Law Enforcement Accountability
The defense must to be able to assess the credibility of officer witnesses.
For the past several years, our organization has advocated for more accessible police misconduct records. We support the establishment of a searchable statewide database for officers with sustained charges of excessive force, dishonesty, discrimination, or misconduct toward others based on any protected class.
Retention policies for misconduct records should be standardized across the state.
Each police department in Utah has different records retention policies. Some departments allow officers to request the removal of their disciplinary records while others automatically purge records after a certain amount of time has passed. We believe that the standardization of this process statewide will serve to more quickly identify patterns of misconduct and increase transparency to the public.
States that have police disciplinary records available to the public usually include:
Substantiated complaints
Reports created about the event
Records of the agency’s investigation, evidence, and findings
Disciplinary decisions and actions
Although some agencies have unsubstantiated complaints available, these are commonly redacted, along with body camera footage, information that will impede an active investigation, and personal information about the implicated officer (except name).
What information should be public?
How can we better identify “problem” officers?
Many departments have adopted Early Warning Systems.
Early Warning Systems (EWS) are database tools that attempt to identify patterns of officer misconduct. These systems allow for earlier intervention and correction of officer behavior, but they can vary greatly in design and implementation. EWS are useful tools for police departments to assess officer complaints, but require an existing department culture of accountability and integrity to be effective.
S.B. 124 Law Enforcement Officer Amendments, passed in 2024, requires a Utah law enforcement agency to use an early intervention system, as well as requiring agencies to perform background checks on any law enforcement officer they hire. It also authorizes POST to discipline a chief executive who fails to report misconduct with a Letter of Caution or suspension/revocation of their certification.
The mission of the POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Investigations Bureau is to provide “objective” and “consistent” investigations of police officer misconduct. Our organization has advocated for a standardized, automated process in which police officer complaints regarding dishonesty get sent directly to POST. We believe that establishing this automatic process will prevent individual departments from disregarding these serious allegations while still allowing for police officers to retain control over their own disciplinary procedures.
We think that P.O.S.T. should decide.
UDAA has a history of supporting transparency in Utah policing.
Our organization has advocated for reforms in body camera regulations that increase transparency in law enforcement. S.B. 210 Body Camera Amendments, passed in the 2020 General Session, clarifies when an officer may and may not deactivate their body camera. If officers fail to comply with the requirements, they must document the reason why their cameras were turned off. We also advocated for judges to be permitted to provide an adverse inference instruction to a jury when a body camera is turned off not in accordance with the requirements.