The recent examination of California’s disciplinary procedures for peace officers has sparked significant concern. Critics argue that the current framework is ambiguous and inconsistent, undermining public trust. Reactions on social media exemplify this discontent, with some users expressing their frustration through emotive posts illustrating anger and disappointment.
The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) has the authority to certify peace officers. This certification is essential for anyone looking to serve as a sworn law enforcement officer in the state. The stakes are high; without certification, an individual cannot hold a peace officer position anywhere in California.
POST’s disciplinary framework includes several categories—Immediate Temporary Suspension (ITS), Suspension, Revoked, Voluntary Surrender, and Ineligible. The nuances of these categories reveal potential flaws in oversight that could endanger community safety.
The Immediate Temporary Suspension is a swift response to serious allegations. An officer can be suspended if arrested or indicted for a felony or a crime listed under Government Code section 1029. This suspension can be lifted at the discretion of POST’s Executive Director, with only a temporary mark displayed in public for 90 days. After that period, there is no public indication that a suspension occurred. As a former supervisor noted, “If these officers are entrusted with a badge and firearm, the public deserves to know if they’ve been under felony indictment.” This sentiment underscores a crucial accountability gap.
On the other end of the spectrum lies the “Revoked” status, which is permanent and prevents individuals from ever serving as law enforcement. However, a less scrupulous alternative exists in “Voluntary Surrender.” Officers facing inquiry may voluntarily surrender rather than undergo a formal revocation process. Critics point out that this lacks transparency. Patricia Gomez, a member of a city oversight board, highlighted the issue, stating, “If truth and accountability matter, why are we letting people surrender quietly instead of completing the full review?” This approach raises alarms about accountability and transparency.
Another category, “Ineligible,” refers to individuals disqualified from serving as peace officers due to criminal convictions. This can even apply before a conviction is completely resolved, illustrating nuances in the legal interpretations involved. In contrast, “Suspension” brings a defined term of up to three years during which an officer cannot practice. However, once a suspension is lifted, certification returns, unless other issues arise. This raises questions about the long-term implications of such disciplinary actions.
The confusion further extends to POST’s public records. Only specific disciplinary actions are made publicly accessible. Once the 90-day period for the ITS expires, no record of that temporary suspension remains. This lack of transparency creates potential loopholes, allowing officers to leave one department for another without any public trace of disciplinary history. Such a scenario poses risks for hiring agencies and the communities they serve, as past allegations may remain hidden.
Compared to other states, California appears to be lagging in making disciplinary data comprehensive and accessible. States like Massachusetts and Colorado maintain public decertification databases that detail misconduct allegations and outcomes. California’s system, however, remains fragmented and often lacks relevant historical context.
The reforms introduced by POST arose from a national demand for greater police accountability, but critics argue these changes are insufficient. Without detailed explanations accompanying suspensions, the public remains in the dark regarding whether investigations yielded any outcome. As watchdog researcher Maria Nunez expressed, “Instead, we get a PDF with strikeouts that vanish. That’s a far cry from real accountability.”
Even POST itself faces a level of oversight deemed inadequate by many. Decisions, such as lifting an ITS, often occur internally without public hearings. The absence of an external oversight board raises concerns that the process may favor bureaucratic convenience over the public’s right to know. The discretion held by the Executive Director can significantly influence whether an officer’s history remains visible to the public.
Attempts by lawmakers in Sacramento to enhance POST’s transparency have faltered, with proposals failing in committee. The police unions argue that sharing more information about suspensions could infringe on the due process rights of officers. This contention does little to ease public concern about the obfuscation inherent in the current system.
The current climate leaves room for ambiguity. Officers under serious allegations can quietly surrender their certifications or have temporary suspensions lifted, leaving little trace in the public record. This patchwork approach raises questions about the efficacy of enforcement measures and whether they promote genuine accountability.
As articulated by oversight advocate Daniel Marks, the need for a public, searchable disciplinary database is paramount. Knowledge of an officer’s past suspensions or investigations is crucial for maintaining trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. The system, as it stands, raises significant questions about the district’s commitment to holding its officers accountable and ensuring transparency.
For many Californians, these opaque procedures present real challenges regarding law enforcement transparency. Trust in institutional accountability is wavering, and it is essential for those charged with enforcing laws to be held to the same standards expected of the citizens they serve.
"*" indicates required fields
