Select Page

The Post Shooting 48 Hour Rule Is A Must

The Post Shooting 48 Hour Rule Is A Must

The call for the Portland Police Department to remove the “48 hour rule” that is currently required before an officer can be interviewed following a deadly shooting is another attack on law enforcement that may seem harmless to some but it is dangerous to the profession.

The demand made by a police oversight panel is just another uneducated, baseless request that makes no sense unless you want to harm law enforcement.

Of course the rule exists, hopefully in every agency, because of the sound research and past history of interviewing officers immediately after a critical incident.  One component of a high stress situation is a loss of memory.  Research calls it a “memory gap” and immediately after a shooting or other high stress event, those involved will often not remember details or misinterpret facts.  Those gaps begin to fill in and after a few days officers will have a clear picture of what occurred.

The importance of a 48-72 hour window after a critical incident is vital if you want an accurate depiction of what happened.  I have been there and witnessed it myself.  This so called “oversight committee” would have no clue and the only reason anyone would push for the elimination of this sound practice is to harm the reputation and/or indict more cops.

I’ll tell you how it would happen.  If an officer is involved in a shooting, most will experience memory loss of the incident and if forced under a criminal investigation  to give details of that incident, they simply will not be able to be completely accurate.  What they say will be used against them and when the complete memory of the incident returns and they change their story, lawyers, prosecutors and oversight committees will call them liars or worse attempt to indict them.

We will never see oversight committees telling truck drivers to change their guidelines on the amount of hours they can drive in a day or doctors what they should do but we will continue to see this happening in law enforcement.  Law enforcement remains the most discriminated profession in modern day.

We have seen this before with organizations such as PERF wanting departments to disregard the Supreme Court in regards to Graham v. Connor, which dictates use of force for law enforcement and we will continue to see a barrage of recommendations, requests and mandates coming from individuals and organizations that know very little about the profession.  It is done through political expediency, political correctness and sometimes with evil intent in order to jeopardize the careers of those protecting the home front.

Law Officer will continue to say to every law enforcement leader out there (and you are all leaders), now is the time to lead.  It will take courageous leadership to combat what we are seeing today and make no mistake, this is an unprovoked, politically motivated attack on the profession and everyone will lose if these attacks are successful.

 

About The Author

mm

Travis Yates is a writer and editor at Law Officer. His Seminars in Risk Management & Officer Safety have been taught across the United States & Canada. Major Yates has a Master of Science Degree in Criminal Justice and is a graduate of the FBI National Academy. He is the Director of Training for SAFETAC Training.

  • Herman Nelson

    Hmmm.. My question is this- why are LEO’s afforded 48hrs before an interview, but their employers (that would be the tax payers) are required to be interviewed immediately and are hounded for an interview? So, you’re saying it’s OK to set up Joe Public for failure and not police officers..? Pulling the trigger and killing someone is just as traumatic for a tax payer as it would be for a police officer.

    • Law Officer

      You are aware that citizens are not required to say a word while cops are required to do so. Let’t not act like the system is set up to favor police officers when a citizen is not required to talk while a police officer is and will lose their job if they don’t.

      • Herman Nelson

        Very true. A citizen can claim the 5th and not say another word. Best response for a citizen is say they were in fear for their life, they’re in shock and require medical treatment at a hospital, call their lawyer and go in a day later for the interview with their lawyer and a clearer head.

        But we are still back to the 48 hour rule. Officers get a time out, citizens are hounded immediately after the incident. We both know that adrenaline is running high and the brain is going a million miles an hour. The mouth over rides the brain in times like this. An officer will be sent home, whereas the citizen is blathering away and the officers are taking very good notes.

        • Law Officer

          You make sense and from the look of some of these emotional laden comments, we appreciate that.

  • Michael Picano

    Yep. You need time to get your lies straight.

  • Greg Walker

    This discussion presumes the officer involved was not in some way injured or wounded him/herself and is on the way to the hospital – in which case any investigation will be delayed for what should be obvious reasons.

    That being said – keep it up political hacks and the “oversight board” – your ignorance continues to amaze.

  • One who knows….

    Before one comments either way, they should educate themselves as to WHY !! I happened to be privileged to attend the Trainjng provide by Dr David Lisak, a now local, who trains throughout the U.S., & abroad, in just that very subject. He explains that MORE THAN 48 hrs are necessary for the Officer, who doesn’t routinely go around shooting/ killing people, biologically CAN’T piece together ALL the minute details of what happened. Our bodies enter into the “fight or flight” mode, that causes the body to shift gears to “protect” themselves….resulting in blanks… W/ in our biological means to recall. He is a highly respected EXPERT in BIOMECHANICS of Trauma! I urge you to learn and attend his training to learn what happens.

    This is similar to the patchy recall victims of Sexual Assault experience too!! He also instructs on how to investigate to get the most accurate information.,

    Oh, and you claim that the internal Affairs procedure won’t enter into a criminal procedure… WRONG!! I’ve seen it here locally. Sad but true!!

    Remember… You too can be in the receiving end of the treatment some are advocating … Be careful what you expect!!

    Officers also cannot refuse to respond. Civilians csn “lawyer up” as for an attorney snd refuse to answer… As well as “testimony coaching” by their Defense Attorneys.. Seen it… Know it…. First hand!!

    To all out there who have HAD to shoot, plz get help for the PTSD that happened post event. It’s HUMAN… To gave self-doubt… and replay what occurred… Doesn’t mean you lied!! It means you are piecing the parts of a puzzle!! … Your memory!!

  • Sam the Sham

    No officer involved in a shooting incident is “forced” to give a statement in a criminal investigation. They have the same rights as any accused and can delay giving a statement or refuse to give one at their own choosing. An internal investigation is different, but no one can force the involved officer to incriminate their self.

  • Patrick Perry

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”…Thomas Burke

  • Patrick Perry

    We continue to be discriminated against because far too many in the LE community stay silent about things such as this.

    • Michael Picano

      LE is “discriminated” against? Ha! You are a clown. There is no discrimination when the courts uphold a rule that allows intelligent people to be kept off of the force.

      • Brian Nicholson

        So I’m guessing youre the “intelligent” person who was kept off the force? Fail the psych? Criminal record? Like to diddle your dog? Just curious

  • Patrick Perry

    Don’t give in and don’t say a word

  • ahaz

    What an hypocritical article. LE makes no such accommodation to the average citizen when involved with highly emotional tragedies. You’re telling me that that a citizen being questioned should not be given 24-48 hours as well, so that they remember more accurately events. I’m certain every LE officer would be opposed to that idea.

    • bluetrader

      That’s exactly what they are telling you. It’s not hypocritical at all. One difference, and there IS a difference when dealing with an Officer involved shooting whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is that after an Officer involved shooting, that Officer is not going to go on another shooting spree taking out witnesses, other dope dealers, et al. There is no ‘whodunnit’ or, danger to the public to consider when investigating Officer involved shootings which, is the primary reason for the pace of normal criminal/homicide investigations. Also, the Supreme Court has stated in several landmark cases that a Law Enforcement Officer is to be treated differently following a deadly force encounter. Essentially, until proven otherwise, that involved Officer is to be given the benefit of the doubt. As of now, as President Obama is fond of saying regarding other legal issues, those decisions are the law of the land. If you don’t like it, get out and vote for candidates that are in sync with your line of thinking.

      Granted, there are in fact shootings committed by non-Law Enforcement Officers that are bonafide acts of self defense. In those cases, I am not personally opposed to giving that victim a little time to compose themselves. But, that decision is not in my lane. However, most shootings in this country are committed by violent, lifetime criminal, gangster, thug life loving, dead-enders. They do not deserve the same deference and respect as an honorable, caring, loving, compassionate human being who shot to defend themselves or others from the former.

      • Drew Overstreet

        As a ccw holder, can I expect the same treatment? I have a clean record, have had substantial training, and have passed a thorough background check.

        I’m sorry, but you are exhibiting not only an elitist mentality, but a constitutionally flawed one, as well. Just because you are a cop does not mean that you are always in the right. There are plenty of instances where private citizens are arrested for self defense and plenty of instances where cops act illegally.
        I agree that MOST cops are the good guys, but MOST gun owners are, too. Regardless, the presumption of innocence (which you seem to miss) is the “law of the land.”

        • bluetrader

          Since you’re addressing my personal views, I think you missed a very important sentence in my post. Please read it again. I also don’t lump legal gun owners and CCW holders in the same category as the violent, lifetime criminal, gangster, thug life loving, dead-enders either. Personally, as a rule, I actually place them in the honorable, compassionate group. I also know that if I’m ever in trouble and alone, I can almost guarantee getting the assistance of a CCW holder if one is around. I love them. I think we agree on more points than we disagree on.

          My mentality is not elitist or, constitutionally flawed. Nowhere did I say that an Officer should be allowed to just run around gunning people down and just get off scot free. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the actions of an Officer involved in a shooting must be evaluated in a specific manner. That’s all I was saying and, it is what it is until a different ruling comes down the pipe. In any case, the investigations into Police shootings are as thorough, and rigorous as any other homicide investigation if not more so. They have to be in order to protect the integrity and trust of the profession and mitigate the liability to the organization. If you’ve ever been the subject of one or, involved in one you would understand what I’m saying.

          There is no presumption of innocence or guilt when investigating an Officer involved shooting as, the ‘suspect’ is already known. However, the event is often well documented with dash cameras, and increasingly body-cams. More often than not, it is apparent in a very short amount of time that the Officer is indeed the victim of a deadly force assault. So no, in those cases, the Officer is not going to be immediately thrust into a meat grinder by their agency. The same would go for an individual that clearly acted in self defense. I have seen first hand the treatment of individuals that have clearly shot in self defense. They were treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. The biggest point I’m trying to make in my original post is that in an Officer involved shooting, time is on the side of the investigators. An Officer involved in a shooting is not going to leave town or, become suddenly unavailable to the Investigator for an interview. They are required to cooperate with the internal investigation. So, an agency can wait until conducting their internal interview with the Officer. A non-Law Enforcement individual, if not under arrest can pretty much do whatever they want to do, talk when they want to talk or, leave when they want to leave.

          Also, just to be clear, and I probably should have stressed this earlier, the 48 hour rule applies only to the internal investigation which is non-criminal. The findings of an internal investigation cannot legally be used against the Officer in a criminal proceeding because the Officer is compelled to cooperate as a condition of continued employment. An Officer has the same rights as a citizen in regard to the criminal investigation. They can refuse to talk to criminal investigators just like anyone else can. So, at the end of the day, a citizen can create their own 48 hour rule as well. It’s up to them to exercise the rights afforded to them under the constitution.

          Thank you for acknowledging that most cops are good guys because they are. I agree that most gun owners are as well. Take care and thank you for the discussion. I hope I’ve made this issue more understandable.

          • bacchys

            Your rationale for this being necessary for cops but not for anyone else isn’t very convincing, and it’s in line with the special rights afforded to police in many states.

            Most cops are good people, but that doesn’t matter. The problem is that there are bad cops, but that the institutions aren’t doing enough to get rid of them. Investigations into police shootings might be thorough, but they are also generally biased. This is why the “trust” in the “integrity” of the profession is dropping.

          • bluetrader

            “”The problem is that there are bad cops, but that the institutions aren’t doing enough to get rid of them””

            I would love to know what facts you base that assumption on. As an Internal Affairs Investigator, I have criminally charged cops, referred cops for federal prosecution, recommended termination, etc. Why did I do this? Because they were bad cops who tarnished our badge and/or hurt a citizen in some manner. Furthermore, I am not the only IA Investigator or, Police Administrator in the country doing this. No other profession in this nation is as vigilant in removing unfit, corrupt, or criminal individuals from their ranks. Below I have included a link with multiple articles regarding cases where cops have been charged for Officer involved shootings and other crimes. So yes, as evidenced by the links, there are bad cops but when the light gets turned on them they are dealt with just like anyone else would be.

            I will acknowledge, in some cases, bad cops are able to be bad cops for a while before being caught. But, is that dynamic really any different than any other criminal? A good burglar can get away with breaking into houses for a while before they are caught. But, they do get caught. A dope dealer will normally be able to sling a fair amount of dope around on the street before they are caught but, they do eventually get caught. It’s no different with a corrupt or, criminal Officer.

            On another note, you are exactly right. Police shootings are, in fact, biased. Whenever I investigate an Officer involved shooting I start with the bias that the Officer has screwed up royally or, even criminally. I try my damndest to prove the actions of the Officer were wrong. If I can’t do that, then guess what? The Officer DID NOT do anything wrong and, my investigation that internally clears the Officer will stand up in any court in the land. Any other professionally trained IA Investigator will most likely operate the same way.

            In closing, I’m not going to pretend that dealing with a Law Enforcement agency regarding an issue such as a bad cop is always an easy task. Depending on the agency, you will, in some cases be met with push back and skepticism if the Officer you have a concern about has managed to conceal their behavior and/or are viewed as a pretty good Officer. My only advice to you should you ever encounter or, know of a bad cop is to let someone know about it. If you get no ear at your local PD go to the Sheriff, the DA, the State Police, the Feds..Keep going till you get the results you need. I promise you the good cops don’t want the bad ones around. You will find someone that will help you.

            https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=cops+charged

          • Ela5

            The Chicago Police Department throws out over 60% of complaints without investigation. Investigations that do take place take years to complete and rarely result in discipline, allowing officers to accumulate dozens, and in some cases over 100, complaints before any intervention occurs.

            Officer James Frascatore had multiple serious complaints, including one where he definitively lied about an incident, prior to his high profile take down of James Blake.

            The Furguson police department had no formal system in place to take and investigate civilian complaints against officers.

            Investigations into Border Patrol and DEA agents by the Department of Homeland Security routinely take over two years and the case backlog clocked in at over 1,500 in 2012 (I have no more recent data, sorry).

            In Baltimore, investigations into officers take, on average, 183 days before the disciplinary hearing even begins.

            I could go on, but it looks to a Non-LEO like me that at the heart of every one of the high profile incidents over the past few years is an internal affairs division that is either under-resourced or simply not interested in investigating officers. This is particularly egregious in the case of large police forces that lack basic and formalized internal controls since the sheer number of officers makes it probable that a certain number of them will engage in illegal and abusive conduct.

            Though the vast majority of officer involved shootings appear to be justified, a significant minority involve officers giving false statements, colluding, and doctoring evidence. The 48 hour rule provides bad officers with the opportunity to collude and doctor evidence and contributes to public mistrust of law enforcement. It also adds to the time that it takes to provide the public with accurate information about incidents. For instance, Maryland LEOBR laws ensure officers have 10 days before being interviewed. As a result, conflicting accounts of basic details, such as the number of stops the van took after arresting Freddy Gray, were circulated among the public and the police could not provide definitive answers to basic questions. This contributed to the belief that the BPD was engaged in a cover up.

            Since the stated reason for this, the effects of trauma on memory, would get a defendant laughed out of a courtroom if they attempted to challenge a confession with it, the potential benefits of the 48 hour rule to an investigation are far outweighed by the distrust in law enforcement that it causes.

          • bacchys

            I don’t believe you. I mean, I believe you’re an IA investigator, and I’ve no doubt you believe what you’re saying, but it isn’t true. On the rare occasions where Blue Privilege fails it’s a rare cop who doesn’t have a long list of complaints that were already ruled “unfounded,” and between what I’ve read, what has happened to people I know, from cops I know and have spoken to, and from what I’ve experienced, our law enforcement institutions are corrupt.

            File a complaint and it will get ruled “unfounded” without anyone even speaking to the complainant or named witnesses. On the odd chance it gets upheld, the discipline will be light. A number of years back the then-Commissioner in Baltimore was bragging about a two day suspension he’d imposed on an officer who had wrongfully arrested a woman and seized her phone. He’d had to about fifteen steps to approach her, on her property, and accuse her of “interfering” with what he was doing. She spent more than seventy-two hours in jail before the prosecutors dropped the charges without arraigning her. He got two days for an arrest he either knew or should have known was unlawful, but he got what he wanted. She could beat the rap, but she couldn’t beat the ride.

            On the very day the Baltimore Police Dep’t issued new guidelines on videorecording officers in public performing their public duty, BPD officers arrested people for loitering who were videorecording them. Under the state’s case law, in order for a loitering charge to stick the culprit needs to have been blocking the entrance to a store or dwelling as well as have no business being there. It doesn’t apply to simply standing on a street corner or in between the doors of storefronts. But the arrests weren’t actually for loitering: they were for “contempt of cop.” The charges were dropped after those arrested spent time at Central Booking, but the complaints came back “unfounded.”

            Those are the simple ones. There are cops who have repeatedly gotten away with causing injury and even death to people and had their fellow cops clear them. There’s a bias walking into the investigation, your account notwithstanding. It was admitted during the grand jury hearing on the shooting of Michael Brown: one investigator said he approached every cop-involved shooting with the view that the cop is the victim.

            Police institutions- like all corrupt institutions- discipline for those things that are problematic to the institution. They don’t for other things. The primary consideration is the institution, not the purpose for which the institution was created. So when it’s deemed necessary to the institution a cop will be held accountable (whether truly warranted or not), but when it’s deemed necessary for the institution or it doesn’t matter, then Blue Privilege applies.

            It doesn’t help that police institutions hide behind secrecy and “personnel rules” on these matters.

            Take heart, though: the police aren’t the most corrupt profession in the Republic. Lawyers, and especially prosecutors and judges, have it hands down.

          • bacchys

            I’m replying again to add this link. There’s a quote in there that’s right on point, but the whole article is relevant.

            Phillips: Let’s just assume these cops aren’t telling the truth . . .

            Grant: But they are telling the truth.

            Phillips: How do you know that?

            Grant: Because they’re police officers and I believe what they’re telling me . . .

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/05/06/south-carolinas-poisonous-police-culture-the-death-of-lori-jean-ellis/

          • ahaz

            I do appreciate the argument that you are making here, but have to respectfully disagree. Many state LEOBRS dictate the conditions in which and officer can be questioned, a privilege not afforded to a citizen.

          • bluetrader

            Sir, nobody can force a cop, or citizen to be questioned as part of a criminal investigation anywhere in this nation. Only the individual that is the subject of the investigation can decide whether or not they want to be interviewed/questioned. Everyone has 5th amendment protection to include a Police Officer. Whether that individual chooses to exercise their constitutional rights is entirely up to them. In every Officer involved shooting that I have been involved with, the involved Officer has been asked by the criminal investigator if they would make an immediate statement. Some have said yes, some have said no. That is the same right a citizen has. No more, no less.

            The 48 hour rule is only applied through policy in various Law Enforcement organizations as it relates to ‘internal’ investigations which are conducted separate and apart from criminal investigations with the purpose being the determination of whether policies, procedures etc. were broken.

          • TruthHurtz

            People in this thread don’t understand the concept of “Garrity”. That an officer can be compelled, at risk of being fired, to give a statement and answer all questions put to them. There is no “lawyering up” and no “right to remain silent”… and ultimately, their statements or their impacts can find their way into criminal proceedings.
            After a shooting, a citizen doesn’t have someone threatening their job if they won’t talk.

          • MarkStolzoff

            Buillshit

            “The Garrity warning advises subjects of their criminal and administrative liability for any statements they may make, but also advises subjects of their right to remain silent on any issues that tend to implicate them in a crime.:

          • Law Officer

            That is not true. Officers must talk under Garrity.

          • LegalBeagle

            Yeah, but only an idiot would seek the compelled statement until after the criminal issue has been processed. If in fact it were inculpatory, it would not be admissible. The compelled statement itself would violate the 5th amendment.

          • Law Officer

            Agreed – But there is a real concern that in some jurisdictions, the compelled statement would be used and/or given to the media.

          • LegalBeagle

            That would be shabby at best. Depending on your FOIA/Public Records laws and other issues such as agency and government entity integrity, I would hope that the discipline and criminal prosecution risks would keep that from happening. I am pretty familiar with our state’s laws on such and am reasonably confident that there would be a basis for charging, and would advocate for such with all the vigor and leverage I could muster. Sadly, the highest percentage of scofflaws I have seen in law enforcement and the rest of public employment in general, are at the very top, and rarely if ever are they brutalized for their conduct as they should be.

      • ahaz

        Unfortunately your arguments hold no water. And frankly, your attempt to correlate what as citizen might do versus what a cop would do is weak and has no relevance to your argument. There is no difference between the citizen and the cop. It’s well know that during this 24-48 hour period that police union lawyers often provide “assistance” to help those officers recall events correctly, to use the correct words “I feared for my life”, “He reached for his waist”, “made furtive movements”, the standard language used when officers are questioned about their actions. Officers should immediately be questioned.

        • So you are saying they are putting words in the mouths of LEO’s? WOW, did you even make it out of grade school? You must be one of those that holds either a FB or Twitter Law Degree aka Arm Chair Warrior. Why don’t you walk in an Officers shoes just for one day and then come back and tell us your thoughts. I am quite sure you wouldn’t even make it half a day if something like a shooting happened.
          Have you ever had to kill a person? I sincerely doubt it. If you did, you would know the emotional toll it takes on a person and their family. That Officer that does shoot someone will probably end up with PTSD for the rest of their life.
          Thugs and criminals who shoot, have no conscious and don’t care and would do it again and again. So, sir, YOUR ARGUMENTS HOLD NO WATER.

      • NB

        Sir, as I understand it, your argument is that as LEOs, 1) police are not a threat to the public when compared to “thugs,” 2) police do not destroy evidence, and 3) (in your support for a buffer before interview) police are traumatized.

        I am not going to engage with your understanding of due process or “innocence.” However, respectfully, your basic fact premises are flawed. I am not convinced that there is a material justification for a categorical difference between a civilian and a police officer in the eyes of a potential criminal investigation.

        1. Some police are a threat to public safety. For example, in Vallejo, California a police officer shot and killed 3 people in 21 weeks (https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/three-shootings-in-vallejo?utm_term=.xl56aXZ6m#.qiE75AK79). In Chicago, an officer lied in at least one instance regarding a shooting and went on to kill 2 more chicagoans: (https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/a-machinery-of-denial-how-chicago-protects-police-involved-i?utm_term=.bkon5Qmnl#.jkeG5a8GX).

        While there is no data on police officers who kill because we do not keep that information, there is information on convicted murders. There is no evidence that they pose a significant risk of murdering again: “Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined” See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

        See also: “A random sample of 336 homicide offenders who were released between the years 1990 and 2000 from the New Jersey Department of Corrections were identified and followed for a minimum of 5 years… In conclusion, none of the 336 homicide offenders committed another murder.” See http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf

        And while most murders occur between people who know each other (jilted lovers etc.), we should not minimize the risk of errant LEO for the general public. As far as Journalists have counted, there were almost 1200 Americans killed by LEOs in 2015 (of which almost 230 were completely unarmed) (see http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database). I agree that most police officers do not shoot people; but this is a legitimate public policy concern for Americans of all backgrounds.

        2. Police who might be criminally liable engage in misconduct just like civilians. The Laquan McDonald shooting involved multiple police officers who destroyed evidence: http://rollingout.com/2015/11/29/chicago-police-destroyed-evidence-erasing-burger-king-surveillance-video-laquan-mcdonalds-murder/ and the example above regarding Chicago also included collusion to minimize liability.

        3. I would agree with you if there were any similar arrangements for similarly vulnerable people. Do police give young people (who might be confused after a traumatic incident) extra time, counseling or advice (or the ability to meet with parents or a guardian) before being interviewed? Do police give women who were abused by a lover, but accused of shooting a partner (who might be confused after a traumatic incident) extra time to meet with a counselor before giving a statement? Do people with significant mental health issues get special considerations before getting interviewed?

        Life is confusing and hard; human memory is terrible. There is no material basis for providing police extra procedural protection other than preventing police prosecution. We can talk about whether that’s a noble value, but let’s not lie about police special needs when we ignore everyone else’s.

        • Katarina

          No, police did not erase any tapes in the Laquan McDonald shooting. You were lead by the nose by a media eager to try to criminalize police. That discredits your statement enough that I won’t bother to check it further. Maybe you should check all facts before you display ignorance.

    • TruthHurtz

      The difference is that citizen’s can lawyer up, remain silent and refuse to make a statement.
      Officers can be compelled to make a statement under “Garrity” to determine if their actions violated policy (which may have also violated the law) and those statements can find their way into their criminal prosecution. If they refuse to make a statement (like a citizen has the legal right to do), they are terminated.

      • JRT6

        I can’t believe it took this long for someone to point out Miranda and the 5th. A civilian can refuse to make any statement from the moment the incident occurred till they day they die.

        • John Wayne Eastwoo

          Police are supposed to be held to a higher standard. But really, as we have seen lately, this 48 hours is just to see if a video emerges that might contradict the sworn statements.

      • Sam the Sham

        You are 1/2 right. Officers MUST cooperate in the internal investigation under Garrity, but as for their statement being used against them? That should never happen unless the officer’s attorney is inept. See:
        http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/murder-charge-dismissed-against-ex-dekalb-cop/nQr9z/

        • Grayowl

          It can be used in the information to establish probable cause. Not at trial.

      • MarkStolzoff

        “If they refuse to make a statement (like a citizen has the legal right to do), they are terminated.”

        That’s bullshit, stop making shit up and spreading lies

    • Grayowl

      No citizen can be compelled to incriminate h I mself. You’ve probably heard of the fifth Amendment!

Training At The Next Level

Recent Video

Loading...
Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Law Officer.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This