Welcome Readers Today I had several topics to cover, sort of an ìinformational buffet, î if you will. However, something new came to me this morning and I felt it to be an important law enforcement issue.
I saw in the Northwest Section of the Democrat-Gazette, where two examples of ìquestionable hiresî were covered. I certainly feel for the agencies involved, and I also understand the position they are in with respect to their employee.
Having read the article in question, I felt a need to expand on the topic and perhaps shed some light on how hiring police officers takes place and even make a suggestion or two.
Background checks on prospective ìnew hiresî are routinely conducted any time an agency in Arkansas plans to hire a new police officer. I have heard and have been monitoring certain recent events surrounding a few officers from both area and distant police agencies.
According to news articles I have read, and having some knowledge of how other local agencies process prospective new hires, background checks were conducted by the hiring agencies. Even with background checks, some more thorough than others depending on each department respectively, problems arise with officers after they are hired.
Many times we find an officer may develop problems in the future or may already be having problems when hired. Sometimes we find problems occurring many years into an officerís career. Sometimes, the problems are minor and sometimes not. This department, like others, is no different in its efforts to ensure we hire only qualified, quality persons. Likewise, we are no different in that we have hired personnel who later caused embarrassment to the department and to themselves.
Many departments in this area, as well as abroad, have suffered due to the on- and off-duty actions of some of their employees.
Law enforcement agencies in Arkansas, as well as outside the state, are tasked with discovering serious indicators of non-suitability in individuals seeking police employment. Applicants undergo informal and formal interviews, as well as medical and psychological testing.
For the most part, law enforcement does a good job in ìweeding outî what I will call ìproblems in the making. î Sometimes, however, we hire someone elseís headache. This is why thorough background checks are so important in employing police officers.
With this in mind, why then are we hearing of so many bad apples making it into the rank and file of Arkansas law enforcement ? One reason is that some people interview very well and are able to sidestep certain questions asked of prospective new hires, thus skirting what would be considered an honest and complete answer.
Another reason is that other agencies in which an officer candidate has been previously employed fail to be forthright and honest with investigators charged with conducting the background checks.
Why would a department head and / or supervisory officer from a police or sheriffís department withhold pertinent information with respect to a potential problem officer ? The answer is simple: Fear of law suits.
Currently, I know of no law which protects police agency heads and supervisory officers from civil suits where they gave information which was detrimental to a candidateís chances of being hired. Many department heads have been sued for speaking the truth about former officers.
I have a serious problem with that. In fact, I ó or my sergeants ó have been lied to on a few occasions with respect to background checks of past officers. Many department heads feel that, as long as the problem goes on down the road, it isnít their problem anymore. Wrong ! It is every department headís problem because bad officers, regardless of the department in which they serve, still cause problems throughout the law enforcement community and give all of us a bad name.
I donít hide anything. I also protect myself from litigation by documenting problems when they occur. If a former officer wanted to try anything with me over disclosure, they may want to think twice. I donít say things I canít prove, and I donít go to the firing range without ammo, if you know what I mean.
I donít pretend to know what the right answers are. However, I will certainly take a stab with a couple of suggestions. I do know that most department heads are not willing to give up a chunk of their pay checks to keep a bad officer from moving on to another department and continue spreading their disease throughout Arkansas law enforcement. I also know nothing is going to change without some protection being given to the department heads whose job it is to disseminate employee information.
I would suggest our legislators pass some sort of tort reform protecting chiefs and sheriffs from liability here in Arkansas, so they will be more comfortable in speaking the truth about potential new hires.
Another idea I have is passing legislation so that these department heads and / or their departments, cities and counties, receive some sort of official punishment ó monetary is usually the most effective ó for failing to be truthful about documented behavioral problems of former police officers seeking employment elsewhere. I would be willing to bet that would make a difference in the effectiveness of disclosure during the hiring process.
In the meantime, I will remain my sweet olí self.
What do you think ? Until next time, have a great day.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online