New cop has a past, is he a liability?

[Subotai]

Without giving up the exact details I want your opinion. This cop I know of, was kicked out of the Army. He did not get a dishonorable. He was hired as a cop. He told them about getting kicked out. It was some sort of deal, take an admin discharge or we may prosecute. It had something to do with a violent attack on somebody. But now he's a cop. Is he a liability? Why would some dept. hire him? What if he beats up someone else on or off duty? Can the victim then sue the city or something? This just smells bad.

[TRICKSTER]

Would-a, Could-a, Should-a. If he disclosed everything in his background and it is as bad as you try to make it out to be, I doubt he would have been hired.
Only the department that hired him can answer your questions, if you are really that concerned, ask them.

[RickD427]

Frank,

There’s not enough detail in your posting to give a definitive reply.

There is a string of case law flowing from Brady v Maryland (373 U.S. 83) and Kyles v Whitely (514 U.S. 419). In sum, Brady created a requirement that the prosecution turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense in a criminal case. That included any credibility information concerning witnesses (including LEO’s). Brady kinda changed the rules on giving information to the defense. Prior to Brady, the duty was on the defense to request evidence (an information “pulling” system). Brady put the responsibility on the prosecution to identify relevant information and then deliver it to the defense (an information “pushing” system). Under Brady, law enforcement agencies could limit “damage” by simply not sharing adverse information with the prosecutor.

Then along came Kyles v Whitely which effectively extended the Brady requirement to the law enforcement agency.

There’s the real problem that you’re asking about. If the officer’s background becomes relevant to defense in some issue that the officer has handled, then there may be a duty to disclose it to the defense – even if the defense doesn’t ask for it.

Brady and Kyles can cause great consternation to police managers – not only for the question of what do you do with an officer that has “Brady Issues”, but also for where do you draw the line. If an officer called in sick on a day that he went to the beach (i.e. lying), does he now have a “Brady Issue” regarding the credibility of any report that he writes?

If the agency that you're discussing did their homework prior to hiring, they would have been satisfied that no issues were present. In today's environment, things like this are not easily dismissed. I've got to think that he's been put under the microscope on the "issue" and passed.

One thing to remember is that Brady and Kyles put the responsibility on the agency to identify what material is to be disclosed. I’ve had some private attorneys and investigators seek personal information (middle names, dates of birth) so they could conduct “Brady Checks” on officers. I haven’t found anything that entitles them to non-adverse information to facilitate their research and any disclosure of adverse information should be done in conjunction with the prosecuting agency.

[MontClaire]

you had to ask if he's a liability?

[fullrearview]

Can you give us a bit more detail?

[Ron-Solo]

[Databyter]

Without giving up the exact details I want your opinion. This cop I know of, was kicked out of the Army. He did not get a dishonorable. He was hired as a cop. He told them about getting kicked out. It was some sort of deal, take an admin discharge or we may prosecute. It had something to do with a violent attack on somebody. But now he's a cop. Is he a liability? Why would some dept. hire him? What if he beats up someone else on or off duty? Can the victim then sue the city or something? This just smells bad.

Given the information you have, which is not much, I'd say you have to appreciate the honesty and respect the privacy.

If he did something really bad he would have got a dishonorable discharge. The fact that he didn't should tell you that many people were protecting him through the process for a reason.

The reason was that the Gov felt that whatever he did to get booted should not detract from his future or his honor.

I think you have to respect that. He may have been in a situation where he did what he thought he had to do, or what was right.

Apparently this was the mitigating circumstance that saved him from a dishonorable.

The fact that they didn't throw the book at him should tell you something. Personally I'd cut him some slack till I knew more.

Theres a lot of creepy cops out there that got medals and retirement too.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Without giving up the exact details I want your opinion. This cop I know of, was kicked out of the Army. He did not get a dishonorable. He was hired as a cop. He told them about getting kicked out. It was some sort of deal, take an admin discharge or we may prosecute. It had something to do with a violent attack on somebody. But now he's a cop. Is he a liability? Why would some dept. hire him? What if he beats up someone else on or off duty? Can the victim then sue the city or something? This just smells bad.

Anyway, people just don't get picked up by departments. The odds of him having his discharge overlooked and not having to explain it are pretty slim. Plus, you mention that he told them. If a department knows a hire's past and is still willing to hire him, you should probably trust the department is not going to take on additional liability when there are other candidates out there.

So in short, you shouldn't worry about it. Second, I like to assume everyone is a law abiding citizen, even cops. Until he does something guilty, then he is innocent. Assuming he is going to go around beating people up isn't kosher. Now if he does, then that was his choice and he will suffer the consequences for his actions. Until he does, don't worry about it.

He might have grown up some. Young kids in the army are not as smooth as 30 year olds.

If it still bothers you, then go in and talk to the department. They probably won't give you any information, but you can always address your concern. If that doesn't work, go talk to the city/county representatives and address your concern with them.

Personally, I would rather spend my time shooting than worry about one cop that was discharged from the military. To each their own.

Another good use of your time is educating others about their rights and how to file a complaint or a commendation with a police department. Encourage the people of your community to hold the police accountable for the good and the bad. So if this officer oversteps his bounds, it will get reported. Also if this officer is an excellent servant of the community, let him get some praise and recognition.

Or again, just go shooting and stop worrying so much.

[BigDogatPlay]

Speaking solely for myself, and with the "LEO forum / legal advice" thread still refusing to die, I was just a little skeptical of the first post in the thread as maybe being a troll on the first read. Once bitten, twice shy, perhaps?

That said... who is to say why agencies make the hiring decisions they do. There are already a couple of excellent answers above, so I'll leave it at that.

[Notorious]

TSA jackbooted thugs are not LEO's. They have no LE authority. They wear stupid looking French blue shirts.

Yes, I am a CA LEO. I am not part of the "creeping gestapo" but I agree that TSA thuggery is out of hand.

Getting back to the OP's question, it is not as black and white as you may make it out to be. The person may have been shafted or the admin may want to make the incident go away or it was imperfect self-defense or whatever the case may be which caused him to have that confrontation.

If it was that bad, you think the Army would just let him have an administrative discharge without going through the process to court martial the guy and get a dishonorable? It's not like they don't have the manpower to prosecute bad soldiers.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Not defensive just cautious. How is posting some of his past anti LEO statements is "putting him on trial"?.....

It goes to his motive.

As I said, based on some of his past posts he seems to have a "agenda". Which holds LEO's in a less than positive light.

Besides his original post is far to general for anyone to come up with an informed opinion.

Remember this is the LEO forum not the off topic anything goes forum.

No, you are attacking the poster not for his question, but because he "might" not like your profession. You are being defensive when there is no need to.

You didn't even address his question in the slightest, but instantly started to question his previous posts completely unrelated to this thread. Further you speculated without any real evidence about his real motives.

My question is why? What is so hard about answering his question? What purpose does it serve to try and label him? How is this any different than cop bashing? You are just a cop basher basher.

This isn't off topic? No crap. This is the LEO forum? Or is it the LEOs only allow who they approve to come in and ask questions forum? Some people sure are sensitive in this forum.

Pretty unimpressive SVT. If you don't want to answer his question, then don't. Going on the offensive just makes you look foolish. I won't hold any of your actions against anyone but you, but I would understand if an outsider came in and figured all cops liked to circle the wagons in an "us vs. them" mentality when they won't even answer a question, but instantly go on the offensive.

Again, to the OP, don't worry about this cop. Go on about your business and spend your time worrying about bigger issues in life. We don't need to be typical Californians and try and eliminate every liability through more intrusion into people's private lives or through more government oversight. If the department questioned him, knew about it, and still hired him, then let's assume he is on the up and up.

If he commits a crime on duty, then he will be held accountable. The department should have insurance to cover it as well.

[Subotai]

Not defensive just cautious. How is posting some of his past anti LEO statements is "putting him on trial"?.....
It goes to his motive.
As I said, based on some of his past posts he seems to have a "agenda". Which holds LEO's in a less than positive light.
Besides his original post is far to general for anyone to come up with an informed opinion.
Remember this is the LEO forum not the off topic anything goes forum.

Funny guy. I used to be a cop. My bro-in-law is an FTO sergeant. Two of my nephews are sheriff deputies.

Let me clear something up, I mentioned dirt bag patrol in that previous thread cause I've been on it, that's what my partner called it, that's what we all called it. You find some guy with a ponytail and follow him til he f's up. That's how I know. Doesn't make it right, but it is what it is.

I really don't want to say more, in case some people here works at his dept., etc. I don't want to get him in trouble, just curious. I know he seriously jacked someone up, but don't know the details other than he got in trouble.

As for the TSA and the gestapo state. You take my comments too seriously. Half the time I say stuff like this it's in fun. I work for a governmental agency. So lighten up.

[GMG]

Knew a guy in the early 60's, received an other than honorable discharge from the Marine Corps.

LAPD hired him. After several years hooked up with the Palm Springs PD.

And retired from the Palm Springs PD.

No issues.

[Subotai]

Knew a guy in the early 60's, received an other than honorable discharge from the Marine Corps.

LAPD hired him. After several years hooked up with the Palm Springs PD.

And retired from the Palm Springs PD.

No issues.

Sounds cool. Not too worried about the discharge thing. Only that the guy committed a "violent" act. Just wondering if stuff like that has ever come back to haunt depts.

[yzErnie]

There could be several reasons for an Administrative Discharge and not all of them are for negative content.