Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACLU urges POST to make disciplinary guidelines clear that a single serious act can trigger decertification
Summary
The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties asked the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to remove or clarify draft language that could require a pattern of repeated misconduct before revoking officer certification.
The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties told the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training on May 20, 2025, that draft disciplinary guidelines circulated by POST wrongly suggest that a pattern of repeated serious misconduct is required before an officer’s certificate can be revoked.
Christie Lovehill, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties’ advocacy and legal director, urged the commission to revise the draft guideline text or explicitly state that a single act of physical abuse, excessive force, participation in a law‑enforcement gang, or dishonesty can be sufficient to justify revocation. "The state has a greater responsibility to hold these officers accountable," Lovehill said, arguing that the plain language of the penal code already differentiates when a single act is grounds for revocation.
Lovehill also recommended strengthening the sections on law‑enforcement gangs and bias. She told the commission that revocation should be considered where a law‑enforcement gang used racist language or symbols, defined membership by race or identity, or where an officer failed to cooperate with investigations — for example, by refusing to remove gang‑affiliated tattoos. She urged the commission to make clear that engaging in racial identity profiling should be grounds for revocation.
Commissioners thanked Lovehill and asked her to provide written comments for staff to review. POST staff and commissioners said they would consider her suggested language as they discuss the draft disciplinary guidelines later in the meeting and in upcoming rulemaking.
Why this matters: The draft disciplinary guidelines are intended to provide a framework to advisory panels, administrative law judges and the commission when deciding whether to suspend or revoke peace‑officer certificates under state law. How the guidelines treat a single act of serious misconduct — versus repeated conduct — affects whether some cases proceed to full hearings and how penalties are proposed.
Context and next steps: Commissioners heard public comment and then debated draft regulation 12.16 and the accompanying guidelines. The commission did not adopt final text at this meeting; staff indicated additional edits and public comments remain to be addressed before a formal rulemaking filing.
