LEO training & qualification

[XD45]

IIRC knives can be left up to the localities in PA.

Compare law school to the police academy, and then look at how most/all lawyers don't know every law in and out so to expect an officer to is ridiculous. They would need years and years of school, for a low wage job.

[sjl127]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Not practical.

Even DA's, attorneys and judges have to research case law and statutes. To expect a street cop to know state law "inside and out" is something even lawyers can't do.

That's the reason why, when you have an encounter with a policeman, shut your mouth and don't say a word. There's plenty of time to lay your cards out in a courtroom, where it should be.

[ar15jules]

ANY municipal police officer in the Commonwealth is required to attend a certain number of hours each year at update training. IT IS REQUIRED.
Jules

[BearTitan]

Members of this forum are a little overly sensitive to LEO knowledge regarding gun laws. There is a reason that most cops do not know the UFA front to back. That is because guys like us make up such a small percentage of the crime that the LEO's deal with.

I would wager that a traffic cop could identify 100 different moving violations. Also that a DEA cop could tell you which substances are illegal and which are not.

Like all of us, police are experts on the stuff they spend 90% of their time doing.....dealing with criminals. Cut them a little slack when they deal with you. They don't have the luxury of looking up every law on the web like we do.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by BearTitan

Members of this forum are a little overly sensitive to LEO knowledge regarding gun laws. There is a reason that most cops do not know the UFA front to back. That is because guys like us make up such a small percentage of the crime that the LEO's deal with.

I would wager that a traffic cop could identify 100 different moving violations. Also that a DEA cop could tell you which substances are illegal and which are not.

Like all of us, police are experts on the stuff they spend 90% of their time doing.....dealing with criminals. Cut them a little slack when they deal with you. They don't have the luxury of looking up every law on the web like we do.

I'm just about the first guy to give the police a break, but I'm really starting to think more strongly that if you're in the business of arresting people for violating criminal laws, you better know what the law is when you make that pinch.

It's not all that hard to become a subject matter expert in a narrow slice of the law, criminal law, especially when the standard you are judged by is just probable cause. Sure, lawyers, DAs and judges are members of a learned profession that takes many years to master, but the stakes are higher and the standards harder once it gets to that level.

Once a cop makes the arrest, if it's not a valid arrest, the poor slob eventually released might have already lost his job for not showing up for work, now has an arrest record, and has to go through a lengthy and expensive battle to get the arrest expunged. Sure, he can sue, but that also takes time, money and energy. It's not a minor oops, I didn't know any better, type of mistake.

I'm not talking about arrests that a cop has good faith probable cause to perform -- looks like what somebody did is a crime -- make the arrest. I'm thinking, obviously, as in Pa. Patriot's situation -- if the cop is unsure about the law and the situation is stable (nobody is acting dangerous and they're willing to hang around for you to make a few calls to find out if they have to show ID, while they go back to their dinner) -- call somebody who knows. If you can't get a straight answer that something is illegal, you don't have probable cause that a crime has been commited because you don't even know if it's a crime. You don't arrest people and figure it out later. You figure it out and then arrest. If that means you might let somebody off who actually did commit a crime but you weren't reasonably sure it was, open a book and start learning so that doesn't happen again.

We're not talking about some esoteric law buried in the books. Bread and butter can a cop stop someone and demand ID. No. No gray area in that one. Can the cop arrest someone for refusing to show ID in those circumstances. No. Isn't that something we think most cops should know?

I'm open to other points of view because there are likely a myriad of uintended consequences resulting from this point of view, but for right now, I'm leaning strongly toward a simple requirement that nobody gets arrested if the police don't have probable cause to believe that a law has or hasn't been broken, and not knowing, at least in its most basic elements, what the law is under which someone is arrested would give me reason to conclude there could not have been probable cause.

[BearTitan]

Philadelphia, I agree with most of what you wrote, except for the insinuation that criminal law is a small volume of knowledge. I think that we are all very aware of situations like PA Patriot's arrest which was absolute total BS. The cop made a judgement call that was wrong. Other than admitting that and learning from it, I don't know what we can expect him to do.

Most of the times, though, cops deal with criminals. That is the job we have put them in. The reason they treat everyone like a criminal is that they spend 60 hours a week dealing with them. Should they understand the law better? Yes. Can we expect the $10 or $20 per hour cop on the street to know the laws relating to an issue that may come up once in his career? I say that it is not reasonable to expect that.

IMO, when we, as citizens, are OK with the taxes to support $200K per officer per year police compensation, then we can expect those folks to be experts on the entire criminal law.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by reverserboy

I've been thinking after talking to some LEO both PSP and local. I think it's too easy to become a cop in PA. It seems a fair # of cops just don't know what they're doing.

I take it you're familiar with the following minimum standards and find them to be insufficient:

§ 203.11. Qualifications.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), persons who are to be employed as police officers by police departments within this Commonwealth from December 21, 1996, shall:

(1) Be 18 years of age or older.

(2) Possess a high school diploma or GED Equivalency.

(3) Be citizens of the United States.

(4) Be free from convictions of disqualifying criminal offenses.

(5) Be able to read at no less than the ninth grade level, as established through the administration of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test.

(6) Be personally examined by a licenced physician, physician's assistant, or certified nurse practitioner who is licensed in Pennsylvania. The examination shall include the following:

(i) Applicants shall be free from the addictive or excessive use of either alcohol or drugs which shall be determined using current laboratory testing procedures.

(ii) Applicants shall be free from the use of illegal controlled substances which shall be determined using current laboratory testing procedures.

(iii) Applicants physical condition shall be such that applicants could reasonably be expected to withstand significant cardiovascular stress.

(iv) Applicants shall be free from any debilitating conditions such as tremor, incoordination, convulsion, fainting episodes or other neurological conditions which may affect the applicants' ability to perform as police officers.

(v) Applicants shall have visual acuity of at least 20/70, uncorrected in the stronger eye, correctable to at least 20/20; and at least 20/200, uncorrected in the weaker eye, correctable to at least 20/40. In addition, the applicant shall have normal depth and color perception and be free of any other significant visual abnormality.

(vi) Applicants shall have audio acuity sufficient to distinguish a normal whisper at a distance of 15 feet. The test shall be independently conducted for each ear while the tested ear is facing away from the speaker and the other ear is firmly covered with the palm of the hand. The applicant may not use a hearing aid or other aid to perform the test. If the applicant fails this test, the applicant shall be required to take and pass a decibel audio test.

(vii) Applicants may not be missing any extremities, including digits, which would prevent performance of required police duties or meeting minimum training requirements.

(viii) Applicants shall be free from any other significant physical limitations or disabilities which would, in the physician's opinion, impair the applicant's ability to perform the duties of a police officer or complete the required minimum training requirements.

(7) Be personally examined by a Pennsylvania licensed psychologist and found to be psychologically capable to exercise appropriate judgment or restraint in performing the duties of a police officer. The examination shall include the following elements:

(i) Interview and history. The psychologist shall personally interview the applicant. The interview shall include a summary of the applicant's personal, educational, employment and criminal history.

(ii) Required psychological test. Applicants shall be administered a current standard form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).

(iii) Other testing methods. If the licensed psychologist is unable to certify the applicant's psychological capability to exercise appropriate judgment and restraint to perform the duties of a police officer including the handling of a lethal weapon, the psychologist shall employ whatever other appropriate techniques to form a professional opinion of the applicant's ability. The use of these additional techniques requires a full and complete written explanation to the Commission on a form submitted by the psychologist to the Commission indicating what additional testing has been performed and the results of the tests.

(8) Be evaluated to determine physical fitness using the standards developed by the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research in Dallas, Texas. Each applicant shall score no lower than the 30th percentile of the Cooper standards, which coincides with the 30th percentile of the general population, in each of the five required evaluations to be eligible for employment. A person will not be enrolled in a recruit training program at a police academy certified by the Commission unless the person has obtained a score in the 30th percentile or higher for the person's age and gender as specified in the Cooper standards for each of the five evaluations. The five required evaluations are as follows:

(i) 1.5 mile run.

(ii) 300 meter run.

(iii) One repetition bench press.

(iv) One minute sit ups.

(9) Certify whether they have taken a physical examination or psychological evaluation conducted in conjunction with an application for police employment within the previous year and the outcome of the examination or evaluation.

(10) Be subject to a thorough background investigation conducted by the applicant's employing police department. The investigation shall include the following:

(i) A criminal history check including the submission of fingerprints to the Central Repository for the Commonwealth and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(ii) A check of the applicant's credit history.

(iii) Personal interviews conducted with at least 3 people that have personal knowledge of the applicant but are not related to the applicant.

(iv) Interviews of the applicant's employers, if any, for the past 5 years to determine the applicant's work history.

(v) A check of the applicant's driving record verifying that the applicant has a valid driver's license.

(11) Successfully complete a basic police training course given at a Commission-certified school or obtain a waiver of training as enumerated in § 203.12 (relating to waiver of training).

(i) Successful completion of a basic police training course shall be determined by the training school, based upon Commission standards.

(ii) To qualify for this certification, an applicant shall:

(A) Achieve a minimum qualifying firearms score of 75%.

(B) Receive certification for First Aid and CPR from the American Red Cross, the Department of Health, the American Heart Association or other agencies approved by the Department of Health.

(C) Comply with Commission and school rules and regulations.

(D) Pass the same certification exam administered to those seeking waiver of training as set forth in § 203.12(4).

(E) Attend 100% of all classes.

(I) Excused absences shall be mutually agreed upon by the police officer's department head and school director. School directors shall determine excused absences for applicants not employed as police officers.

(II) Excused absentees shall include personal illness or injury, illness in the immediate family requiring the applicant's attention or death in the immediate family.

(F) Complete the basic training course approved by the Commission with a minimum grade as established by the Commission. The Commission will publish a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and in the Commission newsletter whenever the minimum grade on each tested area of examination changes.

(I) Applicants not achieving the minimum grade in any tested area shall repeat the failed training in that area before being eligible to take the examination in that tested area at a Commission-certified school. If the applicant fails to achieve the minimum grade on the applicant’s second attempt, the applicant shall be required to successfully retake and pass the entire basic police training course to qualify for certification.

(II) Applicants not achieving the minimum grade in two separate tested areas during one basic police training course shall be required to retake and pass the entire basic police training course in order to qualify for certification.

Many police departments have much higher standards, to include college degrees. These are the bare bones requirements. A typical background questionnaire is about an inch thick, and that's without the attachments. You'd be amazed at what they want to know.

The hiring process with most departments is even more Machiavellian. Written tests, physical agility, at least one (and usually two) stress interviews (not "hi, welcome to BFE Police, why should we hire you?"), polygraph, etc.

What did you have to do to get your job?

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by ar15jules

ANY municipal police officer in the Commonwealth is required to attend a certain number of hours each year at update training. IT IS REQUIRED.
Jules

This is true, but it is not enough. Typically, it's a 3 hour block for legal updates, combined with some other courses. This year it was games criminals play, hidden compartments in cars, and radical Islam. Add to this CPR/First Aid, and firearms quals.

The state controls the curriculum. All cops statewide get the same classes.

The MPOETC is loath to establish recurrent requirements that would put a strain on smaller, part-time departments.

Progressive departments maintain their own in-house training programs to address issues they feel are important.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I'm just about the first guy to give the police a break, but I'm really starting to think more strongly that if you're in the business of arresting people for violating criminal laws, you better know what the law is when you make that pinch.

It's not all that hard to become a subject matter expert in a narrow slice of the law, criminal law, especially when the standard you are judged by is just probable cause. Sure, lawyers, DAs and judges are members of a learned profession that takes many years to master, but the stakes are higher and the standards harder once it gets to that level.

Well said, and I agree.

I will add that many times a valid arrest is made, and the case is lost in court for a variety of reasons. The suspect has surely suffered some harm by being arrested and thrown into the system, but that isn't the arresting officers fault or problem.

For example, a police officer observes two people stealing items from a store. He and another officer arrest the bad guys as they flee the store. The bad guys have records; the stolen property is recovered; the bad guys hit the books. Good job, right? Bread and butter, as you say.

It is until the court listing when the store manager doesn't show up to press charges.

I throw that out to highlight that an arrest that doesn't result in a conviction doesn't mean the arresting officer was wrong.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by BearTitan

Philadelphia, I agree with most of what you wrote, except for the insinuation that criminal law is a small volume of knowledge. I think that we are all very aware of situations like PA Patriot's arrest which was absolute total BS. The cop made a judgement call that was wrong. Other than admitting that and learning from it, I don't know what we can expect him to do.

In fact, it quite possible to know the Crimes Code very well indeed. Anyone making an arrest should be able to cite, at a minimum, the title of the statute they allege was violated.

In Patriot's case, I would argue that the problem goes well beyond bad judgement.

Originally Posted by BearTitan

Most of the times, though, cops deal with criminals. That is the job we have put them in. The reason they treat everyone like a criminal is that they spend 60 hours a week dealing with them. Should they understand the law better? Yes. Can we expect the $10 or $20 per hour cop on the street to know the laws relating to an issue that may come up once in his career? I say that it is not reasonable to expect that.

Not everyone I deal with is a criminal, though a fair share are. I'm pretty good at telling the difference

What you can expect, and what you should actually demand, is that when an officer is unsure of some obscure law, that they obtain counsel before taking action. It's not that hard to make a phone call, or to load a CD of the Crimes Code onto the computer in the car.

Originally Posted by BearTitan

IMO, when we, as citizens, are OK with the taxes to support $200K per officer per year police compensation, then we can expect those folks to be experts on the entire criminal law.

I gladly accept that burden. When do I get my raise?