Municipalities and unions can freely negotiate the amount of time a police department can spend investigating a disciplinary or criminal incident allegedly committed by one of its officers. When properly used, these terms can help ensure a timely investigation and incentivize departments to investigate allegations against officers promptly. That said, overly stringent limitations can be used to protect officers from the consequences of misconduct.
While there may be an interest in ensuring investigations are conducted efficiently and for avoiding vague and ill-defined investigations, that interest should not outweigh the need to hold officers accountable. This is particularly true in those cases where the conduct at issue is egregious and raises questions about an officer’s fitness for duty.
Of all the categories we examined, this was the least common issue among the contracts reviewed. Only four of the 25 bargaining agreements specifically restrict when an investigation or disciplinary or legal action can take place, such as after a certain number of days following the triggering event.
Although only 16% of the contracts reviewed have these terms, those that do have limits on investigating and disciplining misconduct that are concerning. The city of Eastpointe, as an example, requires that a predetermination hearing be held within 30 days of a charged violation. It also includes a complete ban on discipline after 90 days from the date the department learned of the alleged violation, unless a notice of charges is filed.
The other agreements with time limitations were based on more nebulous timelines. The city of Midland requires discipline to be brought no more than 90 days after the city should have known of an alleged violation. Portage requires disciplinary investigations to be completed within 70 working days of a complaint being filed. The city of Taylor requires a disciplinary charge be brought within 10 days of an investigation being completed. It also prohibits disciplinary charges from being brought more than 90 days after the underlying incident for minor misconduct, and, for serious misconduct, more than 90 days from the date the city became aware of the incident.
As public servants who play a unique role for the safety and welfare of the public, it is essential that police officers adhere to high standards of professionalism and discipline. Restricting a police department’s ability to hold officers accountable through limits on investigations and disciplinary actions undermines public trust. Although our sample did not reveal this to be a widespread problem, it is nonetheless one that policymakers should take note of when eyeing potential reforms.
Any limitation on timelines for investigations should avoid the potential harms of improperly vague or targeted investigations, as well as ensure finality. Investigatory time limits function similarly to criminal statutes of limitation and should balance the interests of employees and employers in a similar way, while still protecting the public’s safety. That said, an employer should not be prevented from levelling discipline due to a nebulous date of when the employer should have known of the problematic conduct, as this is a subjective standard that could lead to inappropriately protecting bad actors. A more appropriate standard would be a limitation based on discipline after an appropriate period from the date the employer learned of the conduct. To the extent further limitations are desired, collective bargaining agreements could turn to existing statutes of limitations and follow whatever civil or criminal action best corresponds to the underlying charged conduct.