Get Your Story Straight, Officer

When a civilian gets arrested for a crime – let’s say an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (gun) – they are separated and interrogated immediately. Under no circumstance is the civilian allowed to go home, get some rest, reflect on the event, and watch a video with his attorney in private before providing a statement. This would be an opportunity for his attorney to inform him of the definition of defenses, like self-defense. True, the arrestee may choose to remain silent, but then he is definitely going to go to jail and face criminal charges.

In Dallas, and many cities around the country, the same is not true for police officers involved in shootings. Shortly after the Bobby Bennett shooting in October 2013, DPD Chief of Police Brown changed the city’s policy to mandate that all officers have a chance to read any witness statements, view any video or audio of an incident (with their attorneys), and wait a full 72 hours before providing of statement of what happened. The dangers of such a policy are obvious.

This watch-then-talk policy was a topic of conversation at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in 2011. Even then, law enforcement has taken the position that allowing an officer to review video and statements before giving their own account of an incident will lead to a more accurate statements. When countered with the issue that criminal defendants are not afforded the same treatment, a police attorney said that’s because police have rights and could become criminal suspects unlike civilian eyewitnesses. But that doesn’t make sense. A civilian eyewitness has rights just as well, and if they lie under oath to a police officer, they could be charged with criminal perjury charge, too.

The bottom line is that departments are trying to insulate themselves from liability and reinforcing full-force the practice of unaccountability and turning a blind eye to police misconduct. Instead of advocating for truthful, untainted statements, departments are instead implying “watch this video, talk to your defense attorney, and then tell me know what you remember.”

Any investigator will tell you that seeking a statement from a witness is best immediately following the incident because it’s fresh in their mind and decreases the possibility that their story will be tainted. Departments like Oakland, CA understand that police are just as susceptible and specifically prohibit officers from viewing any video before making their statements.

I do believe officers should have a chance to see video, but only after they have given their own personal account. Certainly an officer won’t be crucified for remembering she shot 4 bullets instead of 5 or that she was 20 feet away from the suspect and not 15. The problems start when she states a man lunged at her with a knife when in reality he was merely standing still.

Civilians and officers are human and it’s our instinct of self-preservation that drives us to lie. Should we expect police officers to be any different? Should we give them tools to explain away their unlawful actions or mistakes? If police officers owned up to their mistakes more often, and were actually disciplined or re-trained for them, there would be no need for the serious lies that can cause innocent people to fight bogus charges.

It all comes full circle to departments holding or not holding their officers accountable. Until then, go ahead, watch this, talk to your attorney, and get your story straight.