Just recently, I have become aware of a number of situations where an applicant was handled with kid gloves for a variety of reasons all of which were related, in some way, to a perceived increase in potential liability for the agency if the applicant was hired. In most, if not all, places there are some things that will automatically throw you out of consideration for police work: domestic violence issues, drug use, felony convictions or convictions for violent misdemeanors. None (or few) of us would argue those restrictions. We don't need felons, habitual drug users or wife beaters among us. But what about the guy who has already retired from one agency with more than 20 years of good service? In his background he has (as an example) several complaints of excessive force or unprofessionalism. None of the excessive force complaints were ever upheld, and only one of the unprofessional conduct complaints was determined to be of merit. His punishment? A whopping loss of one day of vacation. Obviously, this wasn't a big issue. However, as he applies to a new agency as a veteran officer, he finds himself facing a new problem: his background is causing concerns for the agency considering him.
In today's litigious world, police and sheriff's administrators have a new problem to worry about: the future ramifications of hiring well-qualified but imperfect people. The officer who retires after 23 years but was involved in four shootings in that time span, all of them judged to be justified, when he applies for another agency, the Chief is thinking, "What if he gets in a shooting while he's with my agency? What if lawyers sue the agency because we hired a man with a proven background of violence? Could they twist it that way? What if the jury listens to them? Can I AFFORD to hire this guy? He's got such great credentials but..."
The question is: when does this end? Where is the line drawn? Should police departments stop hiring officers who have had a speeding ticket? After all, that previous traffic citation is "proof" that the agency should know the officer doesn't obey traffic laws. What if that officer gets in a fast chase and the agency gets sued due to property damage or personal injury resulting therefrom? How do we define "due diligence?”
Ultimately there comes a point where the Chief, or his designee, has to make a decision whether or not to hire an applicant. That decision should be made based on the applicant's qualifications and all other information legally obtained about his (or her) background. Background investigations should include, at a minimum:
- A criminal history check by computer and fingerprint card submission to the FBI and state agency
- A check of the applicant's driving record
- A psychological screening
- A polygraph (or similar deception detecting system) screening
- A physical examination to include drug screening, vision and audiogram
- Verification of education level (to department standard)
- A check of military records if appropriate
- Verification of good character by checking with references, neighbors, workmates, etc.
Here is where complications can unnecessarily occur: If the applicant successfully gets through all that; has years of experience; his (or her) neighbors all say what a great person he is; his workmates all say he's terrific; his prior work performance is documented as good (via commendations / evaluations); but he has some skeleton in his closet that makes people think maybe he's not so whistle clean, what do you do with this guy? Take it to the next step: what if he's asked about the specific event during his polygraph/deception test and his answers indicate that he is being completely honest and that black mark in his background shouldn't be there?
At what point is it safe for the Chief to say, "Okay; we've done all we can and as near as we can tell this guy is clean. Sure, he has this black mark in his background, but all his character references are great; his work history is fantastic; his qualifications are terrific; and as best we can tell, he is being completely honest when he says he's never done 'x'." The reality today is that they may never be safe in saying exactly that. They may, simply for the purpose of protecting the agency from potential future liability, have to say, "We can't hire you."
This makes me think of the line in the movie S.W.A.T. when the Captain says, "Sometimes doing the right thing ain't doing the right thing." That is so true. But when you prepare to do the right thing, ignoring the rules as you do (because the rules simply can't cover every set of circumstances that life can throw your way), recognize that you may be burning your future. Sure, it may be the honorable thing to do. Sure, it may be the right thing to do. Sure, it may be the just thing to do. But rest assured, if it breaks a rule anywhere - or anyone who doesn't like you can make it look like it did - you are potentially writing off your future.
Remember this too: it never has to be proven that you did XYZ wrong. In some cases it only has to be alleged and if you can't prove you didn't then folks will assume you did. I know of a case (and this is kind of ironic since I'm talking about Chiefs making decisions) wherein an applicant for a Chief's position failed a drug test: he popped hot for cocaine. It took quite a bit of talking on his part, but he convinced the Town Council to send him for another drug test and he passed the second one. The Council believed that the first positive return was a mistake on the lab's part and the man got the Chief's job. If he had an applicant that pissed hot and then asked for a second test, would he have allowed it? I hope so, but it's an entirely different outlook at that point. The Chief must worry about the present and the future.
We also all know that none of us is perfect. For every person I can find that will say something good about me I can probably find five who have something bad to say. Why? Because for too long in my life I simply didn't care who I angered. There was insufficient filter between my brain and mouth. The fact of the matter is there probably still isn't a sufficient filter there today... I've just learned to couch what I say in a slightly more diplomatic fashion.
Chiefs: when you have that almost perfect applicant and (s)he has some blemish in an otherwise perfect background, consider giving them the benefit of the doubt - especially if you can articulate how well everything else came back and the fact that their deception tests all showed they were being honest.
Applicants: always tell the truth. Hide nothing. Lie about nothing. If you don't get the job, then at least no one can ever accuse you of being dishonest. None of us is perfect. Don't be ashamed of your faults - especially if you did nothing wrong. Don't ever look back with regret. Look forward and plan your next step to improve yourself and what you have to offer. Living life is all about the future, not the past. Learn from it, but don't relive it ad nauseum.
BE SAFE!
