A news story about three Riverside, California police officers fired for sporting disabled veteran license plates broke some readership records and generated hundreds of Facebook comments.
In February, the case first drew attention when the police chief announced plans to terminate the officers. This past week, he followed through after an internal investigation. Together, coverage of the case has drawn well over 1.3 million views. So what generated such broad interest?
The attention and response may stem from the complex issues that intersect with intense feelings about military veterans, police discipline, due process and disability rights.
Police discipline
With unprecedented scrutiny on our nation’s law enforcement, reports of alleged police misconduct draw immediate attention from critics and supporters alike. Those predisposed to looking for validation of anti-police sentiment and suspicion of widespread corruption in law enforcement are quick to engage with stories about police being held accountable for any infraction.
Despite persistent narratives about a “Blue Wall of Silence,” where police cover up misconduct of colleagues, most police officers detest “bad apple” cops that cast the profession in a bad light. They want to know that misconduct is addressed and are frustrated when it seems to go unaddressed.
Stolen valor
Despite political shifts depending on world affairs at any given time, the American military remains highly regarded. Those who claim to have served, or claim accolades for service they never rendered, are widely criticized. If the officers in the article are perceived to have falsely claimed to be disabled veterans, that would certainly raise the ire of much of the public, especially the 20 million military veterans in the U.S.
It was never claimed that the officers involved had not served honorably or were not disabled as a result of military service, but the lack of specifics coming from the Riverside Police Department has done little to prevent speculation.
Due process
Police officers remain one of the most trusted professions (number 6, above judges and below pharmacists). Many civilians and police officers watch with concern as law enforcement officers seem all too disposable and subject to punishment and even criminal charges. Police officers can be correct in their conduct, but insiders are well aware that discipline can be applied because of optics, perception or political pressure.
The stakes are high for any officer who faces the loss of a career and livelihood. The credibility of the agency is at stake, as are officer recruitment and retention, as well as public support and funding.
No one disagrees with holding police to a high standard, but that must also come with due process to protect officers from the pressures of misinformed public perception.
Misunderstanding of disability
Obtaining an official status of service-related disability requires a screening and evaluation process. Disabled plates come with some accommodating privileges, but do not necessarily mean that the individual cannot maintain employment, even in the demanding job of policing.
A natural question for many members of the public would be how a police officer can be mentally or physically disabled and still perform the duties of law enforcement with its physical and mental demands. The nuances of defining service-related disability — particularly those that are invisible — are not widely understood.
Getting just part of the story
A common aspect of reporting on alleged misconduct by police officers is that details and context are not always forthcoming from the agency or the officers involved. Initial reports are typically followed by investigations, lawsuits and other legal matters that must remain out of the public eye.
Unfiltered comments by police leaders or the officers involved can adversely affect the outcome. Readers seldom know the rest of the story until a final disposition is made, often years later and no longer immediately newsworthy.
This case has caused waves of interest and concern for a variety of reasons. While the details and full outcome of this incident may emerge in the future, law enforcement and the public must consider how the Riverside Police chief’s decision may affect officer behavior, morale and public trust while the story is still fresh.
Should the officers have been fired? Share your thoughts below.
Police1 readers respond
- Absolutely not! Military disability is not the same as Social Security disability. I would own that chief and the Department over this. Even when you are just exposed to something in the air, you become percentage disabled. Whether it be a burn pit or breathing the air on a submarine it doesn’t matter. You receive a certain percentage. It doesn’t mean you are physically disabled.
- What are their disabilities? I was a police officer for 15 years, I am also now a disabled veteran. I don’t understand getting fired over a license plate.
- Without having all the facts, I have a hard time passing judgment on these officers. I know several officers who are disabled from past military service. They don’t have disabled plates on their cars, but I would not blink if they did. I don’t know all the facts, but I don’t believe they should have been fired with what little I do know. As you said in the article, not all disabilities are visible. I hope the chief did not fire them based on public perception alone.
- If this incident had occurred in Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd would have held a news conference and released a YouTube video to clarify the details regarding the three terminated officers.
- “On the surface,” the three officers’ situation appears very similar to a person abusing a blue handicap parking placard to get a closer parking space -- when that person really/actually has no physical disability preventing them from walking a reasonable distance. If so, yes, the three officers should be terminated.
- The chief claims he did a thorough investigation. I am not sure what that means as the information being released is very limited. If the officers could legally obtain the plates, regardless of how the chief views it, he is going to have a problem in civil court with a jury for having fired them.
- I did not read enough factual information to form an educated opinion one way or the other. There is a lot more to this story. I can see where it could go either way depending on the facts.
- There is a police officer in the Suffolk County (New York) Police Department who lost both of his legs in combat and still qualified to be a police officer. I do not know if he has a disabled plate for his car. I am 90 percent disabled by the veteran administration. I have a placard for my car and FOP plates on my car. Did this chief serve in the military? I do not think that having disabled plates on the car are a reason for termination.
- If the chief fired the officers for no other reason than the DV plates, he needs to and deserves to be fired himself and should be held personally civilly liable. That is clearly discrimination against the officers. As a DV and an officer myself, I am outraged at the chief’s actions. He clearly has no respect for veterans or his own officers.
- A lot of the negative comments and interest may have been avoided had more information been provided about how awful California’s DV plate process is. If they truly do not issue those plates without a veteran being both 100% VA rated AND not being able to physically move without assistance, then that would question how officers could be SWAT team members and have DV plate. Most states are not like that; i.e. in CO, you can receive DV plates at 60% VA rating, but those do not allow you to park in handicapped spots. These differences from state to state and many people not knowing the VA system have probably led to a lot of the comments.
- If the officers have valid and documented records that support that they have a disability, then there shouldn’t be an issue. You can have a disability and still br able to carry out duties as an officer.
- No, they should not have been fired or even disciplined. As stated in the article, there are many ways the military rate the disability. They served for US. Leave them alone.
- Absolutely not if you can pass the physical/mental requirements set by the agency and or POST, then being disabled in anyway should not matter. There are active LEOs who have prosthetic limbs and were able to pass the physical requirement to do the jobs, so should they be fired also?
- If the VA and its medical professionals have found the officers to be disabled, then they can legally have those plates. If they are found fit for duty for the police department, then they can keep their jobs. Unless they can show some type of fraud in getting those plates, I think the officers will have a successful lawsuit against the department.
- In order to answer this question, I need additional information, specifically the disability determination from the military to allow them to get the plates. Without that information, it is virtually impossible to make a conclusion as to whether the officers should be fired.
- No, they should not have been fired. If they were rated for service-connected disabilities, not only was their firing ridiculous, it was a violation of multiple laws surrounding ADA compliance. Having said that, I for one am glad they got fired. NOT because I think it was the right call or that they did anything to deserve it, I am glad it happened because while it is going to be stressful for them in the interim, those officers are going to come out in the end getting PAID. And better still? The chief is going to be the one facing a lawsuit, civil prosecution for violation of those officers’ rights and likely losing his job. Even better for these officers, it sounds very much like these firings were highly likely to have been retaliatory in nature on the chief’s part.
- The fact that the POA’s union attorneys are filing lawsuits suggests there is more to the story than what we’ve read in the news. I certainly hope we eventually get answers to these questions, especially given the traction this story has generated.
- These officers were wrongly terminated just because the police chief thinks the officers lied to obtain the plates. The chief doesn’t sound like he’s a veteran from what I read. I think the chief did not have just cause for termination based on his lack of knowledge of the veterans administration disability process. He also discriminated against officers with disabilities from their prior service history.
- I am 100% disabled veteran and retired police officer/detective with 25 years of police service. I served as a union vice president and state delegate. If I were their union representative, I would be suing the chief for civil rights violations. This chief should be civilly liable for violating the ADA, the due process of the officers and gross negligence. Furthermore, he should be immediately suspended pending his termination. Unless these officers were found unfit for duty through a certified fitness for duty exam, they should never have be the subject of any adverse job action.
| READ ADDITIONAL NEWS ANALYSIS BY CHIEF JOEL SHULTS
