Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST debates widening 'dishonesty' grounds for decertification; commissioners signal caution and ask staff to return with options
Summary
POST legal staff presented two options to broaden the regulatory definition of 'dishonesty' that can trigger decertification. Commissioners and advisory members warned that expanding definitions could sharply increase caseloads and raise evidentiary challenges; staff will return with more focused proposals in March.
Chief Counsel William "Toby" Darden and Assistant Director Anne Marie Delmonado led a discussion on Nov. 1 about whether POST should expand the regulatory definition of "dishonesty" as a basis for decertifying peace officers under SB 2.
Darden presented a range of drafting ideas: a broader approach that would make dishonest acts "in the practice of law enforcement" actionable; and a narrower one that would capture dishonesty in any criminal or internal matter in which an officer is a subject, witness or involved party. He said some other states use phrasing such as dishonesty "in the practice of law enforcement" or link decertification to instances where an officer was terminated for dishonesty by an agency.
Assistant Director Anne Marie Delmonado flagged operational consequences. POST currently has hundreds of closed or unassigned cases that involve alleged dishonesty that do not meet the present statutory definition. "About 700 of those cases were cases that involve dishonesty, but did not meet the current definition of dishonesty," she said, adding that many allegations raise credibility issues and can be difficult for the licensing body to prove by the clear-and-convincing standard.
Commissioners and advisory members were split. Some chiefs and deputies urged the Commission to close gaps that allow officers who were terminated for serious dishonest acts to remain certified and be hired elsewhere. Others warned that broadening the definition would flood POST with cases — including routine employment issues — and interfere with POST’s ability to prioritize serious public‑safety risks.
Several participants suggested a limited, targeted approach: trigger POST review where an employing agency has terminated an officer for dishonesty tied to conduct that materially affects public health, safety or welfare, rather than expanding the definition to include every form of alleged dishonesty (time‑card falsification, minor administrative deception, etc.). Commissioners also raised the complications posed by parallel employment appeals and civil litigation; a POST review cannot simply treat an employer’s termination as dispositive without its own evidentiary analysis.
Chief Jason Salazar said the advisory committee recognized a gap exists but urged caution in drafting: the committee was generally supportive of an option that would allow review in limited, clearly defined circumstances.
What POST will do next: staff will return in March with narrower, more operationally focused language and analysis of workload and evidentiary implications.
Why this matters: "Dishonesty" allegations underpin many decertification cases. Clarifying where POST steps in — and when a matter should remain an employing‑agency discipline issue — affects officers’ careers, public confidence and POST workload.
What commissioners said they wanted: targeted language that captures serious, job‑related dishonesty that materially impairs public safety while avoiding an open‑ended expansion that would create large numbers of ambiguous cases for the licensing agency to adjudicate.
