MAP Members:
Be Aware of MCOLES and Ethics!

MAP members need to be aware that the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) is attempting to force a new standard on police officer discipline in Michigan. That may sound fine on the surface, but MCOLES if successful, would have the authority to over rule an arbitrator's back to work order.

MCOLES is seeking the authority to revoke an officer's license for "violations of the public trust". What is a violation of the public trust? No one, including MCOLES has been able to define what this term means.

Currently MCOLES can revoke an officer's license for convictions of a felony. It has the ability to suspend for up to one-year an officer's license for a conviction of certain misdemeanors. The change sought by MCOLES would certainly go well beyond the current standards.

MAP is aware of this and is standing firmly against it. The member organizations of MAP are also opposed to this change. Joining us, in an unprecedented alliance against this foolish proposal, is the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACP) and the Michigan Municipal League (MML). Both of these organizations are typically management oriented, but both see this attempt as dangerous to the law enforcement community.

Waterford Township Police Officers Receive Arbitrator's Decision

On May 16, 2006, Arbitrator Stanley Dobry handed down his award and came to a decision regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Waterford Township Police Officers.

They had been without a contract since June of 2004, but the collective bargaining process led to agreements on several issues. The remaining issues to be decided by the Arbitrator were Wages, Sick Leave to include Short & Long Term Disability.

The Arbitrator is required by law to identify each issue as either "economic" or "noneconomic". The classification is critical in that the Arbitrator may adopt either party's offer or its own position on a noneconomic issue. However, on an economic issue, the panel shall adopt the last offer of settlement which, in the opinion of the arbitrator, more nearly complies with the factors set forth by statute. In other words, either one side or the other will win its case.

Though sometimes confusing and contradictory testimony by the Township, the Arbitrator was able to determine, contrary to the Township's argument, that Sick Leave is, in fact, an economic issue and ultimately sided with MAP, in effect leaving the policy as is and currently in place. The adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as stated by the colorful president of the United Mine Workers of America John L. Lewis was used by the Arbitrator in his written decision.

The proverbial baby was split on wages, as each year was treated separately, and the fourth year was split into two separate periods. Ultimately, the officers received a 9.5% increase in wages over the four-year contract with some retroactivity being granted. Michigan's economic downturn, specifically in manufacturing, and the high unemployment rate were reasons cited by the Arbitrator.

It took a long time to get this Collective Bargaining Agreement in place, however Fred Timpner and the Michigan Association of Police never let up, standing by the officers MAP represents every step along the way.

Arbitrator Reinstates Pontiac Officer

While the issue before the Arbitrator - just cause for termination - is brief, the record presented to him to support or refute the claim was voluminous and required an inordinate amount of time to review and study. MAP is grateful that Arbitrator David S. Tanzman did just that.

In the end, Officer Martice Berry was reinstated to duty with retroactive pay and full benefits. The hard work by MAP's Executive Director Fred Timpner and Business Agent Joel Felt was crucial to that decision.

The Arbitrator concluded that the basic rights of Officer Berry were fundamentally disregarded; that he was denied his contractual rights to be fully informed of his alleged infractions in advance of the investigative procedure; and was denied his employee rights to which he was entitled to by contract. Many questions unanswered by the City of Pontiac about its procedures and data throughout the record left enough of a question about a possible bias on its part toward Officer Berry.

In addition to being reinstated with full benefits, Mr. Tanzman ordered that Officer Berry be granted the following:

This is yet another example of how MAP continues to stand by its members and fight for their rights.

MAP Wins Unfair Labor Practice Case

After nearly three years of attempts to bargain in good faith, MAP was forced to file an Unfair Labor Practice complaint with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. It took less than four months after the two hearings for MERC to decide in favor of the Brownstown Police Officers represented by MAP. After continual interference by Township officials and the Teamsters, Administrative Law Judge Julia Stern ordered Brownstown Township, its officers and agents to:

It’s truly unfortunate that MAP had to go to these lengths in order to bargain in good faith for the members of the Police Officers’ Association. It is extremely unnerving that another
labor organization would attempt to interfere with the process set by law. MAP’s staff stayed the course, and once again prevailed.

Mission Accomplished! M.A.P. “SafeStart Program” Claims Major Victory!

For more than a decade, MAP’s SafeStart Program has provided vital protection to eligible rookie police officers in Michigan. More than 1,600 state-of-the-art bullet resistant vests have been received, free of any cost to either the officers or their agencies, by young law enforcement professionals in virtually every area of the state.

The program’s mission, to provide the essential protection of body armor to as many police officers as possible, has been accomplished. A “higher authority” has determined that the huge need to which MAP dedicated itself years ago on a state wide scale will be addressed on the national level.

On November 13, President Clinton signed into law the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000. This legislation, which was passed by a large majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It clarifies the procedures and conditions for the award of matching grants for the purchase of armor vests.

Simply stated, the act will provide, in the coming years, hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding that will enable units of local government with fewer than 100,000 residents to purchase body armor for their law enforcement agencies. As a result, SafeStart will be phased out, MAP Executive Director Fred Timpner announced.

“The provisions of this new law will accomplish on a nationwide scale exactly what we have been striving to do in our state,” Timpner explained. “Police officers will get the kind of protection they require and deserve. Lives will be saved, in Michigan as well as throughout the rest of the nation.” “MAP founded SafeStart with the well-being of police officers foremost in our minds. We understood that many local law enforcement agencies, especially smaller departments, cannot afford to provide body armor for their officers. Now, thanks to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, thousands of officers are going to get bullet resistant vests because the agencies they work for will receive grant funding.”

Just how important are armor vests? This question also could be posed as “Just how great is the need that MAP and SafeStart has led the way in addressing?” Either way, the answer is articulated in the list of findings by Congress that led to creation and passage of the legislation. These include:

1. The number of law enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law enforcement officer in the United States had the protection of an armor vest.

2. According to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law enforcement officers in the United States were killed in the line of duty.

3. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers wearing an armor vest.

4. According to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000 law enforcement officers in the United States.

Under attack in Wayne County

MAP, MAPO lead defense of officers' Garrity protection

The right of police officers to be free from compulsory self-incrimination is under attack in Wayne County, but responsible law enforcement organizations are standing up to the challenge.

County Prosecutor Michael Duggan has taken the position that he can see Garrity statements "any time he wants," despite the 1967 US Supreme Court decision stating that: policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights and ruling that statements which a law enforcement officer is compelled to make under threat of possible forfeiture of his or her job could not subsequently be used against the officer in a criminal prosecution.

Because of Duggan's pronouncement, MAP is warning all police officers, regardless of their union affiliation, to be extremely careful in the way they word any Garrity statements they fill out.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Association of Police Organizations (MAPO) is at the forefront in defending Garrity.

"All MAPO member organizations are working together to not only protect the rule, but to strengthen it, as well," said MAP Executive Director Fred Timpner.

"We have met with the Governor's Office and have been assured of her support on this issue. In addition, our legislative liaison firm, Karoub Associates, has been actively pursuing the goal of clarifying and bolstering Garrity via the State Legislature.

"In fact, Representative Larry Julian (R-Lennon) soon will introduce legislation aimed at achieving these important objectives."

MAP and MAPO are not alone in resisting the prosecutor's attack. The Wayne County Chiefs of Police Association has stated its strong opposition to Duggan's stance and Garden City Police Chief David Harvey has refused, along with others, to accede to it.

"These officials deserve credit for sticking to their principles and to both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court decision," Timpner declared.

The Michigan State Troopers Association (MSTA), also a MAPO member organization, has joined MAP in publicly supporting the chiefs' association and in proclaiming readiness to assist in any legal challenge to Garrity by Duggan's office.

MAP's commitment to safeguarding the integrity of Garrity rights has been demonstrated consistently. The union has even taken a case to the US Supreme Court.

In contrast, one entity representing police officers has, unfortunately and astonishingly, not joined the defense of one of their membership's most basic rights.

"One of our labor relations specialist, Joel Felt, and representatives of several other unions accepted invitations to attend a recent meeting of the Wayne County Chiefs," Timpner said. "He and everyone else present was absolutely dumbfounded when the attorney representing another large police union stated that his organization's position on the issue was 'to remain neutral.'

"Joel said that mouths actually dropped open all around the room when that statement was made."

"MAP can only hope that the members of that union will convey their concern to the organization's leadership and point out the obvious need for backing any defense against this or any other assault on Garrity."

Timpner called the defense campaign "another example of the value of responsible law enforcement unions working together as a cooperating organization - in this case, MAPO - to achieve mutual goals for all of their members."

Along with MAP and the MSTA, MAPO includes: the Police Officers Labor Council (POLC), the Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA), the Detroit Lieutenants and Sergeants Association (DLSA), the Michigan State Command Officers Association (MSCOA), the Warren Police Officers Association (WPOA) and the Flint Police Officers Association (FPOA).

Protecting Our Police Officers

Michigan Association of Police Takes Defense of Privacy Right to State's High Court

The legal battle to protect police officers' right to privacy in matters regarding information compelled by Garrity may be decided by Michigan's Supreme Court.

M.A.P. Labor Attorney Daniel J. Hoekenga has filed an application with the high court for leave to appeal a recent opinion upholding an Oakland County Circuit Court order requiring the release of Garrity statements.

The union's position is that both the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that personnel files of several Pontiac police officers must be made available to the Oakland Press newspaper, which demanded the materials under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Hoekenga said that the appellate court decision failed to recognize a key precedent which supports M.A.P.'s case.

"The Court of Appeals decision, which M.A.P. is challenging by its application, does not mention the express holding of Kent County Deputy Sheriffs v Kent County Sheriff (1999) that the obligations under the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) predominate over those under FOIA," he explained.

"The Court of Appeals improperly refused to recognize that, in the Kent County case, it found that the documents were exempt from disclosure because the public interest in nondisclosure outweighed the public interest in disclosure. That ruling was made on exactly the same grounds that M.A.P. asserted in the Pontiac case in arguing that Garrity statements, and reports prepared in reliance upon such statements, ought to be exempt.

Hoekenga said those grounds, stated by the Court of Appeals in the Kent County case, were:

• Internal investigations are inherently difficult because employees are reluctant to give statements about the actions of fellow employees.
• If their statements would be a matter of public knowledge, employees might refuse to give any statements at all or be less than forthcoming and candid.
• Disclosure could be detrimental to some employees.
• Public disclosure of records relating to internal investigation of possible employee misconduct would destroy or severely diminish the Sheriff Department's ability to effectively conduct such investigations.

"Instead of following its own precedent, the Court of Appeals merely affirmed the lower court's declaration that provisions of M.A.P.'s collective bargaining agreement with the City of Pontiac requiring court action to release items from a police officer's personnel file were contrary to FOIA, Hoekenga said.

He emphasized that M.A.P.'s application for leave to appeal states that the circuit and appellate courts' rulings have the effect of destroying an important assurance given to police officers when they are compelled to give statements relating to the performance of their public duty.

"This assurance is that such compelled statements will not be used nor disclosed to anyone else for any purpose but internal discipline, as the United States Supreme Court indicated in Garrity v New Jersey (1967)," he declared. "It was the 'quid pro quo' for being allowed to compel such statements.

"M.A.P. continues to pursue the case because of its concern about protecting its members' right - and the right of all public employees - not to have statements required of them as a condition of their continued employment.

"Since the Court of Appeals has applied different standards for exemption from FOIA to unions than it does to newspapers, legislative action to clarify what is exempt from disclosure may be in order."

High Court Ruling Limits Police Stop and Search Authority

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) has sharply criticized a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling which severely limited the authority of police to stop and search someone for a gun based on information received from an anonymous person.

The high court's unanimous decision affects cases in which detailed descriptions of suspects' clothing and location are provided by anonymous witnesses.

"We are disappointed and frankly very baffled by the court's decision," declared Robert T. Scully, NAPO Executive Director. "As a consequence of this ruling, the danger to law enforcement officers and the general public will significantly increase.

"Stopping of an individual whom an officer believes is armed and dangerous constitutes the least predictable and the most dangerous duty of a law enforcement officer."

NAPO cited some ugly facts and figures to support this statement: 1. During the 10 year period from 1988 through 1997, 92 percent of the 688 police officers who were killed in the line of duty were the victims of gunfire; 2. Most of these slain officers were shot at close range - within 10 feet of their assailants - in the front of the head or upper torso. Many were shot wile investigating suspicious circumstances.

Scully said law enforcement had asked the court "to adopt a policy of allowing police officers to seize and disarm those individuals presenting a serious risk of injury or death to the officer and the public, as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

"We continue to believe that an anonymous informant's detailed description of an armed suspect's clothing and location, when subsequently verified by the police, should be enough to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, including a concealed weapon," he said.

Unfortunately, the high court disagreed.

News 'n Views
August/September 2000

Court to review Miranda-related case

In another case of critical importance to law enforcement officers, the Supreme Court will examine a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that allows a judge to admit into evidence a voluntary and un-coerced statement by a suspect implicating him in a bank robbery, even though the Miranda warnings were not given because there was a question whether he was in custody at the time.

The issue concerns the power of Congress to make a judgment different from that of the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided Miranda, concerning the Constitutional principle that: "No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

According to NAPO, the primary task for courts in
applying the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination should be to decide whether a suspect's statement was involuntary and coerced, "not to exclude reliable and crucial evidence based on courtroom battle concerning technicalities."

All law enforcement officers have a significant interest in this case because the constitutional principles governing interrogations play a central role in the day-to-day operations of identifying and apprehending criminal offenders.

"Congress crafted section 3501 with an appreciation of the variety of circumstances in which interrogations occur," Scully stated.

"This statute recognizes that a confession may be voluntary, even if the Miranda warnings are not given, and that the rigid application of Miranda's formula, far from benefiting law enforcement, creates an unnecessary cost to the truth-finding function of a criminal trial."

News n' Views
August/September 2000