Cost-effective doesn’t mean most effective

Cost efficiency is a termed defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “a way of saving money, or of spending less money.” In other words, by looking at a problem or situation, what is the cheapest way of handling the problem. As governments are confronted by lawsuits related to police actions, this term has become the en vogue way of making decisions.

Lawsuits against the police across the country became more popular as the Rodney King incident in 1991 demonstrated that cities could be forced to pay civil decisions regardless of criminal proceedings and outcomes. Mr. King was awarded $3.8 million dollars from a civil rights trial even though the officers in that case were found not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing.

As an officer in the Pro-Active Units in the mid to late 1990s, I was among a number of officers who were sued for reasons related to actions that were taken in the performance of our duties. The Pro-Active Units of that time were a target specific unit that concentrated on going after street thugs, drug dealers and those committing the worst offenses throughout the city. Most of those officers were well known with reputations that preceded them as hard nosed cops that were not afraid of confronting any violent threat. These units provided the city with a group of officers that stemmed the gang influence from growing in the city. It wasn’t until poor decision making by the Director of that time to eliminate this unit, brought about the gang explosion of the early to mid 2000’s.

During this time period, the City Law Department would vigorously argue against these lawsuits. They supported the police officers and were willing to argue in favor of the officers actions. One particular lawyer lost every case they brought against us in Federal Court realizing that their antics would not be allowed by that judge. As officers, we knew that the city would stand behind us as long as our actions were lawful, reasonable, and justified. As the costs associated with defending officers in court became more expensive and the size of the awards that were being given out in instances across the country where officers were found to be at fault, created a shift in philosophy.

Lawyers saw cities as cash cows and any individual that made claims against the police and whose story sounded credible brought about lawsuits. The explosion in lawsuits made an impact on the cities across the country including Trenton. With the lower burden of proof in civil trials that only require a preponderance of evidence as opposed to criminal trials that require beyond a reasonable doubt, cost efficiency became the means in handling lawsuits and working through these claims.

Cities, including Trenton have worked out a formula when confronted with these types of lawsuits. They evaluate the costs of providing a lawyer to argue in favor of the police, plus the costs of going to court, and add the possible costs for the city in instances the case may be lost and compare that against the cost of settling the matter out of court. The settlement comes with a “no-fault” clause meaning that even though the city is settling the matter out of court, it is not admitting any fault. It is just more “cost effective” to settle than to fight.

Lawyers that are having these cases settled are twisting the outcomes as though the city is admitting the officers actions were unlawful, unreasonable or unjustified. They are quick to go to the papers and denigrate the actions of the police as just another example of a rogue officer or rogue police department. They are not being truthful about the facts and the costs associated with taking the matter to court. The goal being to promote the settlements in order to obtain future clients. Figure that.

Most officers that are named in these lawsuits want to go to court and want to testify. Their names and reputations have been sullied and all they want to do is to prove that they were righteous in their actions. They want a voice in the process. They want to know the city is behind them and will defend them regardless of the costs. In most instances, cities have said, its just not…. “cost effective”.