I. Giving Cops a Heads-Up

Many LEOBOR provisions require disclosure of evidence or testimony about an incident to officers under investigation. In Cleveland, the CBA requires written statements of witnesses testifying at an administrative hearing (as well as all previous statements given by the officer under investigation) to be given to the officer under investigation ahead of time. It is a criminal trial discovery concept transplanted to the administrative context, a true example of double due process.

Under the Chicago CBA, if investigators have video or audio recordings of an incident, they can choose whether or not to give officers access to that evidence before interrogation. If investigators choose not to give officers access, and the officers lie and directly contradict the audio or video evidence, they cannot be charged with a Rule 14 violation. “Rule 14” is the rule covering false statements. So, if officers lie about the circumstances surrounding a shooting, and investigators have video proving they lied, the officers cannot be disciplined for lying unless they were shown the video beforehand. But if they were shown the video beforehand, they would be on notice that they needed a new story. The Chicago CBA ensures officers cannot be punished for lying when contradicted by audio or video evidence--the types of evidence most likely to be able to override an officer's word, especially if their victim is deceased. Remember that Jason Van Dyke and his fellow officers blatantly lied about the circumstances leading to Laquan McDonald's killing. It is unknown whether they were shown the video in advance (it is difficult to fathom how they told the tale they did if they were shown the video), but if they were not, the department could not even discipline them for lying. More disturbing, though, is that investigators had the video exposing Van Dyke's lies for almost a year and he was not disciplined until the tape was released to the public.