Full disclosure: How law enforcement answered questions about officer truthfulness policies

The five Douglas County-area law enforcement agencies — the Lawrence, University of Kansas, Eudora and Baldwin City police departments and the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office — announced on April 15 that they had agreed upon a uniform Brady-Giglio policy.

In simple terms, Brady-Giglio material can be evidence that could show that a defendant is not guilty, also called exculpatory evidence. It can mean information that could make a jury question a witness’s truthfulness. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this type of information must be shared with defense attorneys in criminal cases to try to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial.

Read the main story: Conflicting policies of police and prosecutors jeopardize high-stakes criminal cases

We followed up with several questions on April 18 and 19 to get a better understanding of how they view complex issues of disclosure under Brady-Giglio policies.

We sent questions via email for clarity’s sake, but invited phone conversations to talk about the answers. Each agency provided written answers via email on Thursday, April 21.

In the interest of full disclosure and giving each department a fair opportunity to respond to these complex issues, we are publishing each agency’s full responses.

Here’s who answered:

And here’s what they had to say:

LT	Q1: The legal standard is whether evidence is “material” to innocence or guilt. To someone without a law degree, that sounds like a fairly subjective standard. How should law enforcement assess whether evidence is material? Under this policy, if materiality of certain evidence is questionable, should officers err on the side of disclosure or nondisclosure?
LPD	The City of Lawrence, Kansas, Police Department has complied — and continues to comply — with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Department recognizes the fundamental right of all persons to a fair and impartial trial, which those cases protect, and will always err on the side of disclosing promptly such information to the prosecutor so that an informed decision under those cases can be made. Should the Department have questions regarding whether specific information is or is not “material” within the scope of Brady or Giglio, the Department would consult the City Attorney’s Office or the prosecutor and seek their guidance.
DGSO	Update, 8:48 p.m. May 6, 2022: Armbrister acknowledged after this article was published that his answer to this question was not accurate. See this article for more information. Original answer: I believe the third definition in Black’s Law Dictionary of “material” that “of such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision making” is most germane in this case. I think you are right in that the term can be ambiguous and subjective, so I will err on the side of caution when deciding what needs to be disclosed and what does not.  My own personal situation and experience plays deeply into this. A well-publicized allegation was made against me and my truthfulness during a criminal investigation. Based on that allegation, an independent investigation was completed by an outside agency. The findings were clear that I had acted in good faith but in poor practice and violated department policies in that I unintentionally failed to move a recorded interview to the proper server to be preserved as part of an investigation. There was absolutely no information showing I acted maliciously or nefariously, nor with intent. In fact, it showed that I had, at NO POINT, tried to hide my mistakes or obscure them from both the defense and courts. I did not know that the recorded interview had not been uploaded or saved to the system until the case proceeded to trial.  And to that end, I received administrative punishment for the policy violations, and the District Attorney at the time reviewed the investigation and found there was no criminal conduct or intent to obscure information on my part. The Judge in that case viewed my personnel file “in camera,” and he found there was nothing to show I had done anything toward untruthful behavior, nor with intent.  My case is an excellent example: There is an allegation of untruthfulness; however, after the system has looked at it from a Brady-Giglio standard, it remains an allegation and not “material” information “of such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision making.” So, if I had a deputy in my agency with these exact set of facts presented to me, I would retain all information in the personnel file, but I would not state he or she has any material Brady Giglio findings that should be disclosed as that is the standard the law requires. Honest mistakes and intentional deceit are two entirely different things and will be handled as such.
KUPD	If an employee has any relevant Brady/Giglio implications, such as a lack of truthfulness, it will be disclosed. Any complicated or questionable Brady/Giglio issues will be reported to the District Attorney’s Office for a determination of the necessity of disclosure.
EPD	The department recognizes the importance of this matter, therefore, will always err on the side of reporting any complicated or questionable Brady/Giglio issues to the District Attorney’s Officer for a determination of the necessity of disclosure.
BCPD	Materiality is a highly subjective standard and because of that the Baldwin City Police Department errs on the side of disclosing information when materiality is in question.

Update:

Douglas County sheriff’s personnel file was not reviewed, cleared by judge as he stated

Q2: Your new policy clearly states that law enforcement agencies must report to the prosecution “sustained findings of misconduct related to truthfulness.” 

I previously covered a case (State v. Duc Tran) in which an officer had been accused of perjury on the witness stand in a separate case, but LPD cleared him after investigating. The judge in Tran’s case later reviewed the circumstances and dismissed the case, which depended on that officer’s testimony, despite the fact that LPD did not sustain the allegation of misconduct related to truthfulness. 

That case was only dropped because the defense attorney happened to know about the allegation of untruthfulness and was able to bring it to the court’s attention. That information had not been disclosed to the defense. Still, despite that the department did not sustain a finding of untruthfulness, it was enough for the judge to dismiss that case.

The DA’s office policy also states that allegations that have not been sustained “are generally not considered to be potential impeachment information. However, the law in this area is constantly evolving, so any such allegations should still be provided in conjunction with the Law Enforcement Checklist.”

LT	2. a. What does this policy do, and what will your department do, to protect against circumstances like those in Tran’s case from repeating?
LPD	As you are aware, there is pending civil litigation between Mr. Tran and the City of Lawrence, Kansas. It is the policy of the City not to comment on specific facts underlying pending litigation. Also, the City is not in agreement with several of the factual assertions appearing in your question.  Finally, it is the policy of the Department to comply with Brady and Giglio and to provide such information to the prosecutor in a prompt and timely fashion so that the prosecutor can make an informed decision regarding whether or not the information is material such that it must be disclosed under either Brady or Giglio.
DGSO	I cannot speak to the internal affairs investigation by another agency nor can I speak to why the court dismissed the case. But what we do as an agency is hold our deputies and employees to the highest standards possible.  Lastly, based on this article you are preparing to write, I now have an extra layer of accountability in that I have told you and the public how I intend to handle these situations, and if I stray from my promise, you and the community will hold me accountable. I want to avoid letting the community down as I’m trying to maintain community trust, rather than tear it down.
KUPD	Our department is unfamiliar with the facts and circumstances of this court case or any related internal investigations, therefore we are unable to comment. We also do not comment on other agencies cases. However, we feel that our policy addresses the requirements of the Brady-Giglio law.
EPD	The case in question is in pending litigation and originates out of another agency. It is our policy to not comment on these types of cases.
BCPD	The case in question is in pending litigation and originates out of another agency. It is our policy to not comment on pending litigation or another agency’s cases. I do agree with the Douglas County District Attorney’s statement that “allegations that have not been sustained are generally not considered to be potential impeachment information.” If a conviction or finding was made then disclosure should be immediate as potential impeachment information.

LT	2. b. If an accusation of untruthfulness is sustained, might your department retain that officer? If so, why? If not, what actions will your department take to see that the officer does not continue their law enforcement career at another agency?
LPD	The Department recognizes that the integrity and trustworthiness of its Police Officers are of the utmost concern to our community members. In the past, the City has separated employment with police officers who were unable to testify due to Brady/Giglio issues. Additionally, the Department provides such information to KSCPOST (the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training) to allow that agency to make a determination regarding that officer’s certification to serve as a police officer.
DGSO	That officer would no longer work for us.  Additionally, as Sheriff, I am required to complete a form for KS-CPOST (Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training) regarding the findings of the internal affairs investigation and provide them any information requested regarding that person’s commission. For an employee separation, the form includes providing a description and answering questions about the reasons for termination or separation, including:  – Whether there was an internal investigation on the officer in the past six months. – If we are aware of an external investigation or law enforcement-related civil action or lawsuit on the officer in the past six months.  – If we are aware of a criminal investigation or criminal charges against the officer.
KUPD	The University of Kansas Police Department will not retain an employee who has been proven to be untruthful during an investigation. Furthermore, such information would be forwarded to CPOST to determine if it is appropriate to take action against the individual’s law enforcement certification.
EPD	The Eudora Police Department will not retain an employee who has been proven to be untruthful during an internal investigation. Information would be forwarded to CPOST to determine if it is appropriate to take action against the person’s certification.
BCPD	I would not retain an officer found to have been untruthful after an internal investigation. I would also complete the mandated KS-CPOST disclosure form indicating the finding of untruthfulness so KS-CPOST could take the necessary and appropriate administrative action regarding that individual’s commission credentials.

Q3: The policy states that agencies will disclose to the prosecution “Any criminal convictions, including juvenile convictions, involving acts of dishonesty” of department personnel.

LT	3. a. What is your department’s stance on hiring (or retaining) an employee, sworn or non sworn, with such a conviction in their background?
LPD	The City conducts a thorough background check on all candidates for employment with the Department. The City also follows the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Act of 1968, codified as amended at K.S.A. 74-5601, regarding who the City may or may not hire as a commissioned police officer. The City does not currently employ any police officer with a conviction for a crime involving an act of dishonesty.
DGSO	As provided in the first answer above, such a conviction would likely mean the candidate would not be able to fill the position requisite of being able to testify in court, so we likely would start with erring on the side they could not be employed. However, I do believe in looking at the totality of the circumstances of the incident and whether it was a pattern of behavior and character or an isolated incident.  If it was a juvenile conviction for shoplifting as a teenager, where someone completed a diversion to learn from their mistake and never did it again, that would be different than someone who committed an act of dishonesty where the person lied, hid, obstructed and hindered the truth being exposed.
KUPD	The University of Kansas Police Department will not hire an individual who has shown a history of untruthfulness whether convicted or not. It is paramount for this agency to ensure its employees have the ability to effectively testify in any legal proceeding without restriction.
EPD	The Eudora Police Department will not hire or retain an individual with a conviction or history involving untruthfulness. Should we learn about a conviction after hiring an employee, it would be grounds for termination.
BCPD	The Baldwin City Police Department does not and will not hire someone with a conviction or finding involving untruthfulness as it undermines the public’s faith in our department. Our department and its credibility would be harmed were we to hire someone with a conviction or finding involving untruthfulness. Should we learn about such a conviction or finding after hiring an employee, that would be grounds for termination with our department.

3. b. A Baldwin City officer had once been charged with theft and official misconduct but was acquitted after a bench trial; he was later charged in Douglas County with false impersonation, but his case was dismissed. (Background here.) A Douglas County judge recently ruled that the officer could have his case expunged; however, the judge ruled that despite not being convicted, the officer’s records would be available to any agency determining his eligibility for law enforcement certification, and that the sealed information would be accessible in any trial where he is called as a witness.

LT	Essentially, neither case became a conviction, but the Douglas County judge ruled that the information must be provided anyway. This policy only addresses convictions. Under the standard a judge has recently set, is that enough? Why or why not?
LPD	The Department complies with the requirements of Brady and Giglio. It will continue to provide, under City policy, Brady or Giglio information to the prosecutor in a prompt and timely manner so that the prosecutor can determine whether such information must be disclosed under Brady or Giglio.
DGSO	We cannot speak to the circumstances involving another agency or a Judge’s decision.
KUPD	Our department is unfamiliar with the facts and circumstances of this court case or any related internal investigations, therefore we are unable to comment. We also do not comment on other agencies cases. However, we feel that our policy addresses the requirements of the Brady-Giglio law.
EPD	As stated earlier, we will not comment on another jurisdictions case. All employees of the Eudora Police Department receive a thorough background investigation prior to being hired. Regardless of certification status, a potential employee with a known history of untruthfulness will not be hired.
BCPD	The standard our office follows is the standard set forth in our Brady/Giglio policy based upon federal and state rulings regarding what law enforcement agencies are required to disclose. As previously stated, we would immediately disclose any conviction or finding regarding untruthfulness. An acquittal in a case where truthfulness was at issue would not be disclosed as there would be no conviction or finding to disclose. I have full confidence in the integrity of all our officers and would not employ an officer if I did not believe them to be trustworthy.

LT	Q4: If the DA’s office and/or municipal prosecutors determine that they will not accept testimony from an officer, in what capacities might an officer remain employed with your department?
LPD	Currently, the City does not employ any person within the Department that is unable to testify in district court, municipal court, or in any other venue. In the past, the City has separated employment with police officers who were unable to testify due to Brady/Giglio issues.
DGSO	In the past, such an officer has not remained employed, because most, if not all, Sheriff’s Office employees have the potential of being called to testify in a criminal case. If an employee is found to be impaired by Brady-Giglio, their future employment would be in jeopardy.
KUPD	An officer who is unable to testify in court would not remain an employee of the University of Kansas Police Department.
EPD	An employee who is unable to testify in court would not remain an employee of the Eudora Police Department.
BCPD	I can’t presume to know why a prosecutor might not accept testimony from one of our officers. If there was a confirmed finding of untruthfulness, our agency would not retain that employee.

LT	Q5: Do these standards apply to both sworn and non-sworn employees of your department? (Meaning does this policy apply to any records custodians, scene investigators, victim/witness liaisons, public information officers, etc.?)
LPD	Department policies apply to all members of the Department, including civilian personnel.
DGSO	Yes, as stated above, from our perspective the policy states it applies to any department personnel who are likely to be a witness in a criminal case so that would include all Sheriff’s Office employees.
KUPD	The University of Kansas Police Department conducts thorough background investigations on every employee, sworn and non-sworn, to ensure that they fit our high standard of conduct in both their personal and professional lives.
EPD	The Eudora Police Department conducts thorough background investigations on every employee, sworn and non-sworn, to ensure that they fit our high standard of conduct in both their personal and professional lives.
BCPD	Our standard regarding truthfulness is paramount to our office and is applied to everyone employed at the Baldwin City Police Department.

LT	Q6: Which attorneys did you consult to create this policy?
LPD	The City Attorney’s Office, including the City Prosecutor.
DGSO	The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office utilizes Stevens & Brand, LLP.
KUPD	The legal counsels of all of our agencies were involved in drafting this policy.
EPD	The legal counsels for all agencies were involved in drafting this policy.
BCPD	The legal counsels of all local law enforcement agencies worked together on the Brady Giglio policy.

The following questions were sent to law enforcement in a separate email after we received responses from the Douglas County district attorney’s office, but all agencies answered all questions at the same time.

LT	Q7:  I was told the DA’s office was not consulted for the formation of this policy. Is that accurate, and if so, why not? To add more context, the DA’s office told me: “The District Attorney convened a working group to develop this (the DA’s office’s) policy in a collaborative manner with our local law enforcement agencies, beginning in late 2020, prior to being sworn in. Representatives from each of those law enforcement agencies, as well as their legal counsel, were involved. No one voiced opposition, nor were any alternative policies ever presented.”
LPD	In late October or early November, at a weekly meeting with various Douglas County law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney outlined a proposed Brady/Giglio policy. The Department had a number of questions regarding the policy, particularly those sections dealing with the District Attorney having access to personnel files of City employees. Those issues were discussed and the District Attorney promised to work with the Department on those issues. However, that did not happen. In December 2021, the District Attorney conducted another meeting and presented the proposed policy on Brady/Giglio as the “final” policy without any changes. It was the same policy that had been presented previously and did not alleviate any of the concerns expressed by the Department at the earlier meeting. The meeting was not collaborative. While there was some interactive discussion of the policy and its issues, questions were dismissed, there was no collaboration on language or provisions, and the Department was not afforded the opportunity to proffer an alternative policy. It was simply presented to the Department as the District Attorney’s “final” policy and that was it. Neither Brady nor Giglio, nor any law interpreting those decisions, requires most of that which appears in the District Attorney’s “final” policy. It should be noted that the District Attorney does not make policy for the City and the City is not bound to follow the District Attorney’s policy. The City is bound only to follow the law and it is in compliance with the law, including Brady and Giglio. Moreover, the District Attorney’s proposed policy would cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars, unnecessarily, as the Department would have to complete the various checklists, monitor those checklists, and update those checklists for over 175 employees. The District Attorney’s policy, if followed by the Department, would also expose the City to liability for the invasion of privacy of its employees as the District Attorney made various forays into private information maintained in the personnel files of its employees. And, as stated before, none of that is required by the law, including Brady, Giglio, or their progeny.
DGSO	While we do agree there were meetings to discuss various topics including a Brady-Giglio policy from the DA’s Office, I would dispute the use of the term “working group.” It was more of a listening session for us as law enforcement partners to listen to what their policy would be and how they had vetted their policy. When issues or questions were brought up, they were dismissed out of hand. We were told this will be the policy and that it would not change. And while there were some attorneys present at some of these listening sessions, it is my recollection that no counsel for the Sheriff’s Office was present at any of these meetings. The DA may have a record of those present, but I do not believe any counsel representing this agency was present as claimed.  After the DA’s policy was put in place, we, as the Sheriff’s Office, had not complied with the DA’s internal policy due to our concerns and were seeking advice of counsel for our concerns with the policy and checklist we were being told we had to follow. When I re-approached the DA weeks ago, I informed her I would like to revisit the policy and checklist and was told there would be NO discussion or changes to the current system the DA imposed. And in fact, during this meeting, the District Attorney stated she would not be filing ANY cases forwarded to her by the Sheriff’s Office if we did not comply with her internal department policy.  In a follow-up meeting with the DA, she told me there would be no collaboration or changes to the policy. Additionally, it was pointed out again if I did not comply with the internal policy of the DA’s Office, the DA would not prosecute ANY cases put forth by my agency. With this information in hand, it was clear the Sheriff’s Office needed to make necessary changes in the best interest of the law as well as our personnel on our own and without any assistance from the District Attorney’s Office. Accordingly, we adapted the policy used by the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office and the Wichita Police Department. The DA was informed of this shortly before the media release was sent on April 15, 2022. We have had no correspondence since then with the DA.
KUPD	Law enforcement was not included during the DA’s research of Brady/Giglio and ultimately the working group was presented with her results that were to be implemented. Concerns, options, and alternatives were brought up during meetings with the DA, however some of the recommendations from law enforcement were not included with little to no explanation. Individual agencies set their own policies and procedures. In this case, Douglas County law enforcement, along with our legal counsels, worked together to craft a unified policy.
EPD	The policy was created as an alternative to the checklist and the DA was not consulted. Concerns were raised during the meetings.
BCPD	There is clearly a troubling disconnect between the District Attorney’s Office and every other law enforcement and prosecution office in Douglas County. I would welcome any and all constructive efforts to make sure all parties concerns were being taken into consideration so we can come together to protect our communities and the rights of the people we serve.

Q8: In my first round of questions, I mentioned the circumstances in the State v. Tran case and the allegations of untruthfulness that were found to be unsubstantiated by LPD. The DA’s office told me this: “While the District Attorney’s Brady/Giglio Policy was specifically tailored to secure such material, the law enforcement policy simply codifies the philosophy that has repeatedly failed and continues to fail. Under the law enforcement policy, the agencies would not disclose the conduct associated with those matters to the District Attorney’s Office” …

LT	Can you address that?
LPD	Brady and Giglio exist to ensure that all criminal defendants are afforded a fair and impartial trial. The City and the Department believe that those rights are fundamental to our form of government. Accordingly, it is the policy of the City and the Department to comply with Brady, Giglio, and their progeny. Also, the City is not in agreement with several of the factual assertions appearing in your question.
DGSO	Again, I will not speak to another agency’s case, but I challenge the statement that the system “continues to fail.” This is an opinion, and I disagree with it. Please see my next answer for context to this statement and what I believe shows the system is currently working as it should be.
KUPD	Our department is unaware of any of our cases being dismissed due to Brady/Giglio-related reasons.
EPD	Per the policy – any conduct that would affect an employee’s Brady/Giglio status on a case would be reported to the District Attorney’s Office.
BCPD	Again, it is our policy to not comment on pending litigation or other office’s investigations.

LT	Q9: The DA’s office said that “conservatively,” they would estimate that they have dismissed more than 50 cases for Giglio-related reasons, and also declined to prosecute at least one alleged sexual assault case because of Giglio issues. Would law enforcement leadership like to comment on that?
LPD	The Department recognizes that cases may be dismissed for many different reasons and that such dismissals are necessary for a fair and impartial judicial process. Without knowing the specifics underlying the alleged dismissals, the Department cannot provide a more substantive comment.
DGSO	I cannot speak to the overall number given the DA’s office handles charging decisions. The number could be indicative of a small number of officers who become Brady-Giglio-impaired and therefore affect a large number of cases based on the number of cases and calls to which an officer responds. Obviously, it’s mostly critical in high-profile cases involving serious crimes. Many of the police chiefs are relatively new, and the District Attorney and I took office in 2021. We all have inherited a previous administration and are working to improve the system. From the law enforcement standpoint, this policy helps continue to foster accountability and is uniform among agencies across the county so we believe this is a big deal. In other words, law enforcement agencies rarely all agree on a uniform policy, yet we have all agreed and adopted the same uniform policy. And in opposition to the statement that the system “continues to fail,” I would ask a question. Since taking office the DA claims to have “dismissed” 50ish cases. My question would be: How did the DA’s Office learn of this Brady-Giglio information that led to the dismissal of these cases? It’s because Law Enforcement has VOLUNTARILY provided her information that was possibly “material” Brady-Giglio information. Based on the information provided by Law Enforcement, these cases were dismissed. And in the reverse, if the DA has dismissed cases for Brady-Giglio issues because of an officer that we do not know about, that is a dereliction of duty to inform us so we can take necessary steps to rectify that situation immediately. Which is it?
KUPD	Our department is unaware of any of our cases being dismissed due to Brady/Giglio-related reasons.
EPD	Our department is unaware to the amount of cases being dismissed for Brady/Giglio issues.
BCPD	I am unaware of any cases connected to Baldwin City Police Department investigations that were later dismissed due to Brady/Giglio issues.

Q10: The DA’s office said they have not received any information about complaints such as the ones Lawrence Police Chief Rich Lockhart shared with the Community Police Review Board on April 14, but that under the DA’s Brady/Giglio policy, those allegations should have been disclosed. 

LT	Is it law enforcement’s understanding that these types of complaints need to be disclosed to the DA’s office, and/or do you feel that this crosses a line into officers’ personnel information?
LPD	Brady provides that, in a criminal case, the suppression of material exculpatory evidence is a violation of the defendant’s Constitutional due process rights. Giglio provides that, in a criminal case, the suppression of material information that might impeach the testimony of a witness at trial is a violation of the defendant’s Constitutional due process rights. Accordingly, under Brady and Giglio, the Department discloses to the prosecutor any exculpatory evidence and any information that might impeach any witness testifying at the trial of the case. The prosecutor, in turn, must disclose that information to the defendant. To the extent that the complaints discussed above implicate Brady or Giglio, the pertinent information will be disclosed to the District Attorney in accordance with the law. To the extent that they do not, then they are personnel matters for the City.
DGSO	Again, I have no facts of the complaints mentioned above, and if I did, I would not and could not comment on another agency’s process. What I can say is an allegation of misconduct is far distinct from a FINDING of misconduct. An allegation can be made by anyone, at any time, for anything even if it is completely fictitious. We have a robust system to vet these allegations and if there is a substantiated finding or even a finding short of a full exoneration, we would agree that information would be “material” information that would need to be provided to the DA.
KUPD	Our department is unfamiliar with the facts and circumstances of these complaints, therefore we are unable to comment.
EPD	Our agency will always follow our policy by providing relevant information to the District Attorney’s Office.
BCPD	I can’t speak to those specific complaints as they do not involve our office or officers.

LT	Q11: Finally, I failed to ask in my first email if there’s anything else that you would like the community to know about these issues. I’d always welcome any additional thoughts you’d like to share (and I hope you’ll please let me know if I’m missing something important in my questions).
LPD	The Department has nothing else to add.
DGSO	I want to start by thanking the DA. Her input on this topic has made this a continuing priority for all involved. The Sheriff’s Office did not have a written policy for this and it was much needed, so at her urging, we now have a well-vetted policy that conforms to best practices as well as the law. As stated before, our law enforcement partners have worked since day one (of our administrations) to seek out officers or deputies who do not reach the highest standards of ethics and truthfulness that our community demands, and we have been successful in exposing those officers or deputies and having them removed from our ranks while also disclosing the appropriate “material” information to the DA’s Office. Has the question been asked or has any information been found that shows ANY other DA in the state that has a policy such as the one our DA has implemented? Why was the DA unwilling to even discuss changes to the policy or checklist? Is threatening to not prosecute ANY cases from an agency who complies with state law but does not comply with another office’s internal policy appropriate? If I said I was not going to forward ANY cases to the DA because they are not following my internal policy, that would be contrary to my elected position, and the victims and community would be the ones it affects most. If I did do this, I would expect this community to rise up and challenge me, and if I do not meet their expectations, I would expect them to work towards a solution that would bring sanity and security back to our criminal justice system.
KUPD	Our agency has and will always place an emphasis upon honesty and integrity. Regardless of an officer’s CPOST certification status, we will not hire or retain any officer with proven issues related to either one or to Brady/Giglio.
EPD	Our agency has and always will place an emphasis on honesty and integrity. We will continue our strict hiring practices and insist on professionalism throughout our department.
BCPD	Our office is only as good as the officers it employs. The people of Baldwin City and Douglas County are served best when our officers show through their actions that they are to be trusted. This includes turning over all material evidence to ensure the system treats all persons fairly. We will continue employing only officers with clean records regarding honesty and our office will meet all ethical and constitutional requirements, not because another agency tells us we need to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

More coverage: Brady/Giglio disclosures

MORE …

Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark (at) lawrencekstimes (dot) com. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• LinkedIn