I pointed out the numerous police agencies SBW Law represents. They have one attorney to represent Calvert, Charles, St. Mary's and Prince Georges County. If a police officer gets served with a brutality complaint on Friday, that's no emergency. So that's three days before the cop event gets to talk to his attorney. I don't know how busy you are, but in my job I have my week planned out and appointments scheduled at least a week in advance. It would be very difficult for me to carve out four hours in any week for something which was not already scheduled. 10 days isn't that long when you are trying to fit in the schedules of three people.
Are you saying SBW is the only legal resource available to the entire tri-county police force? LEOBR specifically says:
(j) (1) (i) On request, the law enforcement officer under interrogation has the right to be represented by counsel or another responsible representative of the law enforcement officer’s choice who shall be present and available for consultation at all times during the interrogation.
(ii) The law enforcement officer may waive the right described in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.
(2) (i) The interrogation shall be suspended for a period not exceeding 10 days until representation is obtained
I'm arguing that the 10 day provision is meaningless. Why not revise it to state "The interrogation shall be suspended until representation is obtained"?
WTF does 7 cops from Cleveland...which is in OHIO have to do with Maryland's LEOBR? Can't you stay on script?
Because YOU claimed an officer can be fired for remaining silent (a Constitutional right). I asked for proof, and provided a story contrary to your claim.
Just a FYI, MD LEOBR specifically states:
Retaliation.- A law enforcement officer may not be discharged, disciplined, demoted, or denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment, or otherwise discriminated against in regard to the law enforcement officer's employment or be threatened with that treatment because the law enforcement officer:
(1) has exercised or demanded the rights granted by this subtitle; or
(2) has lawfully exercised constitutional rights.
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/public-safety/title-3/subtitle-1/3-103/
None of your stories are about Maryland's LEOBR. This is what people like you do.
What stories? The ones I posted after we were discussing unions in general?
I was at the hearings last year for the changes to the LEOBR. All of the stories from the ACLU and the other people wanting change were stories about Ferguson or New York.
Even the idiot Jill Carter didn't get it right when she talked about the process.
Deb Ray, is that you?
“I left Missouri 29 years ago. I live in Maryland now,” said Del. Deborah Rey, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Rey questioned the need for police reform bills because the sponsors cited abuses in “Ferguson, Missouri, not Maryland.”
I don't know what legislation you're talking about, but I assume it's HB365 or HB813?
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0365F.pdf
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0813F.pdf
Jill Carter wanted to remove the language saying that police could only investigate themselves and allow prosecutors to investigate deaths caused by law enforcement.
Since it's apparent we can't have a discussion based on your own comments, we can get back to MD's LEOBR.
You want to talk about the subject at hand, explain why these proposed changes are a bad thing for someone who claims to be just another person capable of mistakes and misfortune, but is granted "rights" civilians aren't:
1.LEOBR should allow for civilian review. The law needs to be changed to allow local governments to establish meaningful civilian review of the internal disciplinary process.
2.LEOBR should allow for effective discipline, not create barriers. Currently, discipline may not be imposed unless recommended by a hearing board. The hearing board can only be composed of sworn law enforcement officers, unless the police union agrees to a different plan.
3.LEOBR should encourage effective investigation. Currently, LEOBR prevents investigators from interrogating an officer accused or suspected of misconduct for 10 days after notifying the officer that an investigation has begun. And departments have no obligation to even investigate brutality allegations that are filed more than 90 days after the incident.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8L8vf0joWhQMzVsNnNXOURid1E/view?pli=1
Because unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a “cooling off” period before he has to respond to any questions.
Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated.
Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated “at a reasonable hour,” with a union member present.
Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation.
Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only “for reasonable periods,” which “shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.”
Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be “threatened with disciplinary action” at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.
If you, or others want to argue that police are just like you and me. That they deserve the same rights as everyone else, why does this "Bill of Rights" give police treatment they do not offer to civilian suspects they are questioning? Anyone wanting to change that, or limit these" rights" is lambasted by "people like you", or the Police Unions claiming the word is out to get them and everyone hates cops. How can you, on one hand, claim officers are getting the short end of the stick, while on the other hand, defending one of the strongest statues in the country tailored only to police officers?
