That nonsensical stuff about special rights...haha...a suspect who is not a police officer can refuse an interview.
A cop has to submit to his employer’s questions....the supreme court of USA says the employer can order the employee to answer the questions truthfully or the officer can be disciplined up to and including termination.
Since it is a compelled statement it is protected and precluded from being used in a criminal investigation.
That is not special rights....its actually less rights than a run of the mill criminal suspect.
Not saying bad employees who work for the govt, including cops, failed to get fired but it is usually because the employer is lousy at documenting past rotten behavior or because the bosses failed to impose proper discipline on employees who they are in love with and don’t want to fire.
Then someone does the same thing later and they have created a bad precedent and lose when the appeal goes to arbitration.
I got a million examples....
from the posted article:
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.
What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by “non-government agents,” which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer’s legal defense.
A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.
Because of these special due process privileges, there’s little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it’s more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he’s convicted. This is the only “easy” way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops—which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement bills of rights—they encourage police departments to let external forces determine what behavior is unacceptable. That’s eventually why Rhode Island’s Krawetz resigned his post.
Are you suggesting a cop is forced to provide a statement or submit to an interview immediately after an incident and are not afforded the right to meet with their attorney's and union protection representatives before being interviewed?