A model cop he’s not
Hearing officer makes wrong call on officer who avoided police
8 June 2007
Rocky Mountain News
FINAL
38
A disciplinary hearing for a police officer is not a criminal trial. To prevail, the city does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
The burden of proof is less demanding - and it should be. If an officer's behavior discredits the city or his department - even when he's off duty - he does not have to be convicted of a crime to forfeit his badge.
Unfortunately, that's not how the case against Denver police officer Steven Sandoval is playing out. Sandoval was fired after the department argued that he had kicked his wife during a fight in August 2005; that he had engaged in a pattern of domestic violence (even though his wife never filed charges); and that he had impeded an investigation of the 2005 incident by making sure he and his wife were away from their house and unable to talk with Aurora police after she had called 911.
Hearing offer John Criswell overturned the firing. In a 19-page report, Criswell said he didn't find the first two allegations credible enough to merit dismissal. (He did say the obstruction charge is credible.)
Sandoval initially told the department that he and his wife Corina were at a park with their kids discussing a divorce when the Aurora cops arrived at their house. He later said they left the house so that they would not be home when police arrived.
Even if you reject the other allegations, based on the report - which is clearly sympathetic to Sandoval - the obstruction charge alone should be reason enough to send Sandoval packing. Not to mention the fact that police have repeatedly been called to his house for alleged domestic incidents.
Not so, Criswell concluded. He is acting as if Sandoval were a defendant in the dock who must be convicted before being subject to serious discipline, rather than a public employee who has failed to live up to the high standard of behavior that wearing a badge demands.
Criswell decided that a 30-day suspension is sufficient. And given the way the process drags on interminably in Denver, Sandoval's lawyer believes his client will almost certainly be back on the job long before the department's appeal is heard by the Civil Service Commission and resolved.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the outcome; remember that it took the commission three years to uphold a 10-month suspension of officer James Turney in the Paul Childs shooting.
As for the domestic abuse allegations against Sandoval, Criswell decided they were not credible - first, because Corina refused to file charges, and then because she "appears to have a reasonably strong, independent personality; she does not present a 'mousy' appearance in any sense of the word."
What is this, 1950? Are only "mousy" women believable as victims of abuse?
Law enforcement officers are supposed to set an example, both while on duty and in their personal lives. They should live by a higher code of conduct, or they can undermine respect for the police and other public institutions as well.
Sandoval failed to uphold the standards that his position of trust requires - and Criswell has compounded that failure by letting the officer stay on the force.
We can only hope that the Civil Service Commission will make the appeal a priority, and show Sandoval the door.