Institutional Problems at the Dallas PD

[TR675]

I know we have some guys on the forum tied into local DFW-area law enforcement circles. I'm interested in your take on
this allegation by a local police academy instructor and retired DPD officer that he was instructed by internal affairs to change his answers on a survey in which he stated he had tested recruits until they had passed tests, and been instructed to test recruits until they passed. He answered "yes," that he both had done so and been instructed to do so. The instructor alleges that after refusing to change his answers, he was banished to the auto pound. The full grievance is included in the link.

This arises in the larger context of a complaint by the Dallas Police Association that a minority recruit was retested multiple times, in violation of DPD policy, in order to obtain a passing grade on a driving test. During that controversy (still ongoing) the chief (who is African-American) has alleged that certain portions of the state mandated exams - specifically the field sobriety test and driving test - may be racially discriminatory. Very few recruits outright fail these tests - in five years, only nine have failed the field sobriety test and five have failed the driving test, although these were nearly all members of minority groups. I find it hard to even consider that race enters into practical field tests, especially given the number of recruits tested each year...

From the perspective of an outsider to DPD's activities but who is interested in good LE governance, no matter how this controversy turns out this is a pretty awful spectacle and - to me - speaks of a failure of leadership. I have also heard of similar issues in other large metropolitan PD's where politics seem to trump...everything, I guess.

[Dagga Boy]

Don't know all the insides of this case, but this kind of stuff is actually pretty normal to some degree in both LE and the private sector.

From my personal experience as an FTO and Firearms Instructor for a lot of years, outside upper level involvement in individual cases of "Special Classes of people" (minorities, women, those with special ties to administrators) is fairly common. A good example was the hornets nest I kicked over by failing a "Double special" (female, who was also sleeping with another officer). It is always neat to get investigated and pressured by a Lt. for "failing her just because you hate female officers". That was totally consistent with my letter of commendation from a Deputy Chief for my saving a female officer's career by working with her extensively to get her to be able to pass shooting quals. I had four separate female officers that I did a ton of work to help keep their jobs, yet when I failed the one really dangerous one in a Bicycle Patrol class for multiple dangerous safety violations, it was because of hatred of females and not the one in particular being wholly unable to function safely with a pistol and a bike as an individual officer who happened to be female. Nobody ever cared when I failed regular old males with no rank or special status. What was interesting was (like the above case) the weird involvement of upper level admin (in this case a recently promoted Internal Affairs LT.) in trying to get me to change my mind. In the big picture, I stood my ground, the female went from a simple not passing the class to a multipage "can't make it go away" memo to the Chief via chain of Command as to her being unsafe with firearms and unable to follow directions and her inability to operate a firearm under stress ("now it is officially YOUR problem LT......have a nice day")...........and I got to get transferred out of bikes (which I loved and was a team leader and one of very few state certified instructors) to six months of day shift patrol (the only time in my career I worked days and the worst six months of my career). That is a small glimpse into "normal" in cop world.

[pablo]

I know we have some guys on the forum tied into local DFW-area law enforcement circles. I'm interested in your take on
this allegation by a local police academy instructor and retired DPD officer that he was instructed by internal affairs to change his answers on a survey in which he stated he had tested recruits until they had passed tests, and been instructed to test recruits until they passed. He answered "yes," that he both had done so and been instructed to do so. The instructor alleges that after refusing to change his answers, he was banished to the auto pound. The full grievance is included in the link.

This arises in the larger context of a complaint by the Dallas Police Association that a minority recruit was retested multiple times, in violation of DPD policy, in order to obtain a passing grade on a driving test. During that controversy (still ongoing) the chief (who is African-American) has alleged that certain portions of the state mandated exams - specifically the field sobriety test and driving test - may be racially discriminatory. Very few recruits outright fail these tests - in five years, only nine have failed the field sobriety test and five have failed the driving test, although these were nearly all members of minority groups. I find it hard to even consider that race enters into practical field tests, especially given the number of recruits tested each year...

From the perspective of an outsider to DPD's activities but who is interested in good LE governance, no matter how this controversy turns out this is a pretty awful spectacle and - to me - speaks of a failure of leadership. I have also heard of similar issues in other large metropolitan PD's where politics seem to trump...everything, I guess.

It's a drop in the bucket of the mismanagement of DPD by chief brown. Politics trump everything at almost all levels of the LE world.

If you want to look at how easy LE governance and leadership could be, despite non-existant leadership, terrible management, pay cuts, terrible equipment, low morale and a DA that want's to put officers in prison. 95% percent of that department shows up to work everyday, does their job and make the place work in spite of everything that is going on. I don't think that their is a single private sector company that would not implode under the weight of typical LE mis-management.

[PPGMD]

I shot IDPA with a senior DPD officer. He was black, and even he said that all this minority preference for hiring and promotion is going to bite DPD in the butt eventually. When I last talked to him he was counting the days until retirement, and couldn't wait to get out.

[Totem Polar]

Don't know all the insides of this case, but this kind of stuff is actually pretty normal to some degree in both LE and the private sector.

Disclaimer: I am not LE. The closest I get is a few friends and running into sworn LE in shooting classes. That said, I have some experience in university settings, both private and state, and that experience tells me that DB is spot on here. When upper admin has an interest in keeping someone around to present a good outward image, or to save face after bad hiring decisions, then there is almost no cap on the level to which they will sweep even massively documented failings by certified kitten-ups under the rug. You can either keep piling the documentation up, and become part of the problem--as seen from above--and take your licks, or you can work to get said kitten-up another job somewhere else and kick the can down the road that way. What you typically can't do is present proof of crappy performance and/or judgement and expect facts to rule the day. They might; but just as often they might not. JMO.

[Trooper224]

I taught traffic stop techniques and officer survival at my agencies academy for several years. With a total of one exception, every single female recruit who came through the doors during that time was abjectly worthless. So were a few of the men, so this isn't a girl bash. Without exception, every male recruit who couldn't make the grade was washed out, either in the academy or during the field training phase. Without exception, every single female recruit was pushed through the process and sent out on the road. Regardless of our evaluations as their instructors or reports from their FTO's, we were told they WOULD make it through training without exception. The most worthless ones were quickly promoted into the supervisory ranks and moved into administrative positions, in order to get them off the road. Only one was placed in the field as a Lieutenant, and her performance there resulted in the wrongful termination of a Trooper followed by the resulting lawsuit by said Trooper, thereby followed by the man getting his job back and a big check from the state. Her? Well they moved her out of the field and into General Headquarters of course.

Our agency has also historically had trouble recruiting minorities. We've been saddled with black troops who couldn't perform academicly, who had to have tests read to them because they were semi-illiterate. We once hired an active hispanic gang member all in the name of diversity. His first FTO nearly lost his job because he simply refused to train him. If you're white, male and stupid you don't stand a chance, unless you're someone's "boy". If your skin color or gender are just right endless allowances are made for you. Unfortunately that's the way the world seems to work in general. A certain type of person gravitates to supervision in law enforcement, it almost seems to be pathalogical.

My time as an instructor came to an end when I was summoned to the Captains office (where a scented candle burned on the desk) and was told, "We don't think your mindset fits with our current training philosophy." My resonse? "You're god damned right it doesn't."

[Chuck Haggard]

This is where I often note "people get the police departments, and police service, that they vote for".

The bane of our nation is political correctness. That it also infects law enforcement should be a shock to no one.

[jlw]

I have no ties to the Dallas PD.

I began my career with a PD that hired and trained a lot of people. Often, an employee's first day on the job was the first day of the police academy, and as this was a regional police academy serving 10 counties, newbies had little interaction with the agency until they graduated. They then began their FTO phase. The result of all of this was that the agency had spent a lot of money on the employee from the get go and as such, it was very reluctant to wash folks out during FTO phase. This had nothing to do with gender, race, or any of the other stuff. It was simply financial and wanting to give every chance to get people over the hump.

Thankfully, our supervision was on top of things to the point that the screw up was limited in their ability to truly screw things up.

The FTOs always griped about passing folks along who were problem children. The supervisors always griped about having to deal with them, but to a certain extent I understood the administrations point of not wanting to just flush money down the drain. Even though I understood it, it didn't mean that I was always on board with it or didn't gripe about it. I did have a brush with the admin on one instance were one of the problem children screwed up a rather simple incident, and when I was questioned as to why I let said employee handle the incident, my response was "If they can't do X, then why are they still here?" That one didn't win me any favor.

At the SO, we have it easier in that we can start someone in the jail or dispatch. We have six months before we are mandated by law to send them for either of those position's initial certification training whereas a peace officer has to be certified before ever hitting the streets. If somebody isn't catching on, we simply let them go as a probationary employee who didn't successfully complete their work test period.

For agencies that run their own recruit academies, they should be using the academy to rid themselves of attitude problems and non-hackers. The agency that I began my career with is actually trying to go this route by establishing their own academy, but they are meeting with some political obstacles.

[jlw]

One more thing that comes to mind:

After I was no longer an FTO (having been promoted), I was asked to participate in a practical test of a recruit that was scenario based. I was given clear clear instructions as to what to do as a role player almost to the point of having an exact script to follow.

The recruit failed the practical. Her response, "Sgt. Weems doesn't like female officers." I was called on the carpet and asked about the incident. I produced my written instructions and asked how my following written instructions constituted a supposed dislike of female officers.

Such allegations are often a fall back excuse.

[Chuck Haggard]

One more thing that comes to mind:

After I was no longer an FTO (having been promoted), I was asked to participate in a practical test of a recruit that was scenario based. I was given clear clear instructions as to what to do as a role player almost to the point of having an exact script to follow.

The recruit failed the practical. Her response, "Sgt. Weems doesn't like female officers." I was called on the carpet and asked about the incident. I produced my written instructions and asked how my following written instructions constituted a supposed dislike of female officers.

Such allegations are often a fall back excuse.

Video of these events is your friend.

I and another SGT were sued, along with my PD, for recommending that a female recruit be terminated before the end of our academy due to multiple failures to apply proper decision making in UOF scenarios.
She literally shot or otherwise used deadly force on every single roll player in which she had to use any force at all during the scenario, yet we were biased due to her being a female (didn't matter that the other three females in that class were graded as doing fine).

Copious notes and video of said scenarios made the whole thing go away without even a settlement payment.