Integrity Bulletin
Volume 7
The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) has the legislative mandate to establish and enforce the physical, mental, and moral fitness standards for all peace officers in the state. This charge, to protect the public by overseeing the integrity of Arizona’s law enforcement officers, is met by reviewing cases and taking action against the certification of individuals who violate the AZ POST Rules. The following is a summary of some of the actions taken by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board at its January thru March 2001, public meetings. These actions are not precedent setting, in the sense that similar cases will end with the same result, because each case is considered on its individual facts and circumstances. Having said that, this Bulletin is being published to provide insight into the Board’s position on various types of officer misconduct. As always, the Compliance Specialist for your agency is available to discuss any matter and to assist you with any questions you might have. The "Editor Notes" and the "Frequently Asked Questions" section are historical observations and insights for training and discussion purposes only.
POST INTEGRITY BULLETIN
"None Finer in the West"
By Tom Hammarstrom, Executive Director
I recently had an opportunity to attend the Western Region meeting of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Despite the tricky acronym, IADLEST has proven to be a leading organization in promoting the professionalization of American law enforcement, and Arizona POST has been an active member since its inception.
The meeting provided Western state POST Directors with the opportunity to share information about programs and concerns from their respective states. After listening to my counterparts, and sharing our challenges and successes, I came away with a renewed sense of pride in the professionalism of Arizona peace officers, and the organizations we represent.
I am particularly pleased to share this sense of pride as an introduction to the Arizona POST Integrity Bulletin, which has served to communicate the Boards action regarding misconduct on the part of a very small percentage of Arizona law enforcement officers. It is important to recognize that less than 1% of the officers certified in Arizona ever come before the POST Board, and fewer yet are sanctioned. The rest perform to the high standards of integrity and professionalism that the citizens of Arizona have come to expect. They are not only among the best in the West. They are truly among the finest in the world.
CASE NO. 1 WILLFUL FALSIFICATION TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATION
Officer A obtained certification as a reserve officer with a police department in May of 1999. In November of 1999, he applied with a different agency to become a regular officer. On both applications he failed to list incidents in the POST Personal History Statement section dealing with ARREST RECORD, which states: "List all incidents in which you were arrested, accused or charged with a crime other than traffic violations. Include incidents that occurred as a juvenile, including any that were expunged, set aside, referred to pre-trial diversion or pardoned." Officer A did not disclose that he had been investigated in the military for at least three offenses, although he had not been convicted of any of them. He also claimed no use of cocaine or LSD in his applications, but he had previously told a polygraph examiner from yet a different agency, that he had used both. Officer A had a hearing before an independent Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The officer testified that he did not disclose the military incidents because he had only been questioned and not arrested or charged with criminal behavior. He also testified that the agencies gave him the application and made him fill them out on the spot. As a result of the pressure of the moment, he forgot about the incidents. Finally, he testified that he has never used cocaine or LSD, and that he misled the polygraph examiner by saying that he had used cocaine and LSD only, because the aggressive questioning was too stressful for him in his overly tired state. The ALJ did not find this testimony credible. The Board revoked his certification for providing false information in connection with obtaining certification.
CASE #2 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
Officer B sexually molested his niece several years before applying for certification. There was no criminal conviction. The Board denied him certification for the commission of a felony and an offense involving unlawful sexual conduct.
CASE #3 WILLFUL FALSIFICATION TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATION
Officer C was found to have lied in the following ways. He stated on his POST application that he had been certified as a peace officer in New York, when in fact he was a police auxiliary member, a civilian volunteer. He stated he had not been in the military, when in fact he had been in the military for a period of about thirty days before being let go due to breathing difficulties. He denied any history of breathing problems or shortness of breath on the POST Medical History Questionnaire. He wrote on his application to his agency that he had been paid $29,000.00 to $47,000.00 as a patrol sergeant in N.Y.P.D., when he was actually an unpaid volunteer. He lied to the POST investigator when he denied writing the salary amount on the application. (POST had a questioned documents examiner determine that the writing was Officer C’s.) Finally, he authored and distributed a memorandum to explorers when he was an advisor. The memo contained gross exaggerations of his accomplishments and numerous outright fabrications. Officer C went to hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge found the allegations to be true. The Board revoked his certification for false information, commissions of crimes involving dishonesty (A.R.S. §13-2407, tampering with a public record, and A.R.S. §39-161, presentment of a false instrument for filing), and malfeasance in office.
CASE #4 DISHONESTY & COMMISSION OF A FELONY
Officer D called his ex-girlfriend and went to her house in violation of an order of protection and orders from his department to have no contact with her. He also accessed ACJIS for personal reasons. During the internal affairs investigation, allegations arose that he may have had sex with underage girls he took on ride-along’s. No such allegations were founded; however, when asked to identify the female rider, he lied about the girl’s identity. Shortly after the interview, he resigned from the department. The Board revoked his certification for committing crimes involving dishonesty (false info to a peace officer), committing a felony (computer fraud) and malfeasance.
*Editor’s note: Opposite gender ride along assignments are placing a growing number of officers in situations resulting in misconduct and subsequent POST action. Officers are urged to be aware of this potential, and be vigilant to use their best judgment in these situations.
CASE #5 BURGLARY, THEFT & CRIMINAL DAMAGE
In 1995, Applicant E was convicted of a misdemeanor in tribal court of conspiracy in connection with his participation in the 1994 break-in at a church. He was one of six who broke a church window, and took two speakers, a bass guitar, a drum set and two monitors worth approximately $2,150.00. Everything was recovered by police except a speaker and one monitor. Applicant E was 20 years old and intoxicated when the break-in occurred. He entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled guilty to conspiracy, a misdemeanor, and the burglary, theft and criminal damage charges were dismissed. He was placed on probation for 360 days and paid $304.00 in restitution. In 1999, Applicant E applied for certification as a peace officer. POST staff brought the matter before the Board because the offense for which he received the conviction could have been the basis for any one of a number of felony offenses in Arizona. One of the minimum qualifications for becoming a peace officer is that the person shall not have been convicted of a felony or an offense that would be a felony if committed in Arizona. The Board initiated a proceeding to deny certification. The matter went to hearing before an independent Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ conducted a thorough analysis of the law and the facts and determined that although the offense for which Applicant E was convicted could have been a felony in Arizona, it cannot be said that it necessarily would have been. The criminal damage cannot be shown to exceed the felony amount, and the fact that the damage was done to a church does not force an Arizona court to find a felony. Therefore, the ALJ found that Applicant E did not fail to meet the minimum qualification on the basis of conviction of an offense that would be a felony if committed in Arizona. The Board dismissed the complaint, and the Applicant E was certified.
CASE #6 FRAUD & DISHONESTY
Officer F worked for agency one until September of 1994 when he resigned in lieu of termination for submitting military leave time requests when he was not actually on military leave. He was hired by agency two in August of 1998, after having fully disclosed the misconduct he engaged in at agency one. Two years later, Officer F resigned in lieu of termination from agency two after being caught submitting two false time sheets for leave and receiving reimbursement for military training that he did not attend. The Board revoked his certification for committing offenses involving dishonesty and malfeasance.
CASE #7 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT & DISHONESTY
Sergeant G had sexual intercourse with a prostitute in his patrol car while on duty. Another officer happened to see the patrol car in a secluded parking lot and drove over to investigate. Upon being discovered, Sergeant G quickly left the area and went to another location to complete the act. He lied to internal affairs when questioned about the incident. Sergeant G, through his attorney, entered into a consent agreement with the state whereby he admitted the misconduct. The agreement left the penalty up to the discretion of the Board. The Board revoked his certification.
CASE #8 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
Officer H, had sex twice in 1997, with a prostitute in his personal vehicle while off duty, although on one occasion he made the arrangements while on duty. He admitted this misconduct both to internal affairs and before POST. In mitigation he offered the following facts. The civil service board reinstated him after nearly 11 months on unpaid suspension. The misconduct was three and a half years ago when he was 22 years old. He sought and participated in psychological counseling for a period of six months following the misconduct. He married in May of 1999 and remains married. Officer H, his attorney and the state entered into a consent agreement whereby he admitted the misconduct and left the sanction up to the discretion of the Board. The Board suspended Officer H’s certification for the period of time that he was out of work and not paid, a period of about eleven months.
CASE #9 VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT
Lieutenant I entered into a consent agreement similar to a relinquishment, but unusual because his certification had already lapsed. Lapse is the expiration of certification after three years without a peace officer appointment. Someone whose certification has lapsed must start fresh, meeting all the current minimum qualifications, but may be able to take the waiver test instead of attend the academy again. Lieutenant I pursued this agreement because the agency for which he had previously worked maintained a report of alleged misconduct in order to comply with A.R.S. §41-1828.01. That statute requires previous employing agencies to inform potential hiring agencies of peace officer misconduct. Lieutenant I wished to remove this reason for the agency to maintain the report, and the Board granted him an agreement to permanently relinquish eligibility to apply for or obtain certification.
CASE #10 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
Officers J and K, separately engaged in sex with different department Explorers. The Board revoked their certifications for commission of felonies, malfeasance and conduct that would jeopardize public trust in the profession.
CASE #11 THEFT
Deputy L took a pepper-grinder from the table of a restaurant where he had eaten with friends, including other off-duty officers. Several days later, one of the officers saw the pepper-grinder on Deputy L’s kitchen table. He encouraged Deputy L to return the item. Deputy L failed to return the pepper-grinder to the restaurant until he learned he was under investigation. The Board revoked Deputy L’s certification, as it has uniformly done for stealing almost anything of almost any value from almost anyone.
CASE #12 RECKLESS CONDUCT
Officer M got into an argument with his wife which escalated to the point that he removed a highway flare from his patrol vehicle and used it to set fire to a couch pillow inside the couple’s home. The Board entered into a consent agreement that provided for a one year suspension beginning on the date he was terminated by his agency.
CASE #13 DISHONESTY & MALFEASANCE
Officer N arrested Mr. X for DUI. Several months later, Mr. X’s defense attorney contacted Officer N’s agency and reported that the officer had given false testimony during a preliminary hearing. The report concerned the timing of calling in the license plate number to dispatch. While the agency was investigating the report, it discovered that Officer N had included false statements in the arrest report, specifically that the officer had followed Mr. X’s vehicle on a certain road, when in fact, Mr. X had never driven on that road. There were other minor discrepancies in the officer’s testimony. Officer N was charged with providing a false sworn statement. He entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (with a different county attorney’s office) calling for a 24 month deferral and certain undisclosed "Terms and Conditions of Deferred Prosecution." The Board revoked his certification for committing a crime involving dishonesty and malfeasance in office.
CASE #14 DISHONESTY & MALFEASANCE
Officer O was alleged to have encountered an undocumented female citizen of Mexico who was a passenger in a car. When she could not produce identification, Officer O removed her from the vehicle she was in and detained/transported her in his patrol vehicle for about three hours. He handcuffed her to a grab bar in the vehicle. She later made a complaint that he had solicited money and sex from her in exchange for his not deporting her. She gave him $58.00 and began crying and asking the officer to take her to Immigration. He stopped the vehicle and told her to get out, but she would not because she did not know where she was. Officer O returned the woman to a convenience store and gave her back the $58.00. Following her complaint, the agency investigated. Officer O denied most of the facts alleged, however he failed a polygraph test concerning soliciting sex and money and other evidence did not match well with his version of events. The Board revoked his certification for the commission of a misdemeanor involving dishonesty, malfeasance in office and conduct that would tend to diminish public trust in the law enforcement profession.
CASE #15 WILLFUL FALSIFICATION TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATION
Officer P was hired by Department X in 1997. At that time he completed a POST Personal History Statement and disclosed two uses of marijuana in his life, both when he was 17 years of age some six or seven years before the application date. In 1998, the officer applied for work with a second agency. In that application process, he disclosed that he had use marijuana 5 or 6 times, with one time being after age 21 occurring in 1996. The second agency discontinued the process at that time because he had used marijuana one time within the previous three years. In 2000, Officer P applied with a third agency and disclosed the same facts as in the 1998 application process. The third agency called POST with information that it appeared Officer P obtained certification over two years before he was eligible due to the dates of marijuana use. POST investigated and issued a Complaint against Officer P’s certification for willfully providing false information to obtain certified status. Officer P told POST, and later testified before the Office of Administrative Hearings and the POST Board, that he had not remembered his last use of marijuana at the time he applied originally. He testified that he only remembered the use when he went to Oklahoma, where he had been stationed as a security specialist in the Air Force. He saw some of his friends who had served with him and they reminded him of a party in September 1996 where someone had passed a joint and Officer P had smoked some. He testified that he had not remembered earlier because he had been very drunk at the party. The POST investigator offered him a polygraph test to show he was being truthful. Officer P was determined to be deceptive on the polygraph test. The Administrative Law Judge disregarded the polygraph test, but found that Officer P had been untruthful on his 1997 application. The POST Board asked for Officer P to appear before them and let them gauge his honesty face to face. A majority of Board members present were persuaded that Officer P had been truthful on his 1997 application, and voted to take no action against his certification.
The Board adopted several consent agreements that allowed officers to voluntarily and permanently relinquish their peace officer certification. The allegations that preceded these agreements included aggravated assault on a police officer, lying during an internal affairs investigation, marijuana trafficking, theft and fraud. In none of these cases was the allegation of misconduct proven. This is like resigning certification in lieu of defending against a POST proceeding. However, many former officers have chosen relinquishment simply because they do not wish to be peace officers again. Each consent agreement provides that the relinquishment shall have the same force and effect as a revocation to permanently bar the officer from peace officer work in Arizona. Nothing in the agreements affects the application of the public records law to POST.