Good morning, my name is Christie Love Hill. I am the advocacy and legal director with the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties.
This morning, I am here to provide public comment on Agenda Item F3, the proposed Disciplinary Guidelines for police certification actions.
We request that POST remove from these disciplinary guidelines the inappropriate suggestion that a pattern of repeated serious misconduct is necessary to support revocation for physical abuse/excessive force, participation in a law enforcement gang or dishonesty – or at least clarify that a pattern of conduct is not required to result in a revocation penalty.
We would also like to see certain areas strengthened when identifying when revocation is necessary.
We all deserve to live in communities where we feel safe and protected. Yet far too often, the people who are tasked with protecting public safety are the very ones who compromise it.
The state gives police officers more authority than any other profession – the power to stop, search, arrest and even use deadly force on members of our community. This power means that the state has a greater responsibility to hold these officers accountable.
State law currently provides that an officer may have their certification revoked if they commit an act of serious misconduct, including excessive force, participating in a law enforcement gang or dishonesty.
Additionally, and separately, the law provides that an officer may have their certification revoked for repeated acts that violate the law.
The proposed disciplinary guidelines are problematic for a few reasons:
- First, in several places, the proposed guidelines suggest that revocation may not be the appropriate remedy, and a lesser penalty is more appropriate, if the officer's act of serious misconduct was not part of a "pattern" of similar serious misconduct.
- That is not consistent with the plain language of the Penal Code, which already differentiates between misconduct where a single act may lead to revocation, and misconduct where there must be egregious or repeated acts.
- Second, the disciplinary guidelines about law enforcement participation in a law enforcement gang are concerning.
- The statement that revocation may not be warranted if an officer felt coerced into joining a law enforcement gang will create an enormous loophole by presenting any officer caught participating in a law enforcement gang with a convenient excuse they can invoke to avoid revocation.
- In addition, the factors supporting revocation for participating in a law enforcement gang are not sufficiently comprehensive.
- In addition to those listed in the proposed guidelines, revocation should also be deemed warranted where:
- (1) The law enforcement gang that the officer participated in used racist language or iconography, defined its membership with race or other identity characteristics, or otherwise demonstrated bias; and
- (2) Where the officer failed to cooperate with an investigation into law enforcement gangs, e.g. by refusing to show tattoos affiliated with gang participation or answering questions about other officers' gang involvement or otherwise covering up the activities or existence of the gang.
- These additions are supported by the Penal Code, providing that demonstration of bias and failure to cooperate are themselves grounds for revocation.
- In addition to those listed in the proposed guidelines, revocation should also be deemed warranted where:
- Finally, the part of the guidelines on demonstrating bias is unclear. The part of the guidelines on demonstrating bias state: “It is important to note that the officer’s demonstration of bias that is a violation of law or department policy must also be inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. The degree to which this is true may be a factor in considering a lesser penalty."
- Engaging in racial or identity profiling is a violation of the law and is never consistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. As the Penal Code and the Commission’s existing regulations recognize, engaging in racial or identity profiling should be grounds for revocation.
In summary, we request this body to remove from these disciplinary guidelines the suggestion that a pattern of repeated serious misconduct is necessary to support revocation for physical abuse/excessive force, participation in a law enforcement gang or dishonesty – or at least clarify that no such pattern or repetition is required to warrant a revocation penalty.
We also request that language around participation in a law enforcement gang is strengthened and the guidelines unambiguously make it clear that engaging in racial or identity profiling should be grounds for revocation.
