This coin has another side
My guess is that you are being heavily exposed to something called “procedural justice.” Also, my guess is that all that exposure is directed toward your treatment of members of the public. Audits are going to be performed on your traffic and pedestrian stops where the tenets of procedural justice are going to be compared to your performance as revealed by the body-worn video.
If you don’t know those tenets, they are:
1) Trustworthiness: Conveying trustworthy or well-intentioned motives, in that the person can understand why the action is being taken.
2) Respect: Treating people with dignity and respect.
3) Neutrality: Being neutral and transparent in decision-making, indicating that rules are applied consistently and fairly.
4) Voice: Giving individuals a voice or opportunity to explain their perspective during encounters.
Be aware that you will eventually be discussing these concepts with a supervisor who has been reviewing the tape of your stop. The concepts can be expressed in one sentence. Identify yourself during the stop, exhibiting professionalism while you explain the reason for the contact, and answer any questions asked by the suspect.
These concepts come from a 90-day study of police work conducted by President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing back in 2015. The study found that there were six pillars that are essential to the stability of our communities, the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.
Pillar One is where the above procedural justice concepts come from that are being pounded home by the Department. However, Pillar One also has a little commented-on side. The other side of the coin, so to speak. “There are both internal and external aspects to procedural justice in policing agencies. Internal procedural justice refers to practices within an agency and the relationships officers have with their colleagues and leaders. Research on internal procedural justice tells us that officers who feel respected by their supervisors and peers are more likely to accept departmental policies, understand decisions and comply with them voluntarily. It follows that officers who feel respected by their organizations are more likely to bring this respect into their interactions with the people they serve.” [page 10, supra, emphasis added]
Sort of a way of recognizing the old adage that children who are beaten by their parents beat their own children when they become parents. Or, you tend to treat other people like you were treated. Is this part of the Department training on procedural justice?
Pillar One doesn’t stop there on Internal Procedural Justice. It recommends that the Department should involve officers in the making of policy. And that includes incorporating procedural justice into the internal discipline process. Values should be more important than adherence to rules, it says. And here is my favorite part: “Union leadership should be partners in this process.”
Pillar Two includes this recommendation: “The sentinel event review approach will have a better chance of success if departments can abandon the process of adversarial/punitive-based discipline, adopting instead “education- based” disciplinary procedures and policies.” [page 23, supra, emphasis added] This converts the LAPD saying of “burn ’em to learn ’em” to “learn ’em unless you must burn ’em.”
The Department is starting a quality service audit system. Supervisors will be assigned to review a certain number of body-worn videos, with an eye on the above listed procedural justice tenets. If the supervisor observes serious misconduct when viewing the video, a personnel complaint will be initiated, and that incident will not be subject to the audit. If that is not the case, the audit will continue.
Consistent with the procedural justice discussed above, the object of the audit is to educate and not be punitive. Based on observations in the video, the supervisor and the officer will discuss things observed, with the idea of how things could have been improved. An audit form is filled out by the supervisor by checking boxes and filling in debriefing points. The directions specifically state, “Only general topics that
were discussed shall be noted here. The nature of the discussion shall not be documented. The intent of this section is to discuss and reinforce the tenets of procedural justice.” [Field Notebook Divider, emphasis in original]
If you are the supervisor, heed this procedure. If you are the officer, pay attention that it is not violated. The audit form should not contain anything negative. Placing something negative in a personnel document gives rise to the right to file a response under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights.
Punitive action is not the intention of the audit. Violation of the procedure would also subject the Department to a grievance because placing something negative in the audit form is a violation of the Department’s agreement with the League. If it happens, notify us immediately.
The audit has been mandated by the Police Commission. So, it’s one more thing to go through if you are in the field. There is a companion audit concerning tactics with the same rules and, oh yeah, a review to see if your Automated Field Data Report has been correctly filled out.
Yes, you are being watched closely. Realize it and use the body-worn video to prove your case. Don’t let the Police Commission prove theirs.
Be legally careful out there.
