|
|
Case Number 35 When I was appointed Accreditation Manager for the Jacksonville (FL) Sheriff’s Office in 1991, I was faced with the same problems and concerns that face most agencies’ processes. As I trained all of our employees in the accreditation process, I would inevitably be asked the same question, “What does accreditation do for me?” After only a few training sessions, I expanded the explanation of tangible benefits, and I developed a standard answer for money, “Accreditation may not directly put money in your pocket, but it won’t take it out either!” As it turned out, it would take several years to prove that very point beyond a doubt. In January 1998, one of our officers
was involved in a police involved shooting resulting in the death of a middle
aged woman The attorney for the plaintiff cited several reasons for the lawsuit, among them: failure of the Sheriff’s Office to review its policies since 1993, failure to train officers in use of force and related policies, and failure to document training. Naturally, both sides postured with experts and ran the gambit of judicial parlor games. Our side wanted to avoid the perception of bias, so they opted for an expert from outside our agency. Our expert spent time with me, and I convinced him and our general counsel to use accreditation and the ample proofs of compliance as the primary defense against the claims of the plaintiff, particularly since we had been accredited in 1992, and the plaintiff’s claims began from 1993. It was agreed to do so, and both sides prepared for the court date. Unfortunately, for us, our expert was married and left for Hawaii on his honeymoon the same week as the trial, so a last minute change in plans was formulated, and I was asked to testify in place of the expert. After explaining the accreditation process in court and detailing how our agency meets the requirements of the standards that directly refuted the plaintiff’s claims, the case was sent to the jury, but not before the plaintiff offered a settlement of nine million dollars, which was refused. The jury, after a short deliberation, found for our agency and the plaintiff was awarded nothing, not even court costs, or attorney’s fees. After the trial, the jurors cited accreditation and its requirements as the determining factor for their decision not to compensate the plaintiff. So, remember when someone asks you, “What does accreditation do for me?” simply reply, “Accreditation may not directly put money in your pocket, but it won’t take it out either!” Sergeant R. W. “Buster” French,
Jr., Staff Inspections/Accreditation
|
|
|