By David E. Worley
I
n City of Mt. Vernon, Illinois, 130 LA 1677 (Heekin 2012), the arbitrator held that four instances of clear and egregious falsehoods contained in the officer’s reports as well as at least one instance where the officer verbally abused a suspect gave the City cause for termination. Further, the arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that the officer was denied due process, noting that she was fully informed of the charges against her, and was given copies of all the evidence against her and provided an ample opportunity with legal counsel to respond to the charges.
The investigation into alleged false reporting began when a previous suspect for DUI, who was later cleared, stated that there were material discrepancies in the report filed by the officer in the DUI arrest. The department reviewed audio/video recordings of the incident and determined that there were indeed discrepancies that bordered on falsification of facts. After reviewing audio/video recordings of other incidents, the City found a number of falsifications in the reports of the officer. Further, at least one incident of clear verbal abuse and intimidation was uncovered.
The arbitrator reviewed the evidence against the grievant and found the City’s conclusions to be well-founded. In one DUI arrest, the grievant relied solely on the field sobriety test, and stated in the report that the suspect was “off balance.” The arrest was based on this fact, yet after reviewing the video, there was no evidence whatsoever that the suspect was off balance, and in fact the suspect passed the sobriety test without trouble.
Another falsification occurred in another DUI arrest, when the grievant alleged, and used as a probable cause for the arrest, that the suspect’s speech “was extremely slurred the entire time I spoke to her.” However, after reviewing the audio, the City and the arbitrator both concluded that the suspect spoke clearly and concisely.
Finally, the grievant arrested a 17-year-old girl for DUI, who upon testing had a BAC of 0.00%. At the station, in response to the suspect’s protests, the officer said, “You are lucky I am in uniform right now,” and “If you keep running your mouth, I am going to charge you with a felony.” As there was no cause for any felony, or any charge whatsoever, the arbitrator concluded that both these statements were clear threats and reflected poorly on the officer’s fitness for the job.
