A police officer asked a colleague to access a confidential law-enforcement database. The officer sought information about the vehicle of a woman the officer suspected that her ex-boyfriend was seeing. While off-duty, the officer then used that information to find the woman in another jurisdiction. The women fought. Peace officers from the other jurisdiction responded. The officer failed to inform her superiors, as required by policy, about her off-duty contact with law enforcement.
The department placed the officer on administrative leave. While on leave, the officer contacted the colleague whom she had asked to access the confidential databases. The officer attempted to align their accounts to make it appear that the access was for a legitimate police purpose. Also, while the officer was on administrative leave, she attended a church service in her police uniform in violation of the terms of her leave.
The department completed an internal investigation and issued a notice of intent to terminate. The officer appealed.
During two days of hearings before an advisory hearing officer, LCW strategically handled the evidentiary record, highlighted the officer’s credibility issues, and outlined the department’s disciplinary standards. The department’s witnesses testified as to the officer’s pattern of deception. Among them was the colleague officer who accessed the confidential database for the subject officer. He testified that the subject officer gave inconsistent explanations for requesting the confidential database information. He also testified that the subject officer contacted him during the internal investigation to attempt to align their testimony.
The hearing officer found that the city proved multiple policy violations by a preponderance of the evidence, including misuse of confidential law-enforcement databases for personal purposes, dishonesty and lack of candor during investigations, insubordination and failure to follow lawful orders, failure to report required law-enforcement contacts, and conduct that brought discredit to the department. The decision emphasized that honesty, judgment, and compliance with policy are core requirements for peace officers and that misuse of confidential systems and evasive conduct undermined institutional integrity.
The city manager reviewed the hearing officer’s advisory decision. He agreed that the officer’s conduct struck at the heart of what it means to serve as a peace officer and that her continued employment would pose unacceptable risks to departmental integrity, operational effectiveness, and public confidence.