TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:I would suspect this policy is more to protect the DPD then any LEO that works for them.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Chief had better institute the same policy for non-LEOs, or he'll justifiably face accusations of cover-up. By that I mean a DPD policy prohibiting any officer from questioning a non-LEO involved in a shooting. The rationale behind the Chief's new policy is valid, but it is just as valid when dealing with non-LEO shootings.

Chas.

+1

I think the stated reason for waiting for an interview is reasonable, but 72 hours seems long. I have seen this policy - for lesser periods IIRC -- in police union contracts as well.

But as Charles says, if it makes sense for an LEO involved in a shooting, I don't see ANY reason why is it not just as reasonable for any citizen involved in a shooting (or any other highly violent event, e.g. stabbing, beating...).

This kind of policy has been touted by Massad Ayoub and others for years, and as I said been in place in other large PDs for quite some time. Therefore I am surprised that the criminal defense community has not pushed this for criminal defendants as well, to invalidate as evidence whatever unhelpful things their clients said in the immediate aftermath (especially confessions). Maybe they have and i haven't seen it, but this is kind of big. I could see this eventually acquiring the legal weight of Miranda warnings.