A 50-state look at officer decertification for sex incidents

Admin

An Associated Press investigation into sexual misconduct by law enforcement officers in the U.S. identified some 1,000 in six years who lost their licenses for sexual assault or other sex offenses or misconduct, including possession of child pornography, voyeurism and sex on duty. The findings are based on an analysis of state records for an administrative process called decertification, but the AP found that policies regarding decertification vary widely from state to state. Forty-one states provided information, three did not, and six states and the District of Columbia said they did not decertify officers for misconduct. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

If you are feeling extremely depressed and possibly even suicidal, please call or text 988 (suicide hotline) or any loved one who you believe is immediately available. If you feel depressed and in need of a friendly community and unbiased emotional support, you can email Alex and Marty at emotionalsupportgroup@all4consolaws.org

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify or abbreviate their name. 
  24. Please check for typos, spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors before submitting.  Comments that have many errors will not be approved. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

4 Comments

This article is masked off with a big block-out square.
I wouldn’t wish sex offense prosecution on anyone, cops included. Especially due to the “no contact” parole condition with the offenders own (non-victim) kids. Kids are wrestling with thinking “my mom/dad did something so terrible, I’m not allowed to see her/him for 3-5-10+ years.” What are they trying to achieve with that condition? Are they trying to “make” the next batch of addicts with abandonment issues?

0
View Replies (1)

The Cato Institute conducted and in-depth study of police officer misconduct and according to their numbers the biggest threat to our kids are police officers, not registered citizens. Google it, run the numbers and wonder why this isn’t publicized.

0
Reply

I just came across this article that is related to this.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/AP-Hundreds-of-officers-lose-licenses-over-sex-6603434.php

Registered citizens are not the threat the public wants to believe. It’s those with a badge. Perhaps the scariest part is this:

The probe at once represents both the most complete examination of such wrongdoing and a sure undercount of the problem, limited by a patchwork of state laws. California and New York, for example, had no records because they have no statewide system for revoking the licenses of officers who commit misconduct.

I would imagine, then, there are far more cases of sexual misconduct in California, yet we don’t know about it because of their blue wall of silence, thus putting the public at risk. Lets not forget the officer in the Bay Area downloading women’s nude photos from their cellphones and sending them out to other officers. Quick news bite, but nothing has been said since. Must be nice to be an above the law police officer.

0
Reply