There are reasons it is hard to discipline police officers when they use excessive force, even killing unarmed citizens. One of these reasons is the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR)
LEOBRs grant police officers special protections from prosecution and discipline. This abomination started in Maryland in 1973 when Maryland enacted the first LEOBR law.
In 2015, the Baltimore mayor explicitly blamed the Maryland law enforcement bill of rights for blocking the investigation into the death of Freddie Gray, who suffered spinal cord injury—and death—in police custody.
On the face of it, LEOBRs are problematic. Why should police officers have rights that other citizens do not have?
In addition to being so questionable, LEOBRs protect officers from accountability for their conduct.
Police unions have managed to get 20 or so states to establish LEOBRs. Typically, these rights result in accused police officers being treated differently from accused everyday citizens.
LEOBRs vary from state to state, but there are typical provisions.
Unlike a regular citizen, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before responding to any questions. Unlike with Joe Citizen, interrogators must provide the names of complainants and their testimony before questioning an officer. Unlike Joe Citizen, the officer under investigation must be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present. Unlike Joe Citizen, only one person can question the officer during his interrogation. Unlike Joe Citizen, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.” Unlike Joe Citizen, 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 him.
What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers. Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation. Suppose the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped. In that case, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place or reveal the nature of the complaint. If the officer is suspended due to the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.
The State of Virginia does not have all of these problematical conditions; however, it has one worse provision than most states. There must be a delay of five days in Virginia—not the typical two days, which are problematic—before investigators can question an accused officer.
Baltimore and Montgomery County, Maryland, created civilian review boards for their police departments. Still, these boards are toothless because they cannot interrogate officers or request disciplinary action.
Maryland has realized and acknowledged the error of its ways with LEOBRs, and this year has become the first state to repeal these horrendous laws.
Police unions and other supporters of LEOBRs argue that these “protections” are needed because of the danger of the job.
That premise is false. Most police officers never fire their weapons in defense.
Law enforcement is not even among the ten most dangerous jobs in the United States. Loggers and roofers have the most hazardous jobs, and we don’t provide them with exceptional job security.
The FBI reports that the number of officers killed by criminals is at its lowest in 50 years. Unfortunately, the number of citizens killed by police has increased and now stands at its highest point.
It is time for other states to follow Maryland’s lead and repeal LEOBR. Such a move would be a significant step toward reducing the carnage perpetrated by police officers with impunity across the country.
