Las Vegas Sun

October 31, 2014

Currently: 69° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Union advises officers not to testify in new police fatality review hearings

Chris Collins

Chris Collins

The Las Vegas police union’s stance on officer testimony has not changed despite what it calls “positive changes” in the new police fatality review process, approved Monday by the Clark County Commission.

The union representing Metro Police officers — the Las Vegas Police Protective Association — sent a letter to its members Tuesday advising them to not testify if subpoenaed for an officer-involved shooting case.

“While the decision to testify is up to the subpoenaed officer, our legal team still believes that it is not in your best interests to waive your constitutional rights and testify at the hearing,” the union’s executive director, Chris Collins, wrote in the letter.

The new process approved by commissioners is considered an extensive overhaul, but it keeps some practices from the controversial coroner’s inquest, including an ombudsman to represent the public and victim’s family. The power to call witnesses, however, lies in the hands of the district attorney.

The police fatality review process will come into play whenever the District Attorney’s Office makes a preliminary ruling that a fatal officer-involved shooting was not criminal. At that point, a presiding officer and an ombudsman will be chosen for a hearing, and they will receive access to investigatory documents used by the prosecutor. Those documents can be shared with the victim’s family.

During a hearing, the prosecutor is to present the essential facts of the case, which could include testimony from the police officer charged with investigating the officer-involved shooting. The prosecutor could call other relevant witnesses, who could be questioned by the ombudsman and the presiding officer.

Police union leaders note that the district attorney could “change his mind, at any time, and elect to file criminal charges against you.”

In addition, the union asserted that officers’ sworn testimony could be used against them in civil cases involving the department.

Instead, union officials said they would be willing to disclose officers’ “Garrity”-protected statements.

“By doing so, we believe the public will receive the information they desire, and at the same time, you will be able to retain your constitutional rights,” Collins wrote. He goes on to say that, “Simply put, there is no upside to waiving your rights and testifying at such a hearing.”

The “Garrity Rule” stems from a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that a public employee, such as a police officer, can be compelled to give statements about issues related to their employment under threat of discipline or discharge but those statements may not be used in the criminal prosecution of the individual.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 4 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Chunky says:

    You're darn right! LEO have the same 5A rights as the rest of us despite the fact that the government is doing everything they can to chip away at our Constitution.

    Transparency is fine and good but these police officers go up against the nasty knife edge of society day in and day out. There's no holiday for evil and there's only a millisecond between life and death for either party.

    Can LEO be a little heavy handed at times and are there certain officers who take less BS than others; surely there are. However, how stupid do you have to be to ignore verbal warnings from armed police officers?

    How ultra stupid do you have to be to draw a gun from your waistband like Erik Scott did when you're surrounded by armed police officers?

    The police officers do not start the domino effect that ends in the use of deadly force, the bad guys do in one way or the other.

    Get over it, get real and let the police do the dirty jobs they've sworn to do! By the time you've managed to screw up your life enough that you're looking down the barrel of a gun, whether it's a police gun or an armed citizen you've made some serious bad decisions. Let the cops do their job!

    Somebody has to take out the trash!

    That's what Chunky thinks!

  2. I am with Chunky on this one. EVERYONE has the same 5th Amendment rights, even our officers.

    Anyone that things we have the worst crime or worst officers has their head in the sand. Take some time and read the news from many, many other cities. We don't hold a candle on crime or abuse to many other places.

    Do we need a good review system? Yes, but one that is fair and legal for all involved.

  3. The next time someone is accused of a crime, we should round up his family and friends and get their opinion on how he should be handled. If the family and friends of a suspect don't believe anything criminal took place then we should let it go.

    @Chunky (who has "special needs")...Are you going to tell Rhonda Gibson that Metro was "taking out the trash" when they executed her husband?

    When will LVMPD take out their own trash?

  4. Sounds like grounds to DECERTIFY THE UNION and nullify employment contract.