In the course of their official duties, law enforcement officers are required to recognize and respect the constitutional rights of the citizens they encounter. Police officers themselves are entitled to the same constitutional protections, and while there is “no constitutional right to be a policeman,” there are circumstances when officers may assert their individual rights in conflict with some public duty to which they may be obligated. The most common of these circumstances is when officers have been involved in a use of force that results in the death of or serious injury to a suspect or other person.

A controversial deadly-force incident is a critical event for both an agency and the involved officer, and the agency must handle it with considerable control and expertise. The important aspects include carefully investigating what happened, making timely and credible reports to the public, and attending to the needs of the employee, who may be traumatically affected by the event. This column focuses on the last consideration listed: how to handle the affected employee.

Because use-of-force incidents, particularly those involving a firearm, have the potential to subject officers to criminal investigation, officers involved in such incidents will be concerned about protecting their individual constitutional rights, such as the right against compelled self-incrimination, the right to counsel, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Although officers are entitled to such rights, they have no broader entitlement under the U.S. Constitution than any other citizen under the same circumstances. The added difficulty police officers face, however, is the “circumstance” that their departments are acting as both enforcers of the law and public employers, giving rise to “role confusion.”