1
RunningHead:CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
CaseStudyCritique2
PeaceOfficersBillofRightsGuarantees:
RespondingtoUnionDemandswithaManagementSanctionVersion
Liberty University
2
CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
Abstract
AccordingtothePeaceOfficersBillofRights,lawenforcementagenciesputforaneffort to
create security in knowing its officers are being treated equally, that investigations remain
private until finished, and that disciplinary actions are administered without an officer’s rights
being violated. However, some states have adopted rights for law enforcement personnel; the
rules vary and there is a lack harmony with each other.At present, there are no federal Bill of
Rights that attempt to unify how agencies investigations are conducted. This case study critique
will identify the important facts; discuss what decisions were made and offer alternative
solutions.
3
CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
Facts
TheAmendments in the United States Constitution was put into place to help protect its
citizens. Some of theseAmendments have affected law enforcement agencies and departments
over many years. Notably, The United Stated Constitution protects its citizens from the right
against self-incrimination. But what happens when an officer is under investigation? Does that
officerhavetotestifyagainsthimself?InaccordancetothePoliceBillofRights,theofficerdoes not have
to do this.Afederal version of the Bill has not been passed through the Senate but 17 states have
adopted the usage of the Peace Officers Bill of Rights which includes:Arizona,
California,Delaware,Florida,Illinois,Kentucky,Louisiana,Maryland,Minnesota,Nevada,New
Mexico, Rhode Island,Tennessee,Texas,Virginia,WestVirginia,Wisconsin, and Canadian Province
of Alberta (Schmidt, 2005).
In conjunction with the 17 states who have implemented the Peace Officers Bill of
Rights, ten other states with unions have tried to produce a form of the Peace Officers Bill of
Rights. Even though there are some states do have some type of Bill, there are many problems
with the bill and there is still lack of agreement amongst the states.The main drive of the Peace
OfficersBillofRightsistoensurethatofficersreceivethesamerightsasthepublicreceivesand to ensure
that officers are protected during disciplinary and investigations.The Bill of Rights
alsocontainsthatinterviewsdoneininvestigationsofanofficershouldbedonewhiletheofficer is on
duty; which should be done when possible and/or practical (Clyde, Cronkhite, 2013).
The Police Officer Bill of Rights is not a constitutionalAmendment; however, its
existencebecauseofthedemandforaccountabilityandforbetterandmoreefficientwayof
investigationsintolawenforcementmisconduct.NewYorkRep.MarioBiaggi,in1971, did
4
CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
introduce the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights to prove how necessary it was to differentiate
betweeninternalinvestigationsconductedbyagenciesandcriminalinvestigations.Thelawscan either
supersede or be subordinate to collective bargaining agreements. The specific rights and
prohibitions that are in some states may vary in another (Schmidt, 2005).
Decision
Bearing in mind the police officer’s Bill of Rights, it is apparent that the requirements
madecansometimesbeacomplexsituation.ThePeaceOfficersBillofRightshastwoimportant key
parts. The first part is the procedures and responsibilities in the Bill of Rights. This part of the
Peace Officer Bill of Rights requires and states that officers have the obligation to report any and
all information concerning any acts or events which constitute serious misconduct, or violates
state or federal criminal laws, or a substantial conflict of interest, or a corrupt or fraudulent
transaction or practice, or any other serious abuse of power, when committed by any other
officer or employee of his or her agency, or any person having business dealings with that
agency or the parent entity, or by any other person possessing peace officer powers (Schmidt,
2005). The second part is all officers have the responsibility and duty to cooperate with all
internal investigation despite the level of seriousness with the exception of if and when they
become suspects in a criminal investigation.
The Bill can be viewed by the public as a way to keep rouge officers on their jobs after
theymayhaveviolatedthejob’sethics(Delattre,2011).But,thepublicshouldalsoconsiderthat some of
the clauses that are in bill are also the same luxuries that they are afforded as private citizens.
Compassion should be considered on both sides with police officers and with private
citizens,becauseanoffenderisalwaysanoffenderregardlessofbeinganofficeroracitizenand
5
CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
deserve the same rights as his fellow man next to him. Some would feel that the Peace Officer
BillofRightsisbasicallyprotectionforbadordirtycops;wheninfactitismoreaboutgivingan officer a
chance after what some deem as a mistake (Pontes, 2017).
AlternativeSolutions
To avoid the imbalance all states should adopt the Peace Officers Bill of Rights so that
officers across the country are all given the same rights.An alternative solution that would be
beneficial would be to have the Peace Officers Bill of Rights passed on a federal level so that
each state can be in unison when it comes to their officers. The job that peace officers do is
extremelystressfulanddangerousinregardstothedifferentlevelsofenforcingthelaw.Thusthe Bill
should extend to all peace officers including deputies, police officers, fire fighters, and any first
responder. In this case, a plan needs to be devised for a standard method for all the peace officers
of any particular state without discrimination of job status.
Anadditionalsolutionistomakesurethatallpoliceofficersareknowledgeableofallthe rules and
requirements to this bill of rights regardless of the state they’re working in. Say for
instancesthereisanofficerthatworksinFloridabutforsomereasonthatofficeristransferredor moves to
Kansas; that officers will need to know the difference of those states rules. Due to ignorance of
the law not being an excuse, there should be a push for a unified Peace Officer Bill of Rights so
that it can cut down on confusion.
Conclusion
Officers are required and expected to report any form of misconduct by their fellow
officers and themselves if applicable.Additionally, all officers must participate in the internal
investigationofmisconductandbecauseoftherulingin Garrityv.NewJerseywhichresultedin
6
CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
the GarrityWarning; officers are protected from termination as along as the information given is
true and not criminal in nature. The Bill of Rights for officers is necessary to make sure all
officersarehelduptocertainlevelsofaccountabilitywhileonthejob.Ifanofficerisnotheldup to specific
laws it could be seen that officers could commit acts of misconduct and receive little to
disciplinary action at all. The provisions that have been made to this bill of rights are reasonable
within a society that is built on protecting individual’s rights. States that have laws in place hold
their employees accountable are more likely to handle situations differently because they have
laws in place help them discipline any officer that breaks the rules. In conclusion, officers, just
like private citizens, need to be held accountable for their actions.
7
CASESTUDYCRITIQUE2
References
Clyde.L.,Cronkhite,C.L.(2013).LawenforcementandJusticeAdministration Strategies for
the 21st century.
Delattre,E.J.(2011).Characterandcops:Ethicsinpolicing.Washington,D.C:AEIPress.
Pontes,C.,(2017).CanBadPoliceOfficersBeKeptOffTheStreets?Givingcontrolbacktothe police
chiefs.
Schmidt,W.(2005).PeaceOfficersBillofRightsGuarantees:RespondingtoUnionDemands
withaManagementSanctionedVersion
