Source: https://www.policelawblog.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:49:54+00:00

Document:
It is very important for police officers to be prepared to deal with criminal defense attorneys when trial is pending. Both police officers and criminal defense attorneys are just trying to do their jobs when dealing with the court process. The key for law enforcement officers is not to get upset or defensive in their dealings with criminal defense attorneys. It is not helpful to consider the criminal defense attorney an enemy, but part of the judicial process itself. It is also important to consider the following tips in dealing with criminal defense attorneys as a case goes to trial.
The topic often of excessive force often comes up in our representation of law enforcement officers. Police officers can imagine why this would be a major issue given that it has the potential to end their career and/or cause them to be criminally prosecuted. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are only trying to do their job, while risking their lives, in protecting the public. This article examines the basics of "excessive force" and offers some tips to law enforcement officers who may be subject to complaints.
One of the latest issues for law enforcement officers, which has come under increasing review involves Giglio-type or Brady-type lists that are compiled by prosecutor's offices and law enforcement employers. The existence of these lists have been both known and unknown to officers, but as the media has increased scrutiny over law enforcement officer-related media events/cases, these types of lists have come under renewed scrutiny. I have also seen cases where prosecutors have disliked a law enforcement officer and unjustly placed them on such a list knowing the employment ramifications for such officers. Frankly, even if well-intended, it is difficult for prosecutors to keep such a list accurate or evenly applied, in our experience. Additionally, if such a list has been developed, it is important to develop strong due process procedures that permit the law enforcement officer to challenge their placement or continued listing on the Giglio-type lists.
It is not uncommon for police departments across the United States to have pay issues. One of the most common pay issues that police and federal law enforcement officers face is the failure of police departments to pay overtime correctly under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or similar state overtime provisions. The number of issues that an officer can face regarding such issues are practically endless and ever evolving. This article discusses some of the issues that police departments and law enforcement agencies have with respect to the correct payment of overtime. For police departments and other law enforcement employers, making a mistake in the payment of overtime or other calculations is a major risk and can, in some cases, cause double damages, the payment of attorneys fees and other damages. In some states, like Massachusetts, incorrect overtime payment has the potential to cause "treble" triple damages. Because each state overtime laws vary, this article will focus on the FLSA.
The FLSA establishes minimum wage and overtime pay standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and Local governments. The FLSA is far more complicated with respect to law enforcement officers. There are numerous types of FLSA issues that can rise to lawsuits for pay issues not properly handled. These can range from not paying overtime or compensatory time properly, to not paying for certain compensable activities. The FLSA can be enforced by officers in a number of forums, including the U.S. courts or, where appropriate, in arbitration.
Law enforcement personnel are employees who are empowered by federal, state or local ordinance to enforce laws designed to maintain peace and order, protect life and property, and to prevent and detect crimes; who have the power to arrest; and who have undergone training in law enforcement. 29 U.S.C. 207 (k) provides a partial exemption for employees in the law enforcement by requiring them to work 43 hours per week (not the standard 40) before overtime compensation is required to be paid. Law enforcement activities involve work directly and primarily concerned with patrol and control functions, executing the orders of a court, planning/conducting investigations related to violations of criminal laws.
(2) in the case of such an employee to whom a work period of at least 7 but less than 28 days applies, in his work period the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed a number of hours which bears the same ratio to the number of consecutive days in his work period as 216 hours (or if lower, the number of hours referred to in clause (B) of paragraph (1)) bears to 28 days, compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.
Police departments may pay some FLSA overtime benefits to officers with compensatory time, instead of overtime payments in certain circumstances. Compensatory time in lieu of payment for FLSA overtime must be paid at the the rate of time and one-half. A police department may limit the number of hours an officer may carry in their FLSA compensatory leave, in any amount up to 480 hours. However, police departments may not impose a "use it or lose it" system where time must be used of forfeited. However, police departments may require officers to "use accrued FLSA compensatory time, or may buy out FLSA compensatory time from officers. The scope of the law with respect to compensatory time remains subject to change. I expect that this area of law will be more fully clear in the next 5-10 years.
Court of Federal Claims held that federal air marshals were entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for hours that they worked in excess of 43 hours per week. Federal Air Marshals v. U.S., 84 Fed. Cl. 585 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
Employees working as firearms instructors for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) were entitled to overtime pay under 29 U.S.C. 207 because they could not be considered as exempt employees when they did not meet regulatory requirements for teaching professionals. The court further held that the FLETC could not be considered educational establishment; instructors were not required to have any teaching experience to work at Center, did not participate significantly in teaching plans or programs offered, were not classified by Office of Personnel Management as education employees, and were not engaged in activity that imparted knowledge on participants. Astor v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
While there is nothing improper about state or local government employer adopting 29 U.S.C. 207 (k) framework in order to take advantage of statute's provisions, employer may not impose sham changes in its employment scheduling and compensation policies so as to evade FLSA. Ball v. City of Dodge City, 67 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 1995).
Pursuant to the FLSA, all time that is worked is considered to be compensable and must be paid. For officers who work as canine handlers, the time they spend at home or outside their scheduled work shift providing, caring or working with their for dogs is considered work time. Thus, canine handlers must be paid, often with overtime compensation, for time they spend caring for their dogs.
Time spent by police canine officers administering medications, feeding and training their dogs, and cleaning their kennels were compensable under the FLSA and must be paid as regular overtime. The court held this despite the fact that canine officers were paid an additional $1000 per year did not constitute an agreement between the parties. Lewallen v. Scott County, 724 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
Federal Court of Claims held that DHS canine enforcement officers were owed up to 4 additional hours of compensation a week for time spent laundering towels and preparing training aids for contraband-sniffing dogs, but off-duty time spent grooming the dogs or practicing with firearms was not compensable. DHS was then held liable for double damages for willfully failing to compensate 60 customs officers for overtime. Bull v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 212 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
Police officers must, in most circumstances, be compensated for work activities that are performed before or after their work shifts when those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal work activities for which the person is employed. For police officers, time that is spent attending roll calls, maintaining law enforcement equipment, evaluating firearms, attending meetings, writing incident or other reports, are often considered to be an integral and indispensable part of the principal work activities and must be compensated with overtime.
Police detectives in Emporia successful in asserting overtime claims for lunch periods; liquidated (double) damages allowed. Armitage v. City of Emporia, 782 F.Supp. 537 (D. Kan. 1992).
Donning and doffing cases have sought, with very limited success, to seek FLSA compensation for failing to compensate police officers for putting on uniforms and gear. Police officers typically have argued that the time spent donning and doffing the uniform and related gear was compensable.
An employer's requirement that pre-or post-shift activities take place at the workplace may indicate that the activities are integral and indispensable to an employee's duties. Alvarez v. IBP, 339 F.3d 894, 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that that donning and doffing of protective gear in that case was integral and indispensable activities in part because they had to be performed at the workplace), aff'd, 546 U.S. 21 (2005). Other cases have held the opposite. Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that donning and doffing of police uniforms were not integral and indispensable activities in that case because they were "not required by law, rule, the employer or the nature of the police officers' work to be performed at the employer's premises").
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that it was possible that donning and doffing of City Law Enforcement rangers' uniforms could be integral and indispensable to their principal work duties and compensable. Perez v. City of New York, 832 F.3d 120, 123 (2nd Cir. 2016). Under the right facts, a donning and doffing case in the future could have potential.
Law enforcement officers and their unions should be aware of FLSA issues that affect them and their compensation. Our law firm advises and represents law enforcement officers in FLSA matters. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. The Firm's Facebook page can be found here.
Our law firm represents and advises law enforcement officers in legal proceedings. One of the principal functions of police or other law enforcement officers is to provide testimony in criminal, civil or administrative cases. We often defend law enforcement officers when allegations are made against them and often advise police officers regarding their testimony in administrative, civil and criminal matters. We have provided below, the following tips for law enforcement officers to consider when providing testimony in any of these forums in order to present the best case possible.
Focus on the Question Asked: an officer should respond directly and honestly to the questions being asked by the defense or government attorney during testimony, but the best advice is not to try to add additional testimony to justify an action taken. We have found that officers that politely and shortly answer a defense attorney's questions increase the importance of their testimony and minimize criminal defense attorney attacks on cross-examination. It is not usually advisable for an officer to provide additional information that has not been sought. Many a case has taken a turn for the worse when an officer adds additional information that was not asked by a criminal defense or other attorney.
Don't be Defensive: the more calm and collective that a police officer is during his or her testimony, the more credible that testimony is. Many criminal defense attorneys will try to rattle a law enforcement officer by attacking them during testimony. The officer should keep a proper mindset, before, during and after testimony and wait until the defense attorney is done speaking, pause, and then politely respond. We have found that no matter the forum, the more calm a police officer is in responding to aggressive tactics, the more credible that officer's testimony will be. If an officer responds aggressively, it can weaken their testimony. It is important for a law enforcement officer to also do their best to manage their body language. The calmer an officer appears, the more credible he or she will appear to others. It is critical that when the defense attorney attempts to present the officer as biased that he or she politely responds in the negative. Many criminal defense or government attorneys will try, on purpose, to get into an argument with the officer. Officers are advised not to take this bait. In short, the calmer the law enforcement officer response, the worse it is for criminal defense attorneys in their case.
Preparation for Testimony is Key: preparation for testimony is also of key importance for the law enforcement officer. It cannot be overemphasized that a police officer should prepare for any testimony that will be given, regardless of forum (criminal, civil, administrative). If the case involves a criminal proceeding, a law enforcement officer should ensure that they have reviewed all evidence, any related reports and kept in contact with the prosecutor to ensure that they are all on the same page for the criminal case. This also applies when the officer is testifying in the forums, such as disciplinary or civil proceedings.
Keep Answers Short and to the Point: along with Tip #1, regarding focus, it is generally important for a law enforcement officer to answer questions asked as succinctly and to the point as possible. Some of the best testimony I have seen by police officers was where they politely, with a calm voice, answered no or yes to a question without elaborating. A more advanced response technique that I have seen is that after the yes or no, the officer appears as if he or she is about to testify with additional information and then simply remains quiet. If a criminal defense attorney or government attorney seeks additional information they will ask it (and sometimes they will forget to do so).
Look Polished and Put Together: It is important, on the day of testimony, for the law enforcement officer to dress well, look polished and sit up straight during testimony. This is very helpful. A more polished police officer will be deemed more credible in most situations. A sharp police uniform, or suit (e.g. if assigned to detective duties), can do wonders about the believability of testimony.
There are many other tips and thoughts for the law enforcement officer who will be testifying in criminal, administrative or civil proceedings but these are some of the ones that come to mind given our practice in representing law enforcement officers over the years.
Law enforcement officers should keep updated on changes in law enforcement technology within their department and department policies regarding these types of devices. Law enforcement technology is changing so fast these days that an officer can potentially get into administrative trouble and need legal defense when department's technology outpaces their policies in handling or disclosing such information. Our law firm advises and represents law enforcement officers in disciplinary and civil matters. We can be contacted at Berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. The Firm's Facebook page can be found here.
Our law firm represents and advises law enforcement officers. A relatively new issues that has come up as of late involves law enforcement department devices which collect massive amount of information. The technology has advanced so far, that significant amounts of information is collected and retained every day. While it has been assumed for some time that this type of information was not obtainable through information request sought by the general public, a new case has cast some doubt or at least some new arguments on the issue that law enforcement should be aware of. In a recent decision, information collected by law enforcement officers from automobile drivers through license plate readers has been ruled not to be necessarily be protected from disclosure. The California Supreme Court recently held in late August that the information collected by law enforcement officers on motorists does not necessarily constitute "investigative records" which are normally kept from the general public. A copy of the opinion can be found here.
Automated license plate readers used by law enforcement officers are very high-speed cameras which are mounted on police vehicles or on light poles (mainly at intersections or other fixed locations). The technology is such that these devices continuously scan and record the license plate of every passing vehicle. Additionally, the date, time and location may be recorded, with a photograph of the vehicle and possible photos of the driver/passengers. Many police departments, on a national basis, utilize the information as a tool to potentially track the whereabouts of criminal suspects.
"The ALPR data collection system at issue here utilizes high-speed computer-controlled cameras mounted on fixed structures or on patrol cars. The cameras automatically capture an image of the license plate of each vehicle that passes through their optical range. For each image, the ALPR system uses character recognition software and almost instantly checks the license plate number against a list of license plate numbers that have been associated with crimes, child abduction AMBER alerts, or outstanding warrants. This list of license plate numbers comprises the investigative “hot list.” When a hot list match occurs, the system alerts either officers in a patrol car or a central dispatch unit, depending on whether the ALPR unit that detects a match is mounted on a patrol car or a fixed structure. Most license plate numbers that ALPR units capture do not match the hot list and have no perceived connection to any crimes, AMBER alerts, or outstanding warrants.3 The ALPR technology records each scanned license plate number, together with the date, time, and location of the scan, and stores the data on confidential computer networks. LAPD estimates that it records data from 1.2 million cars per week. It retains license plate scan data for five years. LASD estimates that it records between 1.7 and 1.8 million license plates per week. It retains scan data for two years. When new investigations arise, real parties query their stored databases to obtain any available location history of relevant vehicles. Both the LAPD and LASD restrict database access to law enforcement."
The lawsuit arose when the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the plaintiffs, requested information under the California Public Records Act (CPSA), seeking records related to those agencies’ use of ALPR technology, including "all ALPR data collected or generated" during a one-week period in August 2012, consisting of, ‘at a minimum, the license plate number, date, time, and location information of each license plate recorded.’ ” The police departments in Los Angeles who received this request refused to provide that information based on the law enforcement investigation exemption in the CPSA, which is contained in many other similar state and federal records request laws.
"ALPR scanning does not produce records of investigations, because the scans are not conducted as part of a targeted inquiry into any particular crime or crimes. The scans are conducted with an expectation that the vast majority of the data collected will prove irrelevant for law enforcement purposes. We recognize that it may not always be an easy task to identify the line between traditional “investigation” and the sort of “bulk” collection at issue here. But wherever the line may ultimately fall, it is at least clear that real parties’ ALPR process falls on the bulk collection side of it. Nor does the act of querying the database for information on particular vehicles transform existing ALPR scan records into exempt “[r]ecords of . . . investigations” (§ 6254(f)). A plate scan in itself always remains a result of bulk data collection, rather than a record of investigation, even if it has the potential to match a future search query. The fact that a database has been searched or that a plate in the database has been matched in a search does not increase the concerns identified in Haynie with respect to disclosure of the database. Moreover, a contrary rule would enable an agency to exempt such data, purportedly to advance some more traditional “investigation,” simply by searching the entire database. Therefore, the bulk collection of raw ALPR data here is not exempt from disclosure under section 6254(f)."
The court left open other potential ways in which the information could be potentially protected from disclosure, but that the question remained open. The court then remanded the case so that the lower court could balance, on a case by case basis, whether disclose of such records (and disclosure to what extent) is proper. The court also placed the burden on the police departments to show why such information should not be disclosed. The court left open many questions, but an issue that was seemingly closed, the disclosure of mass information collected by law enforcement devices, may now be open to re-examination not just by California but many other states and localities as these issue arise through the use of advanced law enforcement technology. There are certain to be more cases to come. It is not hard to imagine plaintiff's lawyers seeking the information related to civil proceedings involving automobile accidents or perhaps criminal defense attorneys. Given this potential, it is important for officers to at least be aware of these types of questions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.