The Kansas House Standing Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice has introduced an extraordinary bill that would allow citizens to be criminally charged if they bring abuse or misconduct charges against police officers are that later dismissed by the police department. They would be subject to a felony charge for perjury in such cases — a clear threat that will chill anyone considering such a charge in the future.
It is often hard to get people to come forward to make complaints against officers in fear of retaliation. Now, with this law, the state would be giving a perfect vehicle for such retaliation since most complaints are dismissed by police departments. Incidents of abuse are often a conflict between the officer’s statement and the alleged victim. In such circumstances, the officer’s account tends to prevail or at least the allegation is found unproven in such conflicts.
The language of the bill can be found here.
The poorly crafted bill is striking in its ambiguity. However, it appears to require prosecution and bar discretion on such referrals, stating “clear evidence that such complaint is false, such investigation shall be closed immediately and the law enforcement agency shall seek
criminal prosecution against the complainant for perjury.” (emphasis added). The “shall” language is usually meant to impose a mandatory, non-discretionary duty. What constitutes a “false” complaint is not defined.
The prohibitions under the law are equally problematic:
(f) A law enforcement agency shall not:
(1) Adopt any policy or regulation which prohibits the right of a law enforcement officer to file a lawsuit regarding a false complaint arising out of such officer’s duties as a law enforcement officer;
(2) investigate a complaint against a law enforcement officer for non work related civil matters;
(3) open a separate investigation of a complaint if another agency has investigated such complaint and found no evidence of misconduct on the part of the law enforcement officer; or
(4) solicit a civilian to file a complaint against a law enforcement officer. Solicitation shall not be construed to mean any follow-up of a complaint.
This seems to encourage not simply the criminal prosecution of complaining citizens but civil lawsuit by officers — a curious position in Kansas which has historically opposed civil litigation with cap awards and other limitations. Thus, even if a citizen is able to escape jail on the felony charge, he or she would be tapped for litigation costs in fighting a civil lawsuit.
Moreover, the bill effectively immunizes officers for any “non work related civil matters” from investigation. I have been a critic of the disciplinary actions meted out against public employees for views or associations in their private lives, including police officers (here and here). However, some civil disputes could reveal an officer with mental instability or emotional problems. This would bar even an investigation into such allegations.
Then there is section three. A prior investigation could have been limited, based on poor evidence, or reached the earlier conclusion based on changed testimony. There could be the subsequent discovery of a videotape or witness leading to a second investigation. However, that prior investigation would bar a subsequent investigation even when police investigators believe it is warranted. What could possibly be the public interest purpose of such an absolute bar?
It is equally troubling to see a prohibition on soliciting a civilian to file a complaint. In some cases police investigators will learn of abuse and try to encourage a citizen to file a complaint to start the process. Citizens often fear retaliation and it takes another officer to assure the citizen that there is nothing to fear in filing a complaint. That would now be prohibited in Kansas.
The Kansas law is part of a trend across the country of seeking to insulate officers from punishment or accusations. There has been a largely unsuccessful effort by prosecutors like Chicago’s Anita Alvarez to criminalize the videotaping of officers in public — the leading method for proving abuse. In Dallas, Dallas Police Chief David Brownrevealed a new policy that would require officers involved in a shooting to wait 72 hours before making a statement. The policy came after a scandal where a surveillance video showed one of Brown’s officers shooting a mentally ill suspect for no apparent reason. The video contradicted the officer’s testimony and undermined the charge against the victim. Brown’s solution was not greater disciplining and monitoring of officers but to impose a delay to allow officers to craft their statements. Kansas appears ready to go one better and actually expose citizens to felony charges and taking these other measures.
I would be very interested to know who drafted this legislation. That should be part of the public record but it is not. It is an ill-conceived and poorly written bill that seems designed to deter citizens in bringing these cases. It is curious effort for representatives of the public and undermines those police officers who want to weed out abusive members of the department.
bonnie tarbat:
WOOT!! 🙂
Another egregious part of the bill is that it prohibits any law enforcement agency from opening an investigation into any alleged misconduct if any other law enforcement agency has found no evidence of misconduct. Thus, if local PD finds no misconduct on part of their officer, state agencies are prohibited from investigating. IN many instances, some state LE found misconduct that had been swept under the rug by a local LE. That would be prohibited under the proposed Kansas law.
How about charges against police who bring charges against citizens that are later dismissed. Seems only fair.
Nick
Until the voters in Kansas who elected these knuckle-dragging Neanderthals (and yes, it is completely appropriate and accurate to read that as Republicans) elect different legislators, Kansas has well earned all of the hate the entire state gets. This is what being a Republican means these days I guess: Total disregard for the US Constitution and human and civil rights, creation of a police state, etc. Little wonder why they’re so despised. They and my home state of Arizona are starting to make Texas look like a hotbed of liberalism.
If this specious bill passes then the Kansas House Standing Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice will have succeeded in bring the land of Oz to back home to Kansas, no red ruby slippers or wizards required.
My favorite portion of the bill is the next to last article.
(h) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to discourage
legitimate complaints or prevent a law enforcement agency from
investigating a complaint made against a law enforcement officer.
I believe everything in this bill should be construed as discouraging ANY and ALL complaints, while also removing the need for law enforcement to investigate any officer.
Full PDF, it is only 2 pages.
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2698_00_0000.pdf
Blame this on whoring politicians who are in bed with the police union. That’s what this is all about.
That’s what’s the matter with Kansas.
Here we are Amerika….. The united soviets states of America…..
Disturbing legislation, but not surprising. Kansas has been off its rocker for quite awhile and for some reason keeps voting in the crazies that think the problems that are most important for that state are protecting out of control police from formal charges.
It is clear that the police and other “law enforcement” agencies state, local and federal view themselves as above the law. Now they want to make sure we all understand that by making it a crime to even complain. When are the legislators who are soooooo agressive when it comes “gun freedom” going to protect a few of the other basic rights of citizens?
I love living in Lawrence, KS — but every time I read about the legislature’s latest activities I think I’m reading an article from The Onion.
Yet more conservative last-gaspism in Kansas. For those who support what the KS legislature has done lately, enjoy it, as these days will be seen as your golden era. Demographics assure it.
Let’s not be hatin’ on Kansas. Hate on the legislature, but not on the entire state, as some are wont to do here.
Isn’t there something in our Constitution about being able to petition the government for redress of grievances? Or does that not apply in the case of law enforcement agencies acting outside their mandate of “protect and serve?”
Dorothy: [has just arrived in Oz, looking around and awed at the beauty and splendor] Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas any more.
Dorothy: [after a pause] We must be over the rainbow!
[a bubble appears in the sky and gets closer and closer. It finally lands, then turns into Glinda the Good Witch wearing a spectacular white dress and crown, holding a wand]
[Glinda shows a copy of HOUSE BILL No. 2698 to Dorothy.]
Dorothy: [to Toto] Now I… I know we’re *still* in Kansas!
Whatever happened to the constitutional right to “seek a redress of grievances”?
This is reminiscent of the attempt to change med. mal tort laws (others I assume) whereby if you lose you have to pay all the costs, including other attorney. 85% of all med mal cases are lost by patients regardless of the proof so why would anyone want to bring a suit when no matter how egregious the malpractice they can possibly lose. It seems that at every turn legislators are attempting to remove access to the courts, through fear, and to even making a complaint.
And this related news from Chi-Town:
“Chicago Court Rules Police Misconduct Records Must Be Made Publicly Available”
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/10400226567/chicago-court-rules-police-misconduct-records-must-be-made-publicly-available.shtml
The insularity of law enforcement — the secrecy and opacity that allows misbehaving officers to escape being held responsible for their actions — has been partially stripped away in Chicago. The city’s appellate court has delivered a decision that puts police misconduct records into the hands of the public.
Citizen complaints about Chicago police misconduct and the related investigative files are public records and must be turned over by the city, an Illinois appeals court ruled this week.
A three-judge panel of the state Appellate Court in Chicago rejected the city’s claim that such files are exempt from the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.
The fact that investigative files are now public records is a big win for public oversight. Internal investigation documents have often been withheld by law enforcement agencies, many of whom seem completely uninterested in opening up their departments to additional scrutiny. Additionally, the city’s appellate court has severely limited the use of existing exemptions to deny requests for police misconduct files.
City lawyers argued such records were covered by an exemption in the state’s Freedom of Information law for “preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated.”
The judges wrote that exemption only applies to “opinions that public officials form while creating government policy. It does not protect factual material or final agency decisions.”
There’s still a bit of a loophole left for the Chicago PD to exploit, however.
If a complaint results in disciplinary charges against an officer, records from that process may still be kept secret, the appellate court noted. … (continues)
I need to find Kansas on a map so I never go there by accident. And such a fine basketball program there, too. What a shame.