cop dashcam camera
A bill drafted by Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich and championed by Representative Kevin Parker would make arbitrators unable to change the discipline handed down by sheriffs and police chiefs when an officer is found to have lied or broken the law. (Photo: AP/file)

Proposed bill would make it easier to fire bad cops

BY Kim Shepard  on January 21, 2013 @ 1:07 pm (Updated: 2:03 pm - 1/21/13 )

Lying and breaking the law should not have to be tolerated from any officer in our state. But Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich says he's had to retain several employees who've done just that.

Knezovich has drafted a proposed bill that is now being championed in the legislature by Representative Kevin Parker of Spokane. It would give Police Chiefs and Sheriffs more discretion over the punishment given to officers and deputies who are dishonest or act criminally on the job.

"The citizens of this state, quite frankly, demand and expect that police officers don't lie," says Knezovich. "It's always been public doctrine."

But it hasn't always been an idea enforced by the courts.

In 2009, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a Kitsap County sheriff's deputy who was fired for lying and other misconduct. The court sided with an arbitrator who said the deputy had to be reinstated because honesty was not an essential function of the job.

With that precedent set, Knezovich says he has run into at least two incidents where he tried to fire an employee but was overruled by an arbitrator. In one case, the sheriff says a corrections officer forced a mentally ill, suicidal inmate to strip in his cell and perform ten jumping jacks.

"Apparently he had a reputation of being a jokester and had done similar things under prior sheriffs. Because no one dealt with him before, apparently, I have to live with him," says Knezovich.

That corrections officer still works for the department today.

All 39 sheriffs in Washington State have signed on to support the creation of new legislation to address the issue. Representative Parker says he is also speaking with police chiefs and members of law enforcement unions to get their input.

On Wednesday, Parker has a meeting scheduled with the union in Spokane. He says he hopes he addressed any of their possible concerns already in the way the bill has been drafted.

"It's narrowly written," says Parker. "I'm hoping that in the end the police unions will see this as a tool to help them do their jobs better."

Knezovich says the bill is not an attack on due process. He explains that the disciplinary process, grievance process and binding arbitration are still intact. It would only apply if, at the end of it all, the arbitrator finds the sheriff or chief can prove wrongdoing by the employee. He would then be unable to change the discipline handed down.

"If these people [...] had been a probationary deputy, they'd have been let go immediately. If they would have had this in their background prior to being hired, we'd never hired them," Knezovich says, "So, why are we keeping them?"

Parker expects to be ready to introduce the bill in the next week or two. He is not sure where it will start, but says it would likely begin in the House Committee on Public Safety.

Kim Shepard, KIRO Radio Reporter
Kim Shepard is a news anchor and reporter for KIRO Radio and the office optimist. She's energetic, quick to laugh and has a positive outlook on life.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Nature's Reality Check
    We can conquer terrorism, cure cancer, but a tornado can remind us of our insecurity

  • Back to Work
    Ten observations from practice that only a backup, middle child, left-handed QB can provide

  • Going 'Bulworth'
    When Obama is exasperated with the ways of Washington, he dreams of getting honest
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (18)


  • Add A Comment

  • CH wrote...
    Lying and breaking the law should not have to be tolerated from any officer in our state -
    January 21, 2013 2:14 pm
    how about elected officials?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    CH
    January 21, 2013 8:55 pm
    Touché ! We should demand it!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cash wrote...
    I fully support this action.
    January 21, 2013 3:59 pm
    I fully agree with Sheriff Ozzy and fully support this act. On a side note I fully think there needs to be more transparency with elected officials and they need to be held accountable for their actions. I for one am tired that over time these elected officials feel more and more entitled to do what they want and we just sit by and allow it to happen.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ Cash
    January 21, 2013 5:01 pm
    Think term limits...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Walk the talk ???
    January 21, 2013 4:07 pm
    Lets see, show us. AGAIN walk the talk. Show us. Yes I dont trust lips that move.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Let's extend
    January 21, 2013 4:56 pm
    that bill over to Teachers, All Public Employees, Ferry and Port of Seattle Workers and Politicians and I'm with you
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ cdbtx
    January 21, 2013 5:02 pm
    Think baby steps...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    soo purletiv .....
    January 22, 2013 8:46 am
    Baby steps ...the sooner the better
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • R L M 456 wrote...
    . The court sided with an arbitrator who said the deputy had to be reinstated because honesty was not an essential function of the job.
    January 21, 2013 5:39 pm
    Ohhh what a surprise

    an Almighty Lawgiver,NOT speak the truth????

    say it ain't so

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Lol
    January 21, 2013 6:12 pm

    " The court sided with an arbitrator who said the deputy had to be reinstated because honesty was not an essential function of the job."

    Now we know why we can't believe a darn thing an officer put's in his police report, they don't have to tell the truth, it's not an essential part of his job to act in an honorable fashion.

    I think that's an oath that they share with common street gangs.

    All they care about is who Cut's the Check.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Guru
    January 21, 2013 9:04 pm
    True that! I'm thinking this could cause for concern among prosecutors all over this state....cops not required to be honest? And they wonder why they have such a lack of respect in the public eye.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    "honesty was not an essential function of the job."
    January 21, 2013 6:57 pm
    No, of course it isn't. Wait, what?

    I guess we don't have to worry about hearing police testimony at trials anymore then...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Roomtemp
    January 21, 2013 8:56 pm
    Brilliant post as always! :)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    a current goverment job
    January 22, 2013 5:23 am
    (honesty was not an essential function of the job.) Starts right at the top. Look where we are heading. Try that in the private sector, ohhh thats why they are not there. Either public sector job, or obama unemployeement. No one has to remind me not to hire someone from the public sector. so laughable, and true.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Making it easier to fire a union protected employee?
    January 22, 2013 5:48 am
    Well how about that mindless union supporting Parrots?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    I was released from jury duty once for a question like that.
    January 22, 2013 6:37 am
    The question was if I believed everything an officer of the law said as the truth. I answered of course not, the prosecuter released me. I've never had to serve since, word got out among the prosecuters I guess.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ten4goodbuddy wrote...
    lol HLC
    January 22, 2013 8:58 am
    no delusions of grandeur here, eh?!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }