Truthfulness is a good thing. It is incumbent upon all police officers to do what is right and to remain truthful at all times, with few exceptions permitted. Truthfulness is also required per Louisville Metro Police Department Policy and the Rules and Standards of Conduct manual. The definition is not ambiguous or open to interpretation. "THOU SHALL NOT LIE", or some other similar wording. It is simple straightforward and to the point.(unlike the majority of the other thousand or so general rules) Officers do not debate the necessity or need for such a rule. Without truthfulness there is no trust, and we need the community to trust us to make the right decisions in the course of our duties. However... There has been an alarming increase in both charges filed and sustained against officers for violation of the "Truthfulness" policy under the current administration. And The Cynics Ask... "Well doesn't that mean that this chief has taken a hard line against the past common practices of both the Louisville and Jefferson County Police Departments?"
NO...truthfulness violations were sustained and officers disciplined under both previous departments when the charge was merited. "Merited?, who decides if it is merited? The police policing themselves, how can we trust that?" Because we deserve your trust. Police Officers have fought and died maintaining order and enforcing the law so that you can sleep soundly at night and not stand guard at your doorstep with a shotgun to fend off the lawless elements of our society. Do we always succeed? No...That would be impossible. Do Police Officers ever do any wrong? Yes, the police department is made up up of individuals with flaws, but you cannot gauge the integrity of us all by the actions of a few. The merit of the truthfulness charges were based on statements by the officer involved, the accuser and the evidence. If the charge was based solely on the fact that the accuser said the officer lied without any evidence or additional witnesses to state the contrary, then the complaints were generally found not to be sustained. "So my word against the officer's word is not good enough?" Barring any other evidence, no, it's not. One must take into account that a large majority of the element that police come into contact with are people that have broken the law and do not want to be punished for it. It is simply human nature for some people to lie for the purposes of avoiding scrutiny and/or for the purposes of financial or personal gain. Back To The Subject At Hand... It has been the policy of the current administration in the majority of truthfulness charges to sustain the findings against the officer. The chief, barring any additional evidence, is disciplining officers using his discretion to be the final "purveyor of truth". Taking the word of others over the word of police officers. Equally alarming is the amount of "Truthfulness" charges that are initiated by the chief himself. Is it really fair for the accuser to hold final judgment over the accused? An Example... There are many. A simple open records request would suffice to prove the concerns that we have set forth, but that involves time. Time that most of us do not have.