Should police officers be allowed to take the 5th in a situation like this and keep their job?

[NNN0LHI]

Seems to me that an officer of the law while in the line of duty should be required to answer any questions truthfully, and if they choose not to which is their right, that should be automatic forfeiture of of their job or retirement payments.

I have never heard of this kind of thing before. The cops taking the 5th? WTF?

Don


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burgemay19,0,6386877.story

Chicago police beating case: Inmate testifies police under Jon Burge beat him into confessing to murder

Man is asking court to give him a new trial, and detectives take stand but decline to testify

By Matthew Walberg | Tribune reporter
May 19, 2009

A man serving a life sentence for a 1990 murder testified Monday he confessed only after he was beaten for half an hour by Chicago police detectives under the command of disgraced former Cmdr. Jon Burge. snip

Two of the officers accused of abuse, Detective James O'Brien and retired Detective Anthony Maslanka, as well as the sergeant on duty that night, also took the stand Monday at the hearing before Cook County Circuit Judge Clayton J. Crane. But each would not divulge anything but their names before asserting their 5th Amendment right to not have to testify against themselves.

Safforld testified Monday that while he was handcuffed to a wall in 1990, O'Brien allegedly held him while Maslanka and another detective, John Paladino, punched him in the body, slapped the side of his head and hit him with a flashlight. After about 30 minutes, he said, "I told them I would say whatever they wanted me to say, sign whatever they wanted me to sign."

[Mythsaje]

1. Unequivocally NO.

We arm these motherfuckers and let them roam the streets and dispense "justice" with far too little oversight. I know there are a lot of good, decent cops, but the bad ones can do a remarkable amount of damage and there seems to be a serious problem bringing them to justice themselves.

[paulsby]

2. google police officer bill of rights. our rights matter, too

cops have the ABSOLUTE right to take the 5th.

period.

the constitution applies to cops, too.

cops can (and are) administratively punished, up to an including termination, but the civil/admin aspect is dealt with AFTER the criminal aspect, because doing an Admin investigation FIRST where the dept. can require you to answer questions, poisons the criminal investigation for a # of reasons (administratively compelled statements are inadmissible in a criminal trial, since they are forced.)

police officer misconduct like this is investigated in several prongs

1) criminal
2) departmental
3) civil

only in 2,3 can testimony be compelled.
cop can refuse in (2) but will get fired. that's his choice.
your misunderstanding is that if the cop refused to comply with the DEPARTMENTAL investigation, he will be fired.

but that will happen AFTER the criminal case, so as not to poison the former

[petronius]

15. Police should have the the same rights as anyone else in court, but I would

say that refusing to truthfully answer the exact same questions during the departmental investigation should result in termination. Inability to be completely candid about your performance of your duties and actions in your job makes you unfit to hold that job...

(And after typing this, I see that that's what you said would happen. :))

[paulsby]

18. yea, exactly.

it's (unlike with civilians) a much more two pronged process.

several dept's have screwed this process up, and with disastrous results.

let me give you an example.

cop got cited for a domestic violence case.

dept. kneejerked, did an (internal) investigation and fired him. BEFORE the case went to court.

case got thrown out of court at like 2nd hearing (victim had clear credibility issues, and there was evidence of coercion by a domestic violence advocate etc.).

in the end, the cop ended up getting his job back, a year later. dept. had to pay out backpay for the entire period, PLUS extra pay for the overtime he might have worked (based on his work patterns etc.)

the dept. got a serious black eye, IIU looked like a bunch of idiots (no comment) :l , and the officer was pretty frigging bitter, etc.

if they had simply placed him on admin leave and let the criminal trial play out, half the battle would have been won, and THEN they could have compelled his testimony.

our supervisors are trained to understand that if they respond to (for example) a shooting, and start asking specific questions, that those questions can be viewed as "administratively compelled" and TOTALLY screw up a criminal investigation if it turns out there was wrongdoing.

but you are correct, in an internal investigation, you have no right to remain silent, PERIOD.

and cops have been and would be , fired for doing so.

no question about it.

depending on the (w00hoo union!) collective bargaining agreement, etc. internal investigators may be required in certain circumstances to allow the officer to have a union rep/attorney present during an internal investigation, and in some cases officers are allowed to give written responses etc.

it's a convoluted area of law where labor law, civil rights law, union contracts/collective bargaining agreements, etc. all collide.

[pkdu]

3. Why would they plead the 5th?..Cheney says torture works!

/sarc off

[EFerrari]

4. Chicago has has a long time problem with abuse and even torture.

[konnichi wa]

5. Sure, let's just deny Constitutional rights to whatever group we dislike

at any given moment.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Try reading my OP again friend

I never suggested anyone didn't have the right to plead the 5th. I was just asking if it was right to be kept in a job of trust if someone can't answer questions concerning their job duties. We are talking life and death issues here.

Say a bank came up a million dollars short some day. If one or two employees clammed up and refused to even discuss the missing money with investigators would you think they would be entitled to keep their job?

What do you think?

Don

[konnichi wa]

8. What I think, based on your post, is that you have no problem denying some Constitutional rights

to certain people...whose identities are up to you. When you get elected President, you can propose that...in an Executive Order or a signing statement. Just like Bush did.

[Occulus]

21. You have the right to say or not say anything you like, regardless.

What we're talking about is the consequences of doing so.

I work for the USPS. Were I to refuse to answer questions in court while facing charges that were brought regarding a misuse of my duties, I would expect to be fired.

[Traveling_Home]

7. I'm sure they have Union representation if they are being accused of abuse .....

my guess and hope would be that they are following the advice of counsel. That's why they pay their dues!!!!!!

[anigbrowl]

9. EVERYONE has the right to plead the 5th. It's a constitutional right.

The whole essence of constitutional rights is that they're there all the time for everyone, you don't get to pick and choose when they apply or they're not rights any more.

[konnichi wa]

10. Well, these are life and death issues. Like when a bank is embezzled.

:eyes:

[Thothmes]

11. Agree, exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right

should never put ones career in jeopardy.

[pscot]

12. So the officers' right to withhold testimony

trumps the defendant's right to a fair trial. They keep their badges and he goes to jail. And you're OK with that?

[Thothmes]

13. He is not withholding testimony. Testifying to the fact that they

beat the confession out of the man would be an admitting to several felonies. The Constitution, whether it is convenient or not, whether it is just or not, allows an individual to not be forced to testify against himself. It does not matter what I think. The cop has that right. The original op asked whether the cop should be fired because he invoked the 5th amendment. No, not for that reason. A thorough investigation into the cops conduct is called for. If the investigation shows he participated in illegal actions, then he should be prosecuted for his actions. If he is found guilty of the charges he should be sentenced to prison, fired from the police force and if the law allows, his pension canceled.

[Toucano]

17. Police officers should sign away their constitutional rights when they sign up.

Are you OK with that?

Maybe bankers, lawyers, mayors, senators, school bus drivers should also have to give up a constitutional right to keep their job.

[paulsby]

20. anybody (ANYBODY)

has the right to withold testimony if it could incriminate them.

ANYBODY.

officers do NOT have right to withold statements during internal investigations, and they can and are fired for doing so. their right to remain silent applies to the criminal prong, JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE.

read my other post, where i explain the bifurcated process.

once the criminal trial is adjudicated, that's when the investigators will compel testimony.

if they compel it prior to that, it completely poisons the criminal trial.

[Canuckistanian]

14. Where is the Police Internal Investigations on this?

Or even a civilian supervisory board?

Don't they have those in Chicago?

[Toucano]

16. The 5th amendment covers everyone.

He can be discharged from his job when he's found guilty.

It's hard to have faith in the system, I know.

[Horse with no Name]

19. Their job is to protect and to serve

Their job performance is public record.
Their pensions, insurance, and any other benefits should be stripped for even ATTEMPTING to plead the 5th.

[paulsby]

23. at least you are honest

in your dismissive stance towards civil rights and the constitution.

fwiw, an officer can be fired (*and will be) for refusing to testify in INTERNAL CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS.

but they cannot be fired for refusing to testify in a criminal trial.

sorry. police officers have rights too.

the process is multipronged.

[Horse with no Name]

26. I believe that ANY public servant

and their subsequent service...no matter what level--municipal to federal and everything in between--take an OATH of office...so as far as I am concerned, they should ALWAYS be under oath--no matter what they say or no matter what they do.
Let me tell you something...I am a nurse.
I do NOT have the luxury of pleading the 5th if I fuck up and kill someone.
Nor should I UNLESS I am willing to give up my license in return for trying to keep my ass out of a sling. And that includes all entitlements of said license--benefits, etc.
I don't expect anything of ANY public servant that I don't expect of myself or my colleagues.

[paulsby]

27. actually, you DO have that luxury

let me repeat. you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself, in any criminal proceeding.

and just like a cop, you can be fired for refusing to cooperate/testify in an internal investigation, but NOT in a criminal investigation.

civil rights matter.

[Cid_B]

28. Yet again...

I've lost all ability to determine if people are serious here. On one hand it is so stupid I think it's possible you forgot your sarcasm tag but on the other hand I doubt it.

If you are serious please slap yourself.

[RB TexLa]

22. Who else should we prevent from exercising their constitutional rights?

If one thinks it's ok to deny them by occupation, I see no reason they would have any problem denying rights based on gender, race, religion or hair color.

[Grinchie]

24. Absolutely. Everyone must learn to take the 5th.

There are way too many laws, crossreferenced with other laws, which may have been ameded from time to time. You may be as pure as the God's Given Snow, but inadvertantly say the wrong thing, and you've committed a crime punishable by Jail time.

Why do you think Alberto Gonzales had his brain scooped out and replaced with "I Can't Recall". Because he was guilty. Now we have the CIA able to recall with clarity meetings that took place 7 years ago...

Sure thing.


Always take the 5th. The law is too complicated these days, and if they want to, they can nail anybody for anything.

[tkmorris]

25. But, what if they knew where a nuke was, in a city?

And it was gonna go off in 30 minutes? What THEN?