Public hearings set for Nov. 15 and 16
Everyone wants fair and unbiased law enforcement; in the United States today, red flags abound.
There were 19 current and former law enforcement officers involved in the Jan. 6 riot, which was promoted by extremist and hate groups.
A Reuters investigation found a “significant number of U.S. police instructors have ties to a constellation of armed right-wing militias and white supremacist hate groups, a report that adds to a fast-growing body of evidence showing a deadly threat inside U.S. police departments.”
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights released a report in April finding a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in the Minneapolis Police Department.
At a minimum, addressing these problem will require changes to law enforcement’s hiring process, training, and discipline.
The Board of Minnesota Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) is in the middle of reviewing new rules that would reject job applicants and terminate current officers who support extremist or hate groups, and make other changes.
Under the POST Board’s current rules, it can revoke a peace officer’s licenses only when he or she is convicted of a felony or certain gross misdemeanors.
On June 20, the POST Board released a first draft of new licensing rules that would allow the Board to revoke an officer’s license for violating its code of conduct guidelines — such as supporting a hate group — regardless of whether the officer violated a law.
The POST Board was flooded with 1,667 public comments. The Board provided a summary and response to comments, and issued a revised rule Sept. 28.
The Post Board has set on-line public hearings; here are the dates and links:
- Hearing #1: 9 a.m., Tuesday, November 15
- Hearing #2: 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 16
Hate group participation
The rule’s initial draft expanded the reasons to revoke, suspend or deny a peace officer’s license to those who support or participate in, “hate” or “white supremacists” groups.
Opposition came from the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota Peace and Police Officers Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, and others. They argued “that the terms ‘white supremacist,’ and ‘extremist or hate group’ are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague and infringe on an applicants’ and licensees’ rights to privacy, free speech, religion, association, due process, and protection against self-incrimination.”
Those supporting the rule change included the AFL-CIO, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Center for Victims of Torture, Communities United Against Police Brutality, The Advocates for Human Rights, and the Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage.
According to The Advocates for Human Rights, the “proposed changes are consistent with international standards for policing, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the United Nations in 1979.”
The revised rule includes the following:
It is a violation of standards of conduct to: “support, advocate for, or participate in a white supremacist, hate, or extremist group or criminal gang …. as demonstrated by:
(1) dissemination of hate or extremist material;
(2) engagement in cyber or social media posts, chats, forums, and other forms of promotion of the group’s activities or ideology;
(3) display or use of insignia, colors, tattoos, hand signs, slogans, or codes associated with the group;
(4) direct financial or in-kind contributions to the group;
(5) a physical or cyber presence in the group’s events; or
(6) other conduct that could reasonably be considered support, advocacy, or participation.
The new rule also says each peace officer applicant “must consent to, disclose, and facilitate a review of social media accounts, platforms, and groups in which the applicant has participated to the extent permitted by law.”
Psychological testing
The revised rule says a psychologist’s evaluation of a law enforcement candidate must include a written report “that addresses the psychological demands of a peace officer’s responsibilities and an evaluation of any emotional or mental condition that might adversely affect the performance of the duties as a peace officer, including discriminatory conduct.”
Several law enforcement groups criticized the initial rule, saying terms such as “discriminatory conduct” were too vague, and the rule overbroad.
The revised rule defines “discriminatory conduct” as follows:
“Discriminatory conduct” means a pattern of conduct or a single egregious act that evidences knowing and intentional discrimination based on the actor’s perception of a person’s race, color, creed, religion, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or public assistance or any other protected class as defined in Minnesota statutes or federal law; and would lead an objectively reasonable person to doubt the actor’s ability to perform the duties of a peace officer in a fair and impartial manner.
Next Steps
The POST Board could make additional changes based on comments at the public hearings. The rules would still need final board action.
Expect a legal challenge if the rules are approved.
Law enforcement associations have argued that the POST Board is exceeding its statutory authority, shifting disciplinary authority away from local agencies to the state, and violating labor agreements.
The Post Board said it’s acting within the law, which allows it “to establish minimum selection standards and standards of conduct.”
Further, the new rule doesn’t violate labor agreements because it’s a licensing issue separate from employment issues, the Board said. It’s not acting as an employer but as a licensing body when disciplining an officer.
healingmnstories.wordpress.com 
This is great journalism. Thank you!
LikeLike