ASSOCIATE Magazine FBINAA Q3-2024

Continued from "Revolutionizing Law Enforcement Off-Duty Programs", on page 41

their secondary work impugn their integrity in the same manner as lying in official documents; however, officers often fail to see it with the same significance and consequence. Not only will these officers face the Brady and Giglio sanctions, but they also risk issues with their employment and potential criminal charges. A culture of accountability is essential for ensuring compliance with overtime policies and promoting ethical behavior within the agency. Supervisors should lead by example and hold officers accountable if they violate overtime policies and procedures. In the same vein, agencies should provide training and support to supervisors so they can effectively manage overtime and address issues as they arise. This is easier said than done, as supervisors and administrators have a lot they are responsible for and must accomplish it in an environment of decreased staffing and budgets. What if, however, there was a solution, and it came at no cost to agencies or their officers? Agencies are often unaware of companies that provide full administrative assistance in the management and oversight of their off-duty programs. Off Duty Management, for example, is an industry leader in providing comprehensive services and support to agencies across the country. Specifically, they provide at no cost to the agency or officers, a comprehensive system that includes administrative services, technology, and insurance. Their custom-built proprietary software handles scheduling, invoicing, payroll, and advanced reporting. They supplement this with industry-leading liability coverage and state-statutory worker’s compensation. Simply stated, they save agencies time, money, and resources while providing protections for your officers working the off-duty details. Their agency partners are better protected and have more control and oversight of their off-duty programs. In conclusion, managing overtime while keeping officers and agencies out of the headlines requires a proactive and multifaceted approach. By assessing operational needs, implementing clear policies and procedures, monitoring overtime usage, addressing fatigue and burnout, fostering a culture of accountability, and engaging with stakeholders, agencies can effectively balance the demands of the job while safeguarding officer well-being and agency integrity.

However, amidst these challenges lies an opportunity for innovation and reform. What if agencies could alleviate the administrative burden of overseeing their police off-duty programs by partnering with a third-party vendor while still retaining control over their programs? What if they could transform and improve their programs with technology that afforded them full visibility into officer off-duty schedules, thereby mitigating risks of fraudulent behavior? In this article, we will explore the pressing need for transparency and accountability in combating law enforcement off-duty fraud. We will delve into the root causes of the problem, examine its broader implications, and propose practical solutions for addressing it. In many organizations, a significant challenge arises from a lack of clear and concisely written policies regarding overtime. Policies are often either non-existent, or if present, ambiguous, insufficient, and at times in conflict with other policies. As a result, discrepancies emerge, leading to situations where an officer may unknowingly violate a policy. During my tenure in internal affairs, I encountered numerous instances of such ambiguities, ranging from minor issues with wording and interpretation to more serious infractions. Similar to how professional sports players need a clear understanding of the rules of the game, law enforcement leaders must provide their officers with a clear set of policies, regulations, and expectations surrounding their off-duty work. While education through online and in-person training can be a part of the solution, it is often impossible to train officers on every single rule and regulation given the complexity of most agency policy manuals. Additionally, there comes a point when policies require updates and clarification to ensure relevance and effectiveness. The greater necessity is for agencies to identify blind spots within their existing policies that could leave them and their officers vulnerable and to remediate those gaps quickly. Implementing updates and clarifications can foster greater clarity, consistency, and compliance within ranks, ultimately enhancing overall operational efficiency and effectiveness. Now, to the issue of credibility, such as when an officer testifies in court or serves as an affiant for a search warrant, we need to look at two significant court cases – Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972). In these two cases, the United States Supreme Court established principles regarding the disclosure of evidence favorable to the accused, including material that might impeach key government witnesses. Brady held that suppression of such evidence violates due process, regardless of prosecutorial intent, while Giglio extended this requirement to include evidence affecting a witness’ credibility. Specifically, an officer who files a false police report, is dishonest in an arrest affidavit, or lies in some other official action knows he or she is violating the canons of our profession and will likely be subject to both Brady and Giglio requirements. If you asked a thousand police officers across the country if they would ever engage in such dishonest and dishonorable conduct, I expect that each one would respond with a resounding “no”. Somehow this does not always translate to officer actions in other areas, such as their off-duty work. The instances that have occurred across the country involving officers’ dishonesty in

About the Author: During his extensive 25-year tenure in law enforcement, Mark held diverse roles in Administration, Human Resources, Internal Affairs Investigation Bureau, Training Bureau, and Field Operations. He is a seasoned police administrator and operational leader with expertise in police training, criminal investigations, policy development, and budget management. Mark is a graduate of FBI National Academy Session 278 and holds a B.S. in Economics along with an M.A. in Psychology.

42 FBINAA.ORG | Q3 2024