Issue 24 benefits ambulance chasing attorneys over Cleveland residents

If you read between the lines of Issue 24, you can see the input of police misconduct attorneys.?There is an adage in law enforcement, you only get one bite at the apple.?It is based on the double jeopardy clause in the 5th Amendment.?Basically, it means that prosecutors only get one shot at trying a case, so get it right the first time.?Otherwise, prosecutors could repeatedly take cases to trial until they get a conviction. ?Issue 24 will give multiple bites at the apple while allowing the attorney to benefit from all the additional investigations and hearings Issue 24 creates.

Follow this hypothetical timeline for an incident if Issue 24 passes and who it will and will not benefit.?A Cleveland officer is involved in a fatal shooting that is investigated by an outside agency.?That investigation is presented to the county prosecutor and/or a grand jury.?They rule the shooting justified, and no criminal charges are filed against the officer.?Investigation one complete.

The Cleveland Division of Police start a procedural investigation of the incident.?That investigation focuses on any policy violations the involved officer may have made.?Additionally, an all-around review is conducted to determine if there is some aspect of training or policy that should be changed or updated.?In our example, no violations are found, or changes needed.?Investigation two complete.

During this time, the attorney files a notice of impending lawsuit against the officer and the city for excessive force.?The city must maintain all related records, but the attorney has until two years after the incident to file the lawsuit.?The attorney will have press conferences where they will release unverifiable statements, evidence out of context, and unproven past misconduct allegations to create the excessive force narrative.?The attorney will have access to most, but not all investigative data from the two investigations already mentioned.?Before Issue 24, the attorney would now have to start their own investigation at their own expense.?After Issue 24, the attorney will wait and make the city pay for more investigations that he or she will have full access to.

The attorney has an anonymous Office of Professional Standards (OPS) complaint made against the involved officer.?OPS now investigates the incident for any misconduct by the involved officer.?OPS interviews the officer and forces the officer to defend their actions before, during, and after the shooting.?OPS has access to more of the previous investigative materials than the attorney and includes it in their investigative report that the attorney can now access.?The attorney now knows how the officer will defend themselves against the accusations.?Investigation three complete.

OPS will now present the findings of their investigation to the Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) in a public hearing.?The CPRB will ask questions of OPS, but the officer, officer’s representation, and union are not there. ?For our example, CPRB finds the officer violated a policy based on the OPS investigators interpretation of the policy.?The CPRB requires the officer be put up on charges for that violation.?Investigation three and detailed review one are complete.

Now the Chief’s Office issues charges for policy violations against the officer.?The officer and their representation (union, attorney, or both) are brought before a hearing officer.?The OPS investigator is part of this hearing as well.?At the hearing, the chief determines the OPS investigator misinterpreted the policy and dismisses the charges against the officer.?Before Issue 24, the Police Chief is the only one allowed to interpret policy.?After Issue 24, officers still cannot interpret policy, but a plethora of untrained investigators, board members, and commissioners (trained/educated or not) can interpret policy.?Investigation three and detailed review two complete.

OPS brings the incident back to the CPRB and at another hearing recommends the CPRB overrule the chief.?OPS will present to the CPRB the information from the Chief’s Office hearing, including any defense the officer presented.?The attorney now has access to two defenses the officer has used, and the attorney has not had to spend any time or money.?For our example, let’s say the CPRB agrees with the chief’s interpretation of policy and dismisses it.?Investigation three and detailed review three complete.?However, the attorney wants more information before filing the lawsuit.

Now the attorney reaches out to the attorney on the Community Police Commission (CPC) and asks for a hearing.?Now the CPC will conduct their own hearing.?The officer and their representation will again have to appear and defend their actions (third time).?The city may have to defend the policy and the chief’s interpretation of that policy.?The CPC, the final authority on police discipline after Issue 24, determines the officer did violate the policy and disciplines the officer.?The mayor, public safety director, and police chief have no say in this and the officer cannot appeal this.?Investigation four and detailed review four complete.

The attorney now has a ruling stating the officer violated policy and was involved in a shooting.?The policy violation does not have to relate to the shooting, only that the officer violated a policy.?Now the attorney files their lawsuit with all the investigative efforts mentioned above, all the review above, all the defenses presented above, and a ruling against the officer.?The attorney had to spend no money, while the city paid everyone involved in the process, some multiple times.?The attorney saw multiple positions taken against the officer, how they were countered, and if they were successful.?Now the city must pay more to defend itself and the involved officer and/or pay a settlement.

That was seven bites at the apple with time to learn and adjust strategies after each bite.?Could you imagine if someone accused of committing a crime went through that process??Issue 24 is designed to benefit a specific group of attorneys and will not make Cleveland safer, only poorer.