News
 A bi-monthly newsletter is e-mailed to each CSIA member and is posted here on the website.
Previous issues are available at the right. Printed copies are not mailed.
 Click here for the current newsletter in MS Word format.
APRIL 2008 NEWSLETTER
Meeting - Wednesday, April 23rd.
Speaker
Sgt. Tim Perkins will speak on CALET, the Colorado Association of Law Enforcement Trainers.
Message from the President
Hello all -
I wanted to send a greeting to everyone to say thanks to all of you who make this organization such a success!
We are excited about what CSIA is doing this year. At our February membership meeting we listened to a fantastic presentation by Sgt. Bob Shaffer, who spoke about analyzing statements, by using the Linguistic Statement Analysis Technique (LSAT). Sgt. Bob Shaffer has been an instructor in the LSAT for many years and is passionate about his work. If you are interested in looking into some of his classes, you may contact him at www.LinguisticStatementAnalysis.com.
In addition, we have some terrific topics and speakers that we are booking for the remainder of the 2008 membership meetings, which will be held on April 23rd, June 25th and August 27th. More information about the topics will follow as these dates get closer.
Finally, we have already started planning the annual fall conference. We have a variety of possibilities for this year's conference and are excited about what is in store for the organization. The conference this year will definitely be held in October again, at the School of Mines. Exact dates will be announced at a later time. We want to send a special thanks to Rick Crays, our training coordinator this year, who has been instrumental in making our membership meetings and conference a success.
We look forward to seeing you at the next membership meeting in April.
Sincerely,
Kari Omland
CSIA President
Sale!
The board has put the following CSIA Logo items on sale:
· Tumblers...2 for $10
· Hats, black or blue...2 for $9
Editor's Message
With the Conference fast approaching….well, OK…its still several months away, but to get this thing kickin' right, we need to get a fast start!
So, here's the low down on the conference…
The dates are set as September 30 and October 1st and 2nd. The board still might cut it down to 2 days, but this is the time frame. It's looking like it will be at School of Mines again, although other locations have been explored
We need Volunteers to approach merchants for "giveaways at the conference. Get with Kari if you have any questions about this.
News
Off-Duty Officer's Constitutional Rights Not Violated
March 20, 2008
An off-duty officer's constitutional rights were not violated when he was ordered to take a breathalyzer test or face disciplinary action, such as a suspension or termination, the Sixth Circuit ruled recently in a case of first impression.
In this case, an off-duty Metropolitan police officer met some friends in a bar in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, on December 25, 2004. During the evening, he consumed somewhere between four and seven beers. Sometime after midnight, the officer's friends became involved in an altercation with other patrons, and the bar's security guards attempted to break up the fight. Because the officer thought the guards were using excessive force on one of his friends, he intervened. The security guards then attempted to grab the officer, causing him to struggle with the guards. Eventually, the officer identified himself as a police officer, and the fight stopped immediately. The officer and his friends were then escorted out of the bar. The police arrived and investigated the incident.
After determining that the officer had been drinking, was involved in a fight, and had identified himself as a police officer, the police on the scene contacted the officer's chain of command. The Assistant Chief told the police on the scene that the officer should be given a breathalyzer test or face termination or discipline.
The officer was not handcuffed or put under arrest and went with the police to Central Station, where he was given a breathalyzer test, which registered a .121 breath alcohol level. The officer was then asked to write out a statement about the incident, but requested to write it out later when he was not intoxicated. The police agreed, drove him home, and ordered him to submit his written report at the start of his shift the next day.
After an internal investigation, the Metropolitan Police Department determined that the officer had not violated any departmental policies or regulations. He later received informal verbal counseling from his supervisor.
Based on the incident, the officer sued his chain of command and the Metropolitan Government alleging, among other things, that his constitutional rights were violated when he was ordered to take a breathalyzer test. The district court ruled against the officer, prompting him to appeal.
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit explained that the central issue in this case is whether the officer was "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes when he was given the choice of submitting to the breathalyzer test or facing termination or disciplinary action. In answering this question, the appeals court stated that a person is "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when "a reasonable person would not feel free to leave an encounter with police." To make this determination, the U.S. Supreme Court has said all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter must be examined to determine whether a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.
Stating that this case is the first time the appeals court has confronted this question, the Sixth Circuit noted that police officers are not "relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights," and that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures therefore applies to them. Moreover, the court added, drug or alcohol testing of a governmental employee implicates the Fourth Amendment even though the testing may not be related to enforcement of the criminal law.
Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit continued, the officer in this case acknowledged that he was compelled by the threat of job loss to submit to being taken to Central Station and given a breathalyzer test. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has held that a person is "seized" only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained. The appeals court added, "A person is not seized simply because he believes that he will lose his job."
The Sixth Circuit went on to point out that the officer in this case was not handcuffed, not placed in the back seat of the police car, not read his Miranda rights, and was allowed to return home without filing his report of the incident. Accordingly, a reasonable off-duty officer would not have feared seizure or detention if he had refused to take the breathalyzer test. The officer himself "did not appear to fear seizure or detention; instead, he was afraid that he would be terminated or suspended," the appeals court stated. Under the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, then, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the officer was not seized when he submitted to the breathalyzer test. Therefore, the appeals court held that the officers' constitutional rights were not violated.
The case is Pennington v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 07-5180, January 10, 2008.
Job Announcements
Click here to visit the Colorado Department of Personnel & Administration's online list of state government job announcements for details.
Scholarships
Visit the Benefits page for scholarship info and applications. The scholarship committee is Clarence Johnsen, Norm Adams, and Marlin "Pete" Peterson. CSIA Scholarships can be used for professional training.
Meeting Minutes
Please visit the Meetings page to view or download meeting minutes.
|
