Small-town corruption accusations lead to police whistleblower protection bill

By the end of 2011, three police officers decided that their small Davie County force had become so corrupt that they anonymously called the governor’s office on a disposable cell phone and asked the State Bureau of Investigation to get involved.

The SBI did get involved: first meeting with the police chief and his deputy chief, and then leaving a message on the officers’ cell phone, which they didn’t return because they didn’t trust the agent.

Two weeks later they were fired.

Those events in Mocksville led to multimillion-dollar lawsuit verdicts for the officers – one of whom has been out of work so long that his law enforcement credential has expired while the case drags on.

It has also led to a controversial proposal for a new statewide law that would protect law enforcement officers from retaliation if they report internal crimes, mismanagement or abuse of authority. House Bill 37 passed the House last week in a vote that split Republicans, and sent it to the Senate.

HB 37 would allow police officers to sue for damages over violations of the new law, which says law enforcement agencies can’t discharge or threaten an officer who reports or is about to report internal wrongdoing. Officers would be required to put those reports in writing. The law would make it a misdemeanor to falsify the reports.

“If they see it we want them to feel encouraged to say it and know they’re not going to be retaliated against,” Rep. Chris Malone, a Republican from Wake Forest, said on the House floor.

High-powered opposition

Legislators have argued over whether laws already in place make the bill unnecessary, and some have called dismissively called it a “labor bill.” The N.C. Sheriffs Association and the N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police have been working hard to defeat it.

Eddie Caldwell, executive vice president and general counsel for the sheriffs association, said it would prevent administrators from fielding the best officers that they can, which is a public safety issue.

“It hamstrings an employer’s ability to discipline and if necessary terminate bad officers,” Caldwell said Monday. “It allows (officers) to say right before they’re disciplined they’re about to file a complaint: Then you can’t change their work hours, their assignments, their location.

“It’s not about power. It’s about somebody’s got to be in charge.”

The sheriff’s association has fought against the bill even though it wouldn’t affect sheriff’s deputies. A state Supreme Court ruling last year gave sheriffs the ability to hire and fire deputies at will, without the protections that state and some city law enforcement officers have.

Caldwell notes that previous attempts at passing such a law have extended the protections to deputies.

“If we don’t stand with the chiefs on this, they’ll knock the chiefs off this year, and come back next year for the sheriffs,” Caldwell said. “You can see that freight train coming down the track.”

The police chiefs association opposes whistleblower legislation in general.

Rep. Nelson Dollar, a Republican from Cary who is a co-sponsor of the bill, pointed out on the House floor that state law enforcement agencies like the State Highway Patrol and most larger cities already have whistleblower protections.

“It’s only fair to protect officers who witnessed something illegal,” Dollar said. “It has nothing to do with sheriffs – nobody’s going to touch that landmine.”

Protecting officers

Michael McGuinness, an attorney in Elizabeth City who represents law enforcement officers across the state, said Tuesday the bill clarifies the uncertainty in previous court rulings. He said the rank-and-file officers need that legal guidance.

“When a police officer encounters retaliation because they’ve done something as honorable as reporting fraud, reporting waste, reporting violations of law, I can’t imagine any law-abiding North Carolinian that wouldn’t want them to do that,” McGuinness said. “This sends a message.”

Rep. Billy Richardson, a Democrat from Fayetteville who is an attorney, called it “an essential bill.”

“It’s important that we protect those good officers who have the courage to do that,” Richardson said. “I’ve had three or four cases where officers volunteered to testify in brutality cases, but they were so pressured despite submitting affidavits that they’ll back off.”

Rep. Jonathan Jordan, a Republican from Jefferson, said opposition to the bill comes from managers, who would be the target of whistleblowers.

“The Mocksville case shows us why we need that,” Jordan said on the floor, noting that the case has dragged on for years while the officers couldn’t find work.

In the Mocksville case, a jury awarded the officers $4.1 million, which a federal judge later reduced to $2.1 million and ruled the former police chief and former town manager were liable for the full amount.

The judge initially denied the officers’ request to be reinstated, but earlier this year ruled that one of them should be hired at the same rank he held the next time that position opens. The amount of liability and other issues are still on appeal.

This story was originally published May 10, 2017 at 3:10 PM with the headline "Small-town corruption accusations lead to police whistleblower protection bill."