Chief’s Counsel: Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter of Public Policy?

On September 5, 2007, the State of Washington published the first opinion holding that a police officer who lies should be terminated as a matter of public policy. In Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, the sheriff terminated Deputy LaFrance for untruthfulness and erratic behavior. An arbitrator agreed that LaFrance had repeatedly been untruthful but was not convinced that termination was the proper form of discipline; the arbitrator therefore ordered him returned to full duty. Eventually the case found its way to the appellate court, which concluded that the arbitration award was unenforceable as against public policy.1 It relied primarily on the sheriff’s conclusion that LaFrance was not fit for duty due to Brady concerns about his ability to testify. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor must release information favorable to an accused upon request;2 therefore, if LaFrance were to testify in a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor would be legally and ethically obligated to disclose his history of untruthfulness to defense counsel. “Put simply, LaFrance’s proven record of dishonesty prevents him from useful service as a law enforcement officer. To require his reinstatement to a position of great public trust in which he cannot possibly serve violates public policy.”3

Read More
Chief's Counsel
Share
Training remains one of policing’s strongest legal safeguards, if properly vetted and supported by policy....
Chief's Counsel
Share
Lawyers play a critical role in policing. The benefits an attorney brings to a police agency extend far beyond defending officers in civil suits. Agency lawyers can be vital to every facet of the prof...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Much avoidable policing liability does not begin with bad intent. It begins with answering the wrong question.    Officers, supervisors, and chiefs are often asked after the fact to explain why...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Police officers are intimately familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 The terms contained in that amendment—and how judges interpret those terms—dictate how officer...
Investigations
Share
Failure to understand the distinction between so-called immigration warrants issued by an immigration judge or traditional arrest or search warrants issued by a federal court judge can lead to liabili...
Chief's Counsel
Share
For today’s police officers, the first sign of a serious threat increasingly appears not on a street corner or in a call for service, but on a screen. Posts, comments, livestreams, group chats, and ...
Chief's Counsel
Share
The practice of placing officers "on call" raises questions concerning a municipality’s obligation to pay officers, as well as the ability to restrict such officers’ activities while on an "on-cal...
Chief's Counsel
Share
In 2011, this author wrote an article for the Chief’s Counsel section of Police Chief magazine titled “Critical Incident Review Board: Creation and Refinement.” The purpose of the article was ...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Immigration enforcement in the United States is generally a civil matter, handled exclusively by federal agents working for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Patrol....
Chief's Counsel
Share
Imagine this: a qualified applicant submits a résumé for a position in a department. Before anyone on the team lays eyes on it, an artificial intelligence (AI) system screens them out. No interview....