The conduct by Coeur d’Alene police officers that led to the Barnhouse federal lawsuit against the police and the Arfee killing by the police shouldn’t really surprise us.
When police departments seek to waive relevant entrance, retention, training, and integrity standards, it is inevitable that some unsuitable applicants will be hired and retained. And when those requests for waivers are rather routinely granted by the state’s law enforcement certification agency, it should not surprise readers to know that cities and counties are more than happy to pump out the waiver requests if it will enable them to reduce hiring and retention costs.
It happens in Idaho.
OpenCdA thought it was exceptionally unusual that the Coeur d’Alene Police Department officers in both the Barnhouse and Arfee incidents were field training officers (FTO). Both, it appears, exhibited exceedingly bad judgment and not just on their own but in the presence of trainee officers. That’s a very big deal, because FTOs are supposed to be setting good examples for trainees and reinforcing the standards and training supposedly required by Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). Except now we learn that the POST standards are too frequently waived upon request.
After receiving their pre-service training at either the Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Academy in Meridian or at one of the three college/university POST certification courses, trainee officers return to their sponsoring department to complete a prescribed course of field training and evaluation under the supervision and guidance of one of the department’s FTOs. The FTO has influence with the agency head in determining if a trainee officer has successfully completed the field training. Ultimately, the agency head (usually chief or sheriff) must certify to Idaho POST that the trainee has or has not completed all the prescribed training. A positive recommendation from the agency head to POST generally results in the trainee officer receiving state certification as an Idaho Peace Officer.
The Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training Council is defined and empowered by Idaho Code Title 19, Chapter 51. Specifically, its empowerment and duties relating to training and standards for peace officers are prescribed in Idaho Code § 19-5109.
The composition of the Idaho POST Council is mandated by statute in Idaho Code 19-5102. Please take the time to read this statute carefully.
As we read § 19-5102, and particularly when we read it in conjunction with the introductory narrative on the Idaho POST webpage titled Idaho Post Council, two facets of the Council composition seemed relevant to both the Barnhouse and Arfee incidents.
First, there are no private citizens at large on the POST Council that develops the standards and training programs for Idaho’s law enforcement officers. OpenCdA has strong disagreement with the absence of private citizens on the Idaho POST Council. If private citizens are to have any trust and confidence in their state-certified law enforcement officers, the citizens must have a loud voice to insist that relevant standards (the “S” in POST) are not only in place but are also enforced. The citizens need to be there to ensure the state’s POST Council is obeying the law, not skirting it.
In its present composition, the Idaho POST Council rather regularly grants waivers to departments seeking waivers to the Idaho POST standards. How do we know? Because it is in the minutes of the Idaho POST Council meeting on March 13, 2014. Scroll down in the minutes to page 3, item 6, the item headed Executive Session – Personnel Issues.
Second, two of the statutorily-prescribed members are lobbyists representing the Idaho Association of Counties and the Association of Idaho Cities. By statute, they are nonvoting ex officio members. They do not represent the private citizens of the state; they represent their respective employers. Yet the Chairman of the POST Standards Committee is Dan Chadwick, the lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Counties. He also sits on the POST Executive Committee.
Taken together, we believe these two factors are relevant in Coeur d’Alene’s incidents. It costs a political subdivision a great deal of money to recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified law enforcement officers. Typically, the higher the standards which must be met by applicants to be hired and by experienced officers to be retained, the higher the quality of service the department will deliver to its citizens. But when those standards are either not in place or not enforced, personnel performance will almost certainly degrade. That will result in tort claims and eventually lawsuits against the department and the political subdivision it serves.
We understand the need for the criminal justice components to be on Idaho POST Council. They have the administrative and operational knowledge to develop statewide peace officer standards and training. We even see the reason if not the need for Idaho’s cities and counties being represented, though we don’t necessarily agree those who represent them should be lobbyists. Ultimately it will be the state, cities, and counties who must come up with the funding that is essential to the development and enforcement of standards.
Unfortunately, some law enforcement agency heads or their designates may not have the political courage or the administrative skill to persuasively and authoritatively present their funding needs and to explain the very adverse consequences of lowering (waiving) personnel hiring and performance standards. When that happens, the elected officials who control the funding would often rather see requests for “toys” (equipment) than requests for higher quality personnel.
We were also shocked as we read the minutes of the March 13, 2014, POST Council meeting to see overtures to decentralize training at the Academy and NIC and to return a significant amount of training to individual departments. Given the incidents that have come to light just in Coeur d’Alene, we question whether local departments (more accurately, their administrators) will have the courage to not certify trainees they’ve hired and to de-certify experienced officers who do not meet state standards. We are concerned that state standards will be sidestepped in favor of “local” standards.
When it comes to recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining sworn law enforcement officers, lowering the standards and training measurements to save money is false economy. It may please the local racketeers and corrupt public officials, but it betrays the trust and confidence of the honest citizens who pay the taxes … and the damage awards.