fbpx

President's Message

DARRELL KRIPLEAN
President
dkriplean@azplea.com

Leadership has many definitions and characteristics. In our profession, being a leader doesn’t always mean being promoted. Leadership can be learned; however, someone who has leadership ingrained in their DNA tends to stand out.

Being promoted to a position of management does not always mean the individual is a leader. Throughout my career, I have been fortunate enough to have worked with and around some folks who were outstanding leaders, from fellow squadmates all the way up through the command structure. I have also encountered many who are better described as “managers.”

One aspect of leadership is having the courage to make decisions devoid of emotion that are for the greater good, even if it means facing criticism for the decision.

Take, for example, our Critical Incident Review (formerly known as Use of Force) and Discipline Review boards. The Critical Incident Review Board consists of one assistant chief, one commander, one employee peer and three citizens of Phoenix. In comparison, the Discipline Review Board consists of one assistant chief, two commanders, two employee peers and two citizens of Phoenix. In addition to the board members, subject-matter experts from the Academy, along with a Department legal advisor, are present to answer any questions the board members may have.

Prior to the board convening, each member is given sufficient time to review the entire investigation. At the board meeting, the PSB investigator presents an overview of the case via PowerPoint. Following the presentation, the board members can ask questions to ensure they understand the information completely. When that portion has concluded, the officer(s) who are the subject of the investigation or their PLEA representative are able to make their own presentation to provide additional information for the board’s consideration. The board can ask questions of the officer or their representative at the conclusion of their presentation.

Once this portion is completed, everyone but the board members leaves the room so that the board can deliberate and have discussions among themselves. When the board has completed their deliberations, the officer(s) return, and the board chair conveys the board’s recommendation to the police chief. In the case of a critical incident review, it will be a recommendation of in policy or out of policy. In instances of discipline review, it will be a recommendation of length of suspension or termination.

Historically, the police chief has rarely deviated from the recommendations of the boards. I believe the reason for that is that the boards have been presented with an extensive, in-depth presentation and have been able to understand the circumstances surrounding each incident at a granular level.

Currently, we find ourselves in an environment where the chief is deviating from the recommendations quite regularly. There are examples of critical incidents deemed “in policy” by the review board being overturned for no other reason than “how it looks.” We have several examples of discipline recommendations being considered too lenient, even though they fall within the appropriate range for the class of violation.

In addition, some officers have been tasked with a decision to accept huge suspensions or be fired and fight for their jobs back based simply on how an incident looks or was perceived by some vocal members of the public, even though the “violation” falls within the Class I and Class II categories.

This leads me to question the necessity of these boards and even the discipline policy. Are these boards simply utilized to give the perception of community involvement in determining whether or not a use of force is in policy or to determine appropriate discipline? What is the point of wasting everyone’s time if the chief is ultimately going to disregard the boards’ recommendations? What is the point of having an addendum that prescribes where violations of policy fall and the range of discipline that should be administered if it isn’t going to be adhered to?

I doubt the Chief has the desire or the time to take such a deep, granular dive into every incident, so I suppose he relies on his emotion and how it made him feel, along with public opinion, to determine what he believes is an appropriate punishment.

These are not characteristics of a leader. In fact, these are characteristics of a manager at best. It certainly does not instill trust and loyalty in the men and women who day in and day out do their best to honorably serve the community.

As human beings, we are subjected to involuntary human emotions and reactions during times of stressful, life-threatening situations. Those human emotions cannot be avoided. Mistakes will inevitably be made; however, consideration of those human reactions cannot be minimized. In some instances, punishment will need to be handed down. When the punishment is fair and just, it will be supported. When it is draconian and excessive, it will be criticized and challenged.

The recommendations provided by the individuals who volunteer their time and energy for the Critical Incident Review and Disciplinary Review boards should be given greater weight than what seems to be occurring. Deviations, if made, should be rare, defendable and based on facts. Discipline should be used to change behavior, not punish families. Discipline should be fair, just and based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, not the emotions and feelings of the person in charge who has the luxury of time to evaluate decisions made in a split second or the public scrutiny of those who detest law and order and police officers in general.

We need courageous leaders who are not afraid to support their troops, not managers looking to avoid personal scrutiny to maintain their position.

Take care of yourselves and take care of each other. If you have questions or comments, I can be reached at the PLEA office or at dkriplean@azplea.com.

DARRELL KRIPLEAN
President
dkriplean@azplea.com

It has been over two years since the Department of Justice (DOJ) began its “pattern and practice” investigation into the Phoenix Police Department. Chief Sullivan provided an update a couple months ago and said that it has been a collaborative effort and that the seven meetings they have had with DOJ officials have been productive. He said “they,” the Department, have provided over 80,000 documents and more than 20,000 body-worn camera videos. He stated that “transparency is key to maintaining trust with the community” and that he was “looking forward to any next steps with the DOJ and welcomes future collaboration in this process.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of collaboration is “to work jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor.” In my many discussions with those involved with providing information to the DOJ investigators, collaboration is not what has been occurring. The Phoenix Police Department has handed over everything the DOJ has requested. They have gone so far as to provide restricted criminal justice information to the DOJ. Were those who received and worked with the restricted data CJIS compliant? As officers, we are required to successfully pass a terminal operator certification test every two years in order to access the same information. It seems like that kind of disclosure to unauthorized individuals could jeopardize our access to NCIC and ACIC. 

Unfortunately, that is not their game. They like the “Gotcha, and now we are going to publicly embarrass you” game. If you look at the other cities that have been hit with consent decrees, you find a common theme. They will meet with the mayor, police chief and possibly a city manager and pressure them into signing an agreement in principle. 

I have heard they like to #7100 show up at 4:45 on a Friday afternoon, letting them know that there is a press conference set for Monday morning and that it would be in their best interest to sign the agreement in principle so they can see the findings report to prepare for the Monday press conference. 

By signing the agreement in principle, the signer agrees to engage in negotiations for a consent decree. The interesting thing about these “agreements in principle” is that they want signatures on them before they release the “findings report” to the city in question. It’s kind of like being told you have committed a crime, but before they tell you what crime or what the sentence is going to be, you must plead guilty. Talk about a bad decision.  

The DOJ has a 30-year record of consent decrees. Not one can be touted as a success. Sure, some cities are forced to obtain equipment for their police departments, but, as a whole, they are unsuccessful. Consent decrees are successful in spiking violent crime and police department budgets and enriching the individuals chosen to serve as oversight monitors. For example, Albuquerque has realized an 80.27% rise in violent crime, Baltimore 7.86%, New Orleans 97.45%, Seattle 52.59% and Chicago 10.24%. Their budgets have had to increase anywhere from 23.67% (Chicago) to 82.72% (New Orleans). The others are in between.

Another rarely spoken about result of consent decrees is reduced police department staffing. Staffing numbers have decreased in every city listed above, all of which are currently subject to a consent decree. Albuquerque is down 10.51%, Baltimore 14.12%, New Orleans 35.81%, Seattle 15.50% and Chicago 2.04%. Considering there is a nationwide staffing crisis, losing more on top of the hundreds of vacancies doesn’t lend to quality customer service to the communities.

Here in Phoenix, we are approximately 600 short of the max staffing of 3,125. In a recent survey, PLEA asked members how likely they would be to retire or resign if a consent decree was implemented in Phoenix. 12.57% responded that they would definitely retire or resign, while another 30.26% said they would strongly consider retiring or resigning. 42.87% is a concerning number! 

In the same survey, we asked what the members felt would happen to crime if a consent decree was implemented. 93.73% said crime would rise either somewhat or substantially. That is in line with what we have seen across the country.

OV work also drops off or becomes nonexistent when consent decrees are in place. Officers are buried under paperwork for everyone they contact, not to mention if they must use force to affect an arrest, there will be several layers of investigation. It is easier for officers to sit and wait to respond to calls for service and limit their exposure to becoming potentially the next viral headline. Officers’ families rely on the benefits that come with being City of Phoenix employees. Therefore, career preservation becomes top priority. 

Police officers are not afraid of oversight. Our use-of-force boards and discipline review boards have just as many community members on the board as sworn members. Consent decrees have nothing to do with oversight, and they never have. Consent decrees are about police control, and in reality, it is the federal government, a federal court and a for-profit monitor who are always a DOJ insider, stealing control of local police departments away from the communities they serve and rendering them wholly ineffective. In addition, the monitors will be enriched to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year and only required to provide four reports per year. Consent decrees are nothing more than a scam. 

Ask yourself: What incentive does a for-profit monitor have to find an agency in compliance when that means their gravy train ends? They are the only ones who can determine whether full compliance is obtained. Talk about stacking the deck!

The City of Phoenix finds itself in a unique position compared to other cities. Our council/manager form of government does not allow the mayor to sign an agreement in principle like other jurisdictions. It takes a majority vote of the council to enter into any agreement or to give consent to DOJ oversight. Interestingly, when Alamance County, North Carolina, refused to consent and the DOJ filed suit, all the exhibits the DOJ submitted were thrown out by the court as unreliable.     

The bottom line is this: If the Phoenix City Council decides to consent to a decree of federal oversight, this city will become another statistic in a long list of failed federal government experiments. It is time for this to end for everyone, and I hope and pray that this mayor and council have the courage and determination to stand up to this sham.

As always, if you have questions or comments, I can be reached at the PLEA office or by email at dkriplean@azplea.com.

DARRELL KRIPLEAN
President
dkriplean@azplea.com

At the time of this writing, we have had 22 officers involved in shootings, an increase from last year at this same time. Being a police officer in this country, your chances of becoming a criminal defendant while performing your official duties seem to be ever increasing. As a PLEA member, if you find yourself involved in an on-duty incident where a criminal investigation is being conducted and you are potentially a “suspect” in that case, you have access to the most qualified and experienced defense attorneys in the state through the PORAC Legal Defense Fund.

The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) was incorporated in 1953 as a professional federation of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. It is run by and for peace officers. PORAC represents over 80,000 public safety officers and over 950 associations throughout California. This makes it the largest statewide law enforcement association in the country. 

You have access to the most qualified and experienced defense attorneys in the state through the PORAC Legal Defense Fund.

Founded in 1974, the PORAC Legal Defense Fund (LDF) is the nation’s oldest, largest and most respected public safety legal plan, serving more than 143,000 members nationwide. PORAC LDF’s benefits have no coverage caps. Currently, the net assets for member benefits and legal defense are over $56 million. PORAC LDF offers members a single convenient phone number (888-556-5631) to call for 24/7 legal help in all 50 states and four U.S. territories, so no matter where they go, they have access to PORAC legal defense coverage.

PLEA has been a part of PORAC LDF for more than 30 years. PLEA currently has eight highly qualified LDF attorneys, each with decades of experience. Most have very successful criminal defense practices, while a few have served or are still serving as judges, either full time or pro tem. Not just anyone is able to be a PORAC LDF attorney. There is a rigorous process of vetting by both PLEA and the PORAC LDF Board.

Consider this for a moment: You have just been involved in an officer-involved shooting. You know your actions are justified, but until the county attorney gathers and examines all of the facts and determines that the shooting of another human being was justified, you are a suspect in a homicide. This is why we demand that only the best criminal defense attorneys represent our members in these incidents. 

There have been a couple of high-profile cases where PORAC LDF attorneys have successfully defended local police officers. One was former Chandler Police Officer Dan Lovelace and the other was former Mesa Police Officer Mitch Brailsford. The cost for each of their defenses was close to or exceeded $1,000,000. Both had full trials where expert witnesses were called in to testify for the defense. Every dollar of that defense was covered by PORAC LDF and not the officer on trial.

Every year, I attend the PORAC LDF Conference. And every year, there are examples from around the country where officers doing their jobs fall victim to chiefs or prosecuting agencies that cave to political pressures. It is astonishing to hear details of these cases and realize that could be any one of us on any given day. One split-second decision can upend an officer’s life and that of their family for years, all to prove the split-second decisions they made were reasonable and justified under the circumstances. In every example, attorneys throughout the country sing the praises of PORAC LDF and talk about how they were allowed to hire the best expert witnesses money can buy and how PORAC has never balked at a request. In many of these cases, those witnesses were critically important to the officer’s acquittal.

Without question, PORAC LDF is second to none when it comes to legal defense coverage. We hope never to have to utilize their superior legal services, but we are sure thankful to have them should we ever need to. 

PLEA’s current list of PORAC attorneys is as follows: Jess Lorona, Alan Kuffner, Bob Kavanaugh, Robert Jarvis, Ryan McPhie, Patrick Gann, Michael Napier and Kathryn Baillie. You would be hard-pressed to find a list of more accomplished attorneys whose sole responsibility is to represent our members. I would encourage you to do your research on each of them and compare their experience and resumes to any other attorney who purports to represent police officers.

If you have any questions about PORAC LDF or our attorneys, you can contact me here at the PLEA office or by email at dkriplean@azplea.com.

DARRELL KRIPLEAN
President
dkriplean@azplea.com

In 1975, under the guidelines set forth in the City of Phoenix’s Meet and Confer Ordinance, a core group of forward-thinking Phoenix police officers established the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. After an election process, PLEA became the sole certified bargaining unit for Phoenix police officers and sergeants. On January 10, 1976, in a meeting held at the First Federal Savings and Loan, the following were elected to the Board of Directors: Gordy Lange, Pat Pezzelle, Frank Startzell, Robert Ketelaar, Steve Wieland, James McKay, Joe Petrosino, Ernie Bakin, Jerry Licata, Tony Macarle and Richard Kerger. The 11 original Board of Directors were elected to one-year terms, with the vice president presiding over the Board. One of the original purposes of the newly formed PLEA, as stated in the original incorporation documents, was “to promote better relations, working conditions, benefits and wages of Patrolmen and Sergeants working for the City of Phoenix Police Department.”

In the same articles of incorporation, Mike Napier was appointed as PLEA’s lawful agent, and has continued as our legal counsel to this day. No organization I can think of can say they still have their original law firm representing them. That is a testament to the relationship and level of unwavering and professional representation PLEA has enjoyed throughout the years.

We are committed to working hard to represent you in all matters with the same level of pride, professionalism and drive you exhibit every day.

Gordy Lange served as PLEA’s first president. As PLEA evolved and became more prominent within the inner workings of the city, the mayor and council felt it was not in their best interest for the officers and sergeants to be represented by the same organization and amended the city charter, leaving the sergeants no choice but to leave and form a separate bargaining unit.

PLEA’s primary mission has been to promote the positive role of the police profession and to protect and secure members’ rights and benefits through effective representation and professional relationships with the community and local, state and national governments. From our inception, PLEA has represented officers in tens of thousands of administrative investigations and has informally resolved a relatively equal number of cases.

Operating in a nonbinding arbitration environment, PLEA relies on relationships to garner benefits and mitigate discipline for the membership. From the very beginning, PLEA has been successful in creating an MOU that includes a multitude of enhancements for all Phoenix police officers. In the July/August 2021 issue of the Phoenix Law Enforcer, former Vice President Toby Sexton outlined from the very beginning the benefits that have been obtained by PLEA for the membership over the years. It is quite a fascinating and impressive read, if you are so inclined. You can find it archived on our website at azplea.com/article/what-plea-does-for-its-members.

In addition to pay, benefits, grievances and working conditions, PLEA also represents the membership on a wide variety of departmental committees along with the PSPRS Local Pension Board, Healthcare Task Force, Deferred Compensation and PEHP Board, Public Safety Advisory Committee and Block Watch Advisory Board.

The bottom line is this: The plethora of benefits that have been obtained over the years, to include this latest MOU, comes from having a Board of Trustees and representatives who understand the complexity, dedication and hard work put in each and every day by Phoenix police officers and detectives — men and women who are serving and have served right beside you. In recognition of this, we are committed to working just as hard to represent you in all matters with the same level of pride, professionalism and drive you exhibit every day. In addition, PLEA has been able to build such a positive and professional reputation that many throughout our community seek our endorsements. No other organization has been able to do for Phoenix police officers and detectives what PLEA has done in the last 48 years and will continue to do for years to come.

As always, if you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at the PLEA office or by email at dkriplean@azplea.com.

DARRELL KRIPLEAN
President
dkriplean@azplea.com

As police officers, we are continuously analyzing situations and striving to do the right thing. Whether as a patrol officer answering calls for service or a detective investigating a crime, we are committed to providing a high level of service to our community.

Many of you know that PLEA has been working with Human Resources for over a year to try to eliminate Personnel Rule 15g2. We believe it is problematic. For those who are unfamiliar with this rule, it reads as follows:

“15g2. Merit Pay Increase: Time taken on industrial leave or light duty assignment, not in excess of thirty working days, shall be allowed as creditable time in determining eligibility for a normal merit pay increase. If the time exceeds thirty days and the circumstances of the injury so warrant, the employee may receive a merit pay increase on their anniversary date with the recommendation of the department head and approval of the City Manager.”

Even though there is an antiquated personnel rule in place that provides the Department and the City an out, is that the right thing to do?

This rule applies when an officer is injured or pregnant and requests a light-duty assignment that extends longer than 30 days. In such instances, the officer’s PMG date is extended by a period equal to the time the officer worked in a modified duty assignment and their merit increase is delayed.

Here is the issue: Most officers who are in a modified duty status are working somewhere within the Department. They perform a job that the Department deems important enough to have personnel assigned to further the overall mission of the Department and, in most cases, are supervised by a sergeant. It is absurd to think that you are going to be denied your PMG and merit increase because your current work assignment is not what you were doing prior to the pregnancy or injury. 

So, it comes down to: What is the right thing to do? Even though there is an antiquated personnel rule in place that provides the Department and the City an out, is that the right thing to do? This issue is not exclusive to just the Police Department. This rule applies to every City employee. If an employee who is injured comes to work and performs a task for the City, why is it so difficult to evaluate them on the performance of the tasks they are assigned and, if satisfactory, give them their earned merit increase? It is the right thing to do. It demonstrates that the City and the individual departments value their employees and the work they perform. It creates a sense of pride in the employee, who feels valued. It increases morale. It helps the families of the employees with an increase in salary. It fosters a positive work and home environment. I just cannot understand the downside for the City. 

Some elected officials tout that the greatest assets the City has are its employees. Maybe it’s lip service and provides a good sound bite. Maybe saving a few dollars is worth affirming what many already feel, which is that, as employees, we are nothing more than a line-item expense on a budget sheet. 

Just because it has always been done this way does not mean that it must or should continue. The City should do the right thing.

As always, if you have questions or concerns, please contact me at the PLEA office or by email at dkriplean@azplea.com.

DARRELL KRIPLEAN
President
dkriplean@azplea.com

PTSD is a greater cop killer than all the guns ever fired at police officers” (Allen Kates from his book, CopShock). This may be surprising to some as PTSD is often believed to be specific to our military personnel returning from war-torn regions of the world. PTSD, however, afflicts police officers at an astonishing rate. Most go undiagnosed as we try to make sense of the feelings we are having that sometimes resort to compulsive or addictive behaviors in an attempt to self-medicate. While military personnel are expected to suffer from it and are encouraged to get treatment, police officers are often expected to “tough it out.”

Consider this: Police officers are called to perform during the most tragic times in a person’s life. There are the unending calls for service involving domestic violence, child abuse, serious injuries and fatal car crashes. These calls chip away at us year after year until, one day, it becomes too much for us to handle. Retired LAPD Detective William Martin stated that “Our responses to violence are so subtle and long term that we do not realize what is happening to us until we begin to lose what is most important in our lives: our families, friends, health, spirituality, honor, commitment and sense of self-worth.”

Think about your own life. Are you more irritable with your children or spouse than you were at the beginning of your career? Do you prefer to stay home rather than spend time with friends? Are you consistently taking more risks at work? If you self-reflect and can detect these differences, you may have symptoms of PTSD. We all understand that an officer involved in a shooting may suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress. What we, and everyone else, need to accept is that the events we are exposed to on a daily basis could have just as dramatic an effect on us.

These calls chip away at us year after year until, one day, it becomes too much for us to handle.

Many studies have been performed regarding police and PTSD, and they have shown that while hypervigilance is good for an officer to have, it can also be a subtle sign of PTSD. Think about the last time you took your family out to eat and had to sit in a position with your back to the wall, or at the very least, had to have a clear view of the front door and most of the patrons. We are constantly aware of people’s hands, especially when they are within five to seven feet. Now, I am not suggesting that because we all tend to have these “habits” we all suffer from PTSD, but I will say that it can be a symptom of something deeper.

A single traumatic event is enough to cause the disorder in some officers. If that officer then applies for workers’ compensation, it is typically easy to associate the event with the injury. The challenge becomes when you are exposed to a series of microtraumas over a period of years. No one knows how many of these we can absorb before the bucket is full and the next microtrauma is one too many.  

On April 23, 2018, then-Governor Doug Ducey signed HB 2502, also known as the Craig Tiger Act, into law. This was a huge step in acknowledging the trauma police officers endure. It guarantees up to 36 visits with a licensed professional. In addition, the appointments will be during your duty hours. The sooner trauma is treated, the more likely it is that the individual suffering can return to a healthy way of life, which translates into a healthier and happier employee.

Workers’ compensation laws are very difficult when it comes to repeated exposure to trauma. In fact, a case was recently decided by the Arizona Supreme Court that ruled that a diagnosis of PTSD due to a cumulation of trauma over time is not compensable (France v. Industrial Commission of Arizona). Unless an officer experiences a single traumatic incident giving rise to PTSD symptoms, such as a gunshot wound, the claim will be denied.

Keep in mind that the Industrial Commission of Arizona requires a claim to be filed within one year from the date of injury or when the injured worker became aware of the condition.

This article is simply the tip of the iceberg. The goal is for officers to get help somehow, someway. If the officer does not realize what is going on, a family member or friend may recognize behaviors that could be associated with PTSD and help the officer seek help before it is too late. There are local organizations that can provide assistance. One is named Post Incident Stress & Trauma in Law Enforcement, which can provide peer support and information on training, advocacy, family support and treatment options. More information can be found by visiting their website at pistle.org. The website also features a PTSD checklist and symptoms of acute stress checklist. Under the Shield (Undertheshield.com) is another organization where help can be found. Bulletproof (bulletproof.org) and Copline (Copline.org) are both organizations created to assist officers anonymously. There is a multitude of books out there as well. One specific book that I read and found to be very resourceful is CopShock by Allen R. Kates. You can also contact the Employee Assistance Unit. Everything you tell them is held in the strictest confidence.

Know that you are not alone in this, and reach out if you find yourself in need. There is no shame in asking for help. If you have any questions or if I can be of help in any way, please contact me at the PLEA office or at dkriplean@azplea.com.