weaknesses in enforcing the Police Officers’’ Bill of Rights. Among the major positive criticism of its applicability is allowing the officers to access their case files, interviewing them while in their workstations and allowing the courts only to rule after completion of collecting evidence. Furthermore, it gives the officer the right to have access to transcription of their interrogation proceedings and prohibits ridicule, mockery or outrageous acts during the process. However, not allowing the accused officers to have knowledge of the complainants and denying them representation by attorneys during formal interviews limits the effectiveness of the policy.
Case Study Two: Colorado Professional Standard
Addressing the conduct of internal affairs of investigation of police officers is vital. The guidelines and the procedure to be followed has to be designed to ensure professionalism in the undertakings. The Colorado Association of Chief of Police (ACP) amended its professional standards in 1986 to suit the Police Officers Bill of Rights (Colorado-ACP, 1990). In their bill, several decisions are made by the management on how the investigation involving officers is conducted. Many states in the United States have adopted the POBR, but their ACPs have made the different adjustment. The rights and the responsibilities of peace officers are articulated in these policies in regards to the investigation of police officers found to commit different unlawful acts.
Facts
Since the police officers are supposed to enforce laws, their actions have to be accounted for by the involved officers. However, since they are sworn in personnel of the federal or state government, the right procedures have to be followed. Retribution has to be applied to those found to have committed the crimes. Such crimes as excess use of force, improper use of firearms discrimination of suspects by race, gender, language, color or nationality. Prosecution of the officers for unlawful acts is thus justified, and the investigations are done by the same department while the officer still carries out the duties. Interrogation of the accused officers is done by a selected committee within the state police force and is done at the place of duty of the officer or the headquarters of the police. None of the accused are forcefully or maliciously manipulated to give information. The officer while under investigation can be allowed to record statements, and all his/her remunerations are done in agreement with the signed contract upon employment. Suspension of the officer only happens whenever there is sufficient evidence to link him/her to the crime accused to have committed (Olson, 2015). Questioning of officers should be done in a reasonable length of time and a conducive environment. Transcription of the proceedings can be done but releasing of the contents is not allowed. The accused can be availed a copy of the recording. Furthermore, the entitlement of the officer to comment in writing on any information pertaining his/her personal life is supported by POBR.
Decisions
The Colorado Professional Standard endorsed some of the contradicting issues in the POBR and amended some of its aspects to fit their police officers. In their policy, the provisions of their laws apply to all peace officers. These are meant to include all the officers both full time and part time. This decision ensures justice is delivered in all officers regardless of their positions or terms of the contract and therefore effective to be applied. The standard also prohibits threats, the promise of language or offensive language to accused officers/employees to extort information from them. The ethical considerations of the investigations, in this case, are ensured, and this is in support of the POBR. The officers are provided with the audiotapes and videotapes to review and offer a rebuttal in writing where applicable.
The Colorado Standard demands that the accused officers pay for transcription fee of the interrogation proceedings. This is contrary to the POBR where the management is supposed to cover the charges. It is the responsibility of investigating body to have the interview recorded for investigation, and it should carry on to foot the charges. The bill also requires the agencies involved with the investigation specify when medical examination of the involved is necessary. It further limits the agencies to disclosing/publishing an officer’s personal information (financial and residential) to any complainant or authority without prior consultations. The limitation of the officers accessing their files is also articulated in the standard. This decision does not give the officers a chance to refute some of the allegations filed against them. It, therefore, does not offer equality and transparency in the whole process.
Alternative Solutions
Some of the officers under investigation suffer mental, emotional or psychological humiliation from the way their cases are handled. Allowing them to file civil claims against the investigation units can earn them a right to defend their rights in a more refined manner. The damages include private entity including financial disclosure, forced polygraph examinations or physical injuries inflicted on the officers due to the negligence of the investigating units. Any confessions obtained from the officers in an informal interview should not be used to judge the officers in the courts of law lie in the case of L.A. Police Prot. League v. Gates in 1984. Such evidence may be instigated and incorrect. Only the formal interview/interrogation outcomes should be used (Balko, 2015). Lastly, arbitration can be used in instances where the officers are attached to a certified and recognized bargaining unit in the police force as in the case of Watson v. Co. of Riverside in 1997.
Conclusion
Protection of the right of the peace officers is paramount in any state in the United States. However, whenever they are reported to have been involved in unlawful activities, there is the right to prosecute them following the state laws. An investigation unit needs to be in place so that the officers/employees can be interrogated and investigated in agreement with the set laws while adhering to the stated enacted POBR. The state ACPs are responsible for setting the guidelines that should be followed while an officer is under investigation for violation of various federal or labor laws while carrying out their duties.
References
Balko, R. (2015). The police officers’ bill of rights. Washington: Washington Post. Retrieved November 24th, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights/
Colorado-ACP. (1990). Professional Standards (§170.1 -13, Internal Affairs and §171.1 -7, Administrative Procedures for Sworn Personnel). Denver, Colorado.
Keenan, K. M., & Walker, S. (2005). An impediment to police accountability? An analysis of statutory Law Enforcement Officers’ Bills of Rights. Public Interest Law Journal, 14, 185-244.
Olson, W. (2015, April 24). Police Misconduct and ‘Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights’ Laws. Retrieved from Cato At Liberty: http://www.cato.org/blog/police-misconduct-law-enforcement-officers-bill-rights
Snell, & Wilmer. (1993). Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police: Model Policy Regarding the Rights and Responsibilities of Law Enforcement Employees in Internal Investigations. Legal Defense Manual, 93(1), 17-19. Retrieved from <http://home.xnet.com/~lelp/>