As a Police Executive with more than two decades of experience in the field of law enforcement, I've had the privilege of witnessing the evolution of police practices, policies, and accountability standards. One specific principle that stands out in my executive experience is the evolution of implementation practices of the Seven Steps of Just Cause and its impact to society and the officers entrusted with public safety.
In this article, I'll delve into the significance of these steps from the lens of a law enforcement professional who has been immersed in internal affairs investigations and employee accountability in a variety of capacities throughout his career as well as an instructor who has the privilege of speaking to law enforcement leaders and professionals across the country . Moreover, we'll explore the dire financial and reputational consequences that ensue when police policies and practices disregard the tenets of just cause.
Step 1: Notice - Setting the Stage for Accountability
The first step, providing the accused officer with a clear notice of the alleged misconduct, serves as the cornerstone of the just cause procedure. As a professional called upon to assist in these matters, I have seen the impact of unclear communication, I understand that ambiguity can lead to confusion and distrust. By ensuring officers are aware of the allegations against them, we lay the foundation for an accountable, transparent, and fair process. This step not only empowers officers to respond effectively but also engenders a culture of clarity and integrity.
Step 2: Reasonable Investigation - Unearthing the Truth
Having specialized in internal affairs investigations and employee accountability reforms, I've witnessed the transformative power of a thorough and impartial inquiry. A robust investigation, devoid of bias, uncovers the truth and safeguards the integrity of the process. Neglecting this step not only undermines the credibility of the entire system but also endangers public trust and has the potential of eroding the cooperation of our society in fighting crime.
Step 3: Employee Representation - Balancing Fairness
It is important that we recognize the legality of granting officers the right to representation. This right in many instances is expected of public and unionized departments as established by the Supreme Court in the case, NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. This step is not about undermining authority but about preserving fairness. Allowing officers to present their side through a representative ensures that all voices are heard and considered. This balance is essential for crafting decisions that reflect the complexity of each case and for fostering a culture of inclusivity within the police force.
Step 4: Fair Hearing - A Crucible of Transparency
The notion of a fair hearing is a testament to an organization's commitment to transparency. Through countless employee personnel matters and investigative reviews, I've found that a formal hearing gives officers the opportunity to express their perspective and ensures that decisions are based on the full spectrum of evidence. This step guards against hasty judgments and underscores our dedication to a just and impartial process.
Step 5: Decision Based on Evidence - A Pillar of Trust
The principle of basing decisions on evidence is a non-negotiable when it comes to police accountability. A decision devoid of factual grounding can lead to a cascade of distrust and skepticism. By upholding the evidentiary standard, we communicate to the public that our actions are rooted in truth, irrespective of the situation's complexity.
Step 6: Consistent Application of Rules - The Bedrock of Credibility
Consistency isn't just an administrative buzzword; it's the bedrock of credibility. As a Police Executive, I've learned that applying the same set of rules and consequences to all employees sends a resounding message that we hold ourselves accountable to the same standards we uphold in our society. This fosters a sense of trust that the police department isn't immune to the consequences it enforces.
Step 7: Appropriate Penalty - A Balancing Act
In my years in law enforcement, I've often witnessed the delicate balancing act of assigning appropriate penalties. While punitive actions are essential, they must align with the severity of the offense. This step isn't about being lenient; it's about maintaining integrity and ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. A disproportionate penalty erodes public trust and sends a message of arbitrariness and often times results in the reversal of accountability. The key takeaway for police executives should be consistency and uplifting due process.
Financial and Potential Consequences of Violating Just Cause Procedures
It's no secret that law enforcement agencies operate within complex webs of legal, financial, and reputational ramifications. Violating just cause procedures doesn't just put individual officers at risk but exposes the entire agency to perilous consequences. Moreover, violating just cause principles also has a negative affect on the community when employee accountability matters are dismissed through appeal hearings due to a claim of just cause violations by the department.
Financial Fallout: Mishandling just cause procedures can lead to costly legal battles. Officers wrongfully terminated due to procedural violations can seek legal recourse, resulting in substantial financial settlements that strain department budgets. Moreover, a tarnished reputation due to procedural misconduct can deter potential funding and erode public support, leaving agencies grappling with financial instability.
Reputational Ruin: Law enforcement agencies are held to the highest standards by the public they serve. A single instance of neglecting just cause principles can tarnish the agency's reputation irreparably. The ripple effect of negative publicity can lead to diminished community trust, decreased officer morale, and difficulty recruiting and retaining quality personnel.
Legal Liabilities: In the litigious landscape of modern policing, overlooking just cause procedures can expose agencies to legal liabilities. Officers unjustly disciplined may pursue legal action, draining resources and diverting focus from core responsibilities. Furthermore, violations of due process can cast doubt on the legitimacy of the agency's actions, leaving it vulnerable to legal challenges that jeopardize the credibility of the entire organization.
By adhering to the tenets of just cause, we not only fortify our agencies against financial and reputational pitfalls but also safeguard the trust, respect, and cooperation that our communities and officers so rightfully demand. A professional department is one that encourages and promotes an environment of commitment, integrity, fairness, and respect from its officers.
If you found this article useful or think it can assist someone you know, please share it with them. If you would like to attend training on this topic, please see