Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights

Last updated

The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEBOR, LEOBR, or LEOBoR) is a set of rights intended to protect American law enforcement personnel from unreasonable investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during the official performance of their duties, through procedural safeguards. [1] It provides them with privileges beyond those normally provided to other citizens. It was first set forth in 1974, following Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner v. Broderick (1968). It does not prohibit police departments from subjecting officers to drug tests.

Contents

Fifteen states have versions of the bill written into their statutes. [2] An additional eleven states are considering similar legislation, and many other states have similar provisions written into their contracts with police unions. [2] [3] [4]

Critics say that the LEOBR makes it impossible to discipline or remove bad officers, such as after they have been convicted of felonies in the courts. Under LEOBR, officers are judged only by other officers. LEOBR prevents the formation of independent review boards that provide independent oversight over police actions.[ citation needed ]

Details

The LEOBR detailed by the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police as follows: [5]

As of April 2015, the following U.S. states have enacted legislation to codify their own variations of a Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights: [2]

Criticism

In Rhode Island, police officers can be convicted of felonies in civilian criminal courts, and still keep their jobs after a hearing before panels of fellow police officers, according to Mike Riggs of Reason. However a convicted felon cannot be in possession of firearms or ammunition per federal law. The laws vary by states, but in most states, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before she or he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. The officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation, and only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary." The officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against her or him. The officer continues to receive full pay and benefits. A violation of any rights can result in dismissal of the charges against the officer. [6] [7] [8] [9]

In nearly every state, their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation, wrote Riggs. If the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. [6]

The officer can only be questioned or investigated by sworn officers. This prohibits independent review boards, or any review by anyone other than police officers. [6] This results in other officers acting as judge and jury rather than a neutral third party.

Maryland's version of the LEOBR was brought up as a reason why a police officer caught fabricating evidence and framing people on video in 2018 remained on the force collecting a paycheck in 2020, two and a half years later. [10] While the police officer, Richard Pinheiro Jr., was convicted of a crime and the prosecutor's office announced it would not call him in court due to credibility problems, police officials cited the LEOBR as a reason why Pinheiro could not be speedily fired. [10] In 2021, Maryland then repealed their version of the LEOBR, overriding Governor Larry Hogan's veto. [11]

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Detective</span> Investigator in law enforcement

A detective is an investigator, usually a member of a law enforcement agency. They often collect information to solve crimes by talking to witnesses and informants, collecting physical evidence, or searching records in databases. This leads them to arrest criminals and enable them to be convicted in court. A detective may work for the police or privately.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Fraternal Order of Police</span> US fraternal organization of police officers

The National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) is a fraternal organization consisting of sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. It reports a membership of over 355,000 members organized in 2,100 local chapters (lodges), state lodges, and the national Grand Lodge. The organization attempts to improve the working conditions of law enforcement officers and the safety of those they serve through education, legislation, information, community involvement, and employee representation.

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of making a statement that exposes oneself to an accusation of criminal liability or prosecution. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

The blue wall of silence, also blue code and blue shield, are terms used to denote the informal code of silence among police officers in the United States not to report on a colleague's errors, misconducts, or crimes, especially as related to police brutality in the United States. If questioned about an incident of alleged misconduct involving another officer, while following the code, the officer being questioned would perjure themselves by feigning ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> US federal immigration legislation

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Hong Kong</span>

Human rights protection is enshrined in the Basic Law and its Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). By virtue of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Basic Law Article 39, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is put into effect in Hong Kong. Any local legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law can be set aside by the courts. This does not apply to national legislation that applies to Hong Kong, such as the National Security Law, even if it is inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance, ICCPR, or the Basic Law.

The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

A criminal charge is a formal accusation made by a governmental authority asserting that somebody has committed a crime. A charging document, which contains one or more criminal charges or counts, can take several forms, including:

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of vague laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide "credible and reliable" identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italian Code of Criminal Procedure</span>

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy. The Italian legal order adopted four codes since the Italian Unification. After the first two codes, in 1865 and 1913, the Fascist Government established in 1930 a new code adopting an inquisitorial system. In 1988 the Italian Republic adopted a new code, that could be considered to be somewhere in between the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal probation and supervised release</span> Concept from US criminal law

United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, or in addition to home detention, while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment. Probation and supervised release are both administered by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System. Federal probation has existed since 1909, while supervised release has only existed since 1987, when it replaced federal parole as a means for imposing supervision following release from prison.

Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.

References

  1. ↑ https://mcp.maryland.gov/Directive%20Manual/5-104.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  2. 1 2 3 Hager, Eli (27 April 2015). "Blue Shield – Did you know police have their own Bill of Rights?". The Marshall Project . Retrieved 29 December 2015.
  3. ↑ Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, Wisconsin State Legislature.
  4. ↑ Correspondence regarding Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, Florida Office of the Attorney General.
  5. ↑ Due Process Rights for Law Enforcement Officers Archived 2007-07-07 at the Wayback Machine , Fraternal Order of Police.
  6. 1 2 3 Why Firing a Bad Cop Is Damn Near Impossible -- A brief history of the "law enforcement bill of rights", Mike Riggs, Reason, October 19, 2012
  7. ↑ Police Misconduct and ‘Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights’ Laws, By Walter Olson, Cato At Liberty, April 24, 2015
  8. ↑ "The police officers' bill of rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-10-05.
  9. ↑ An impediment to police accountability? An analysis of statutory Law Enforcement Officers' Bills of Rights. Kevin M. Keenan and Samuel Walker. Public Interest Law Journal. 14:185-244 (2005)
  10. 1 2 Caught fabricating evidence, convicted Baltimore police officer remains on force 2½ years later
  11. ↑ "Lawmakers override Hogan's vetoes of major police reform bills". WBAL TV. 10 April 2021. Retrieved 10 April 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.