psychological factors after officer

8/9/2019 Psychological Factors After Officer

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psychological-factors-after-officer 1/8

Psychological Factors after Officer-Involved Shootings: Addressing Officer

Needs and Agency Responsibilities

By Philip S. Trompetter, PhD, Immediate Past General Chair, IACP Police Psychological

Services Section, Modesto, California David M. Corey, PhD, ABPP, Police and !orensic Psychologist, Portland, "regon #ayne #. Schmidt, $s%., Americans for $ffective &a'

$nforcement, Chicago, Illinois and Dre' Tracy, Assistant Chief, Investigative Services

B(rea(, Montgomery Co(nty, Maryland, Police Department

Click to view the digital edition.

he police use of deadly force is a consequential event for all parties: theofficers and their families, the agency, the community, and the suspects and

their families and survivors. In light of these profound consequences, the

most critical investigation in any law enforcement agency is that of anofficer-involved shooting (OI!." #o ensure transparency and accounta$ility,

agencies have developed meticulous policies and procedures that address the

administrative and criminal investigations of these events.

In recent years, many agencies also have devised strategies to attend to the psychological

needs of the involved officers while maintaining the integrity of the investigative process.%any of the programs to support involved officers have $ecome relatively uniform across

agencies. &ess consistent has $een the manner in which agencies return the involved officersto work. #his article suggests strategies for agencies to assist with the involved officers'

psychological needs following an OI, in addition to eamining how agencies can

responsi$ly and lawfully consider the officers' readiness to return to work.

ince ")*+, the IC has $een host to the olice sychological ervices ection (!.#his section is dedicated to providing epertise to police agencies in psychological matters

affecting law enforcement. #oward that end, the section has created five guidelines, each

revised every five years and availa$le at http:theiacp.orgpsych/services/section $y

clicking 0esources, and then 1uidelines. #he guidelines include reemploymentsychological 2valuations, sychological 3itness-for-4uty 2valuations (3342!, OI, eer

upport, and Consulting olice sychologists. ertinent to this article are the OI5 and

3342 1uidelines, 6 $oth revised in 577) and approved $y IC in 57"7.

#he OI guideline is consistent with the IC %odel olicy num$er 89, Investigation of

Officer-Involved hootings,; particularly section III. %odel olicy num$er 89 reads

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/CPIM0111/

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=print_display&article_id=2291&issue_id=12011#1

http://theiacp.org/psych_services_section








http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/CPIM0111/



). S(pervisory, investigative and other s'orn and nons'orn employees shall *e familiar 'ith and follo' the

provisions esta*lished *y this agency in its policy on dealing 'ith post+shooting emotional tra(ma in police

personnel.

. All personnel shall *e familiar 'ith the provisions of this agency-s policy on employee mental health services and sho(ld avail themselves of these services follo'ing officer+involved shooting incidents 'here

appropriate.<

#he OI guideline is also consistent with the Concepts and Issues aper $y the IC

=ational &aw 2nforcement olicy Center + that accompanies the model policy. #he Conceptsand Issues aper identifies several of the possi$le adverse or distressing psychological

reactions eperienced $y many officers during and after an OI (for eample, perceived

vulnera$ility during the event, perceptual distortions, or impaired recall!.9

#his article targets how agencies can attend and respond to these reactions $oth to assist

involved officers as well as to ensure that when they su$sequently return to work, agencies

are prepared to properly address the officers' psychological suita$ility to resume their pu$lic

safety responsi$ilities.

Assisting the Involved Officers after an OIS

#he IC OI guidelines were developed to provide information and recommendations to

pu$lic safety agencies and mental health providers to constructively support officersinvolved in shootings and other use-of-force incidents that may trigger the investigative

process. %any of these recommendations can also $e applied to otherpotentially distressing

critical events.

>efore an OI occurs, agencies should have a protocol to address the psychological needs

of the involved officers. rrangements should already $e in place for the availa$ility of aqualified, licensed mental health professional eperienced with law enforcement culture and

deadly force confrontations.

In addition, officers should $e provided a companion officer as soon as possi$le, prefera$lya trusted colleague who has $een through an OI. #alking with peers who have had similar

eperiences can $e quite helpful for officers involved in significant use-of-force incidents.

gencies should train potential companion officers in peer support techniques. #he trainedcompanion officer can provide guidance to the agency procedures, ensure the involved

officer refrains from speaking a$out the incident ecept to those authori?ed to hear it, and

offer support that is helpful and appropriate.

@hile officers may $e asked to provide pertinent information soon after a shooting to aidthe initial investigative process, it is suggested that they have some recovery time $efore

providing a full, formal statement. 4epending on the nature of the incident and the

emotional status of the officers, this can range from a few hours to several days. #he agencymay wish to consider permitting a walkthrough while taking a statement from the officer to

assist in gathering the most accurate information.









support to further their recovery process. 3ollow-up sessions should $e made availa$le to

every involved officer, and, if appropriate, referrals may $e offered for further treatment and

to peer support or chaplaincy programs.

>ecause delayed reactions may occur, all officers receiving an initial post-shootingintervention should receive follow-up contact $y the intervening mental health professional

either via phone or e-mail sometime within the first four months post-incident. In addition,

contact should $e made $y the intervener prior to the first anniversary of the incident.

&ife-threatening use-of-force incidents also have the potential to emotionally impact anofficer's significant others, who often can provide valua$le support to officers following

these incidents. #herefore, it can $e $eneficial for all concerned to include significant others

in the psychological de$riefing process.

Issues Involving Readiness to Return

olice eecutives have a legal duty to ensure that police officers under their command are

mentally and emotionally fit to perform their duties, and failure to do so can result insignificant civil lia$ility8 and serious consequences to citi?ens, other officers, and an

employing agency's reputation.* Barious courts have interpreted this duty to include the

authority to mandate psychological 3342 of police officers reasona$ly $elieved to $e

impaired in their a$ility to perform their o$ functions due to a known or suspected psychological condition.)

#he employer's duty to ensure a psychologically fit workforce does not, however, allow an

unrestrained right to require such evaluations of any police officer in any circumstance.Instead, the employer's duty must $e $alanced $y the pu$lic's interests and the employee'sconstitutional, civil, and property rights and interests."7

>y law, an employer may require an 3342 of an incum$ent police officer only when

o$ective facts pose a reasona$le $asis for concern a$out fitness. @hen making a disa$ilityinquiry or medical eamination of an incum$ent employee, the mericans with 4isa$ilities

ct of "))7 (4! requires the employer to meet a fact-specific, individuali?ed thresholdA

namely, that the inquiry or eamination is o$-related and consistent with $usiness

necessity; (<5 D..C. E"5""5(d! (<! (!A 5) C.3.0. E"967."<(c!!. In general, the 4regards this threshold as having $een met when an employer has a reasona$le $elief, $ased

on o$ective evidence, that ("! an employee's a$ility to perform essential o$ functions will $e impaired $y a medical conditionA or (5! an employee will pose a direct threat due to amedical condition.; In other words, legal ustification for a compulsory mental health

eamination of an employee requires o$ective evidence of o$-related performance

pro$lems or safety threats linked to a known or reasona$ly suspected mental condition. Oneof these in the a$sence of the other represents an insufficient $asis for an 3342.""













ccordingly, the IC OI 1uidelines state

.)/ It sho(ld *e made clear to all involved personnel, s(pervisors, and the comm(nity at large that an

officer-s fitness+for+d(ty sho(ld not *e *ro(ght into %(estion *y virt(e of their involvement in a shooting

incident. Post+shooting psychological interventions are separate and distinct from any fitness+for+d(ty

assessments or administrative or investigative proced(res that may follo'. This does not precl(de a s(pervisor from re%(esting a formal fitness+for+d(ty eval(ation *ased (pon o*0ective concerns a*o(t an officer-s a*ility

to perform his or her d(ties. 1o'ever, the mere fact of *eing involved in a shooting does not necessitate s(ch

an eval(ation prior to ret(rn to d(ty.

#hus, a $lanket policy of requiring an 3342 for an officer involved in an OI, standingalone, appears to $e inappropriate. Fet, a $rief online survey of agency OI policies finds

some departments requiring an 3342 $efore involved officers may return to work $ased

solely on their status of having $een in an OI. uch a policy may $e inconsistent withfederal law."5

#he licensed mental health professional providing the post-shooting intervention might

appear to $e in the $est position to address the agency's interest in determining an officer's

readiness to return to work. Gowever, this intervention can only help to alleviate or mitigatereadiness-to-return-to-duty concerns only if the officer is candidHan outcome made more

likely $y an assurance of confidentiality or privileged communication."6 requirement that

the intervener report readiness concerns to the agency impedes the efficacy of the post-shooting intervention to the etent that it motivates officers to $e less candid and

forthcoming with the mental health professional. #he post-shooting intervention should $e

off-limits as an agency source of readiness-to-return-to-duty information unless the

disclosure is initiated at the request of, and with the informed consent and authori?ation of,the officer, or unless other eceptions to confidentiality pertain, as discussed $elow.

Gowever, the agency may view its responsi$ility to the community as superseding the

efficacy of the post-shooting intervention, and there is a legal $asis to allow for disclosureof specified information to an employer from the intervener in limited circumstances. #he

federal Gealth Insurance orta$ility and ccounta$ility ct of "))9 (GI!, u$lic &aw

"7<-")", E"9<.+"5 provides, in pertinent part

(! tandard: Dses and disclosures to avert a serious threat to health or safety.

("! ermitted disclosures. covered entity may, consistent with applica$le law andstandards of ethical conduct, use or disclose protected health information, if the covered

entity, in good faith, $elieves the use or disclosure:

(i!(! Is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety

of a person or the pu$licA and

(>! Is to a person or persons reasona$ly a$le to prevent or lessen the threat, including the

target of the threat . . . ."<









%oreover, the patient-therapist privilege is not a$solute. #ypical eceptions to medical

confidentiality include a duty to

". report patients who epress a desire to harm themselves or othersA

5. report communica$le diseases, such as #4sA and

6. report gunshot wounds.

In view of this, some agencies require the intervening mental health professional torecommend whether or not to return the officer to field duty. 3or eample, the &os ngeles

olice %anual ec. 8)<.<7 eplains that the commanding officer of an on- or off-duty

employee who is involved in an officer-involved shooting resulting in an inury to any person or a categorical use of force resulting in death or the su$stantial possi$ility of death

shall cJonsult with the > (>ehavioral ervices ection! after the involved employee's

mandated appointment to o$tain their recommendation of whether or not to return theemployee(s! to field duty. Other than the recommendation of >, matters discussed during

the > evaluation shall $e strictly confidential.;"+

1iven the $road legal recognition of an employee's right to privacy, a mental health

professional in this position must limit the unauthori?ed disclosure of confidential healthinformation to a recommendation that the employee should or should not return to field

duty."9 %oreover, since such a policy provides an eception to privileged communication,

the intervener is ethically $ound to inform the officer of the eception and limit toconfidentiality at the outset of the intervention."8

n intervening mental health professional is not prohi$ited from reporting readinessconcerns directly to the officer, and would $e doing a disservice to the officer if such

concerns were ignored. Gonest feed$ack and a recommendation to the officer for additionaltime off to voluntarily continue counseling should $e an o$ective, and, with the officer's

informed consent and authori?ation, the intervening mental health professional can

communicate to the agency and coordinate a plan for addressing the noted concerns.

3or agencies that wish to follow the OI 1uidelines to promote the efficacy of the post-shooting intervention without requiring the intervening mental health professional to

disclose concerns to the agency a$out an officer's readiness to return to duty, several

alternative strategies can $e employed to address the agency's duty to protect the

community. commanding officer can interview the employee to assess the employee'sreadiness and suita$ility to return to field duty. ome agencies offer returning officers a

modified duty assignment partly as a way to provide a safe vantage point to assess their

readiness and suita$ility to return to their pre-incident positions. Other agencies trainsupervisors in the signs, $oth o$vious and su$tle, that might $e apparent in returning

officers who are not ready or suita$le to resume their pre-incident roles."* Officers can also

$e evaluated in shoot; and don't-shoot; scenarios to assess their readiness to return to












psychological factors after officer

Documents