Commission debates new disciplinary‑guidelines language, pauses final vote to refine mental‑health provisions

At the April 30 meeting the Commission received public comment and a formal presentation on proposed disciplinary guidelines that would guide Advisory Board recommendations, Administrative Law Judges and the Commission when considering penalties in officer certification proceedings.

The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties asked POST to remove or clarify parts of the draft that it said implied a “pattern” of misconduct was required for revocation for physical abuse, excessive force, participation in a law-enforcement gang, or dishonesty. The ACLU also asked POST to strengthen the guidelines’ handling of participation in law‑enforcement gangs — suggesting the guidelines explicitly treat use of racist language, exclusion based on race or identity, and refusal to cooperate with investigations (for example, hiding tattoos) as grounds for revocation.

Nut graf: Commissioners and staff debated whether to finalize the disciplinary guidance now or to refine some optional terms. Several commissioners pressed staff to tighten the language governing mental‑health evaluations and psychotherapy as a recommended condition of probation; others argued leaving an optional psychotherapeutic evaluation available helps ensure public safety in appropriate cases.

Key points from the meeting: - ACLU public comment: Christine Lovehill (ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties) urged removal of language that could be read to require a pattern of misconduct before revocation and asked that racial-identity profiling and non-cooperation in gang investigations be clearly listed as revocation‑appropriate misconduct. - Staff and legal counsel clarified the guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The document is intended to give ALJs and the Advisory Board consistent factors for assessing discipline; the Commission retains final decision authority. - Several commissioners objected to draft language that suggested the Commission might order “continued psychotherapy until the Commission deems no further psychotherapy is necessary.” Commissioners requested stripping or redrafting that line to make fitness-for-duty determinations rely on a treating, licensed clinician’s professional judgment and to require POST to rely on clinicians trained for law‑enforcement fit‑for‑duty work. - Process and timing: Commissioners directed staff to revise the draft — including removing or rephrasing the problematic psychotherapy language and clarifying that “pattern” language does not create an evidentiary threshold inconsistent with statute — then re-circulate the draft for the standard rulemaking/public-comment process. Staff noted Office of Administrative Law review and public comment will add time; the Office of Administrative Hearings requested guidance before it presides over the first contested certification hearings.

Ending: Rather than vote on the draft in final form, the Commission asked staff to return with a revised draft (to be submitted for public comment and OAL review) and to supply a short interim draft for Administrative Hearings so ALJs have guidance for early hearings.