Should an agency have a policy that requires officers to notify their supervisors when evidence is suppressed in court? When a judge orders evidence suppressed, the judge is declaring the evidence was obtained unlawfully and is therefore inadmissible in the criminal trial. Shouldn’t the officer’s agency be made aware when this happens? Municipalities can be civilly liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for example, for the unconstitutional actions of their officers. For municipal liability to attach under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that an act, or a failure to act, on the part of the agency caused the officer’s constitutional violation. A failure on the part of the agency to adequately train or discipline its officers can give rise to § 1983 liability. When an officer violates a person’s constitutional rights, agencies have an affirmative duty to address those violations in a meaningful way.
Establishing a duty for officers to self-report occurrences of evidence suppression allows agencies to become aware of potentially serious issues that, left unaddressed, can lead to massive civil liability exposure (for the agency and the officer!). One of the ways an agency can address constitutional violations by officers can be through taking disciplinary measures. But that need not, and probably should not, be the typical course of action. Most constitutional rights violations are caused by lack of knowledge on the part of the officer. These knowledge deficiencies should be addressed with counseling and proper training. The issue that gave rise to the suppression must be closely reviewed and, if necessary, submitted to a competent legal expert for guidance. Once the review is complete, the officer should be remediated. Upon remediation, he is now better equipped to effectively and lawfully perform his law enforcement duties. And the agency has fulfilled its legal obligation to provide meaningful training and guidance.
There is another benefit to a self-reporting obligation. What if the judge’s ruling was incorrect? Trial court judges are not infallible. They make mistakes. That’s one reason appellate courts exist—to correct mistakes of the courts below. What if the trial court judge’s grant of the motion to suppress was in error? The involved officer leaves the courtroom believing he has violated someone’s constitutional rights when in fact, there was no violation—the officer acted lawfully. By self-reporting the evidence suppression, the agency has the opportunity to review the situation and consult with a competent legal expert. The agency review may determine the officer acted lawfully. The officer should be informed of this finding so that he is reassured that he is in fact doing his job within the bounds of the law. It is also advisable to inform the prosecutor’s office in these situations so the prosecutor can be prepared to address in court future issues of this kind.
Adopting a policy that requires the reporting of occurrences of evidence suppression protects the officer, the agency and the public from future constitutional violations. Officers can become better educated on critical points of law, making them more confident in the exercise of their authority and less likely to generate founded complaints or losable lawsuits.
Here’s an example of such a policy:
“Officers will promptly report to their immediate supervisor any occurrences of:
- The suppression in court of any evidence due to the violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights; or
- A prosecutor’s decision, communicated to the officer, to nolle prosequi a case or reduce a charge where one of the reasons given for the nolle prosequi* or reduction in charge is the prosecutor’s determination that the defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights had been violated and the evidence discovered as result thereof is subject to suppression.”
