Page 15 - JULY 2016 Newsletter

Scrutinize your reports before they fall under legal scrutiny
Officers are more conscious than ever that, in their daily actions serving the public, they now are placed under increased scrutiny. Dis- trust of law enforcement officers is a running theme in the media and even routine officer actions now are second-guessed, extensively criticized and reviewed ad nauseam.
Part of the fallout has helped fuel a debate about an alleged code of silence within the
Chicago Police Department. Civil lawsuits alleging a code of silence have been more prevalent after a federal jury found evidence that such a code ex-
isted in a 2012 police misconduct case. Prior to
this seismic shift in the public’s perception of law enforcement, an officer was presumed to be trust- worthy in his reports, investigations and testimony.
An officer’s credibility, generally, was not questioned absent serious evidence that he or she intentionally had lied. Now, officers often are accused of lying about even their simplest observations in furtherance of the alleged code of silence.
If an officer is found to have lied in reports, investiga- tions or testimony, the officer’s future can be severely im- pacted due to the possibility of running afoul of a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Giglio v. U.S. In Giglio, the Supreme Court held that defendants must be provid-
ed all information that would impeach the prosecution’s witnesses including officers acting as witnesses. There- fore, if the prosecution intends on using an officer as a witness who has been found to have lied under similar circumstances, the prosecution has a duty and must dis- close that information to the defense. A Chicago police officer who has been found guilty of violating Rule 14’s prohibition against making false reports, written or oral, generally will require the prosecutor to disclose informa-
DANIEL HERBERT
FOP
Legal Rep t
tion if it is known to the prosecutor.
No formal policy exists as to how an officer’s
past credibility easily can be verified before trial. However, the CPD and the State’s Attorney Office have approached the issue by differing methods.
The CPD intends on firing any officers who have earned Rule 14 violations. The CPD has established a policy going forward that requests termination for officers charged with and found guilty of a Rule 14 vio- lation. In conjunction with the department’s policy, the Police Board has routinely voted to terminate officers for sustained Rule 14 violations. The Police Board has found that an officer’s trustworthiness, reliability, good judg- ment and integrity are material qualifications for the po- sition of police officers. Precisely because an officer’s pri-
CONTINUED ON PAGE 16
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ JULY 2016 15