Pennsylvania State Police seek to improve, but wary of suggestions

(The Center Square) – In December, the Pennsylvania Citizen Law Enforcement Advisory and Review Commission published its first reports following the evaluation of three police conduct cases carried out by state agencies.

Two of those cases focused on internal investigations within the agency following an officer-involved shooting and a use-of-force incident. In both circumstances, the state police declined to implement the commission’s recommendations.

The critical incident case reviewed by the commission, also referred to as CLEAR, featured a standoff in which one of the state’s Special Emergency Response Teams joined patrol officers at the home of a woman whose brother had threatened her with a firearm.

After several hours during which the man threatened to kill the next officer he saw, the standoff ended in gunfire. The man exited the home, aimed his weapon at an officer, and was shot in response. Maintaining possession of his gun, the man again trained his sights on the officer who shot him a second time.

The man ultimately died at the scene, while the officers were unharmed. The agency’s internal investigations found that the officer involved hadn’t committed any wrongdoing, and he was returned to full duty about two months later at the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of Administration.

The Internal Affairs Division, however, did not conclude their investigation until May. The CLEAR Commission argued that officers under investigation shouldn’t return to duty until the process is complete.

The agency said that existing requirements are satisfactory and that if there were any questions about fitness, the Deputy Commissioner would not reinstate an officer.

“There is not a ‘standard’ officer-involved shooting or use of force. They all have unique factors and considerations,” wrote Pennsylvania State Police Col. Christopher Paris on behalf of the agency.

He noted that members of an emergency operations team are specifically trained to respond to critical incidents and may be involved in several shootings a year. To sideline them each time would create gaps in the state’s ability to respond to life-threatening situations.

Officers, especially in roles like that, are especially susceptible to Compound PTSD, which develops after repeated exposure to life-threatening and traumatic events.

According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Acceptance is usually achieved within two to twelve weeks, but may take longer depending on the incident; legal and/or administrative aftermath; amount of peer, mental health, and family support; and individual coping skills.”

To that end, officers engage in debriefings following critical incidents, and mental health evaluations are required to return to duty when relevant. Officers involved in Critical Incident Stress Management and peer support programs are encouraged by a culture shift away from silence and unhealthy coping mechanisms toward research-based mental health care.

Still, those making decisions about who to keep on administrative duty and for how long are working against the pressures of a strained workforce. While there were glimmers of hope in 2024, the state has struggled with a wave of police retirements paired with a lack of interest from new applicants.

“To adopt a policy prohibiting the return to full duty in all officer-involved shooting/serious police incidents until the conclusion of the administrative inquiry would certainly, in some cases, only serve to penalize the member and would also needlessly deprive the public of a member who could provide police services,” wrote Paris.

While many cities and towns have their own police departments, the state police are responsible for responding to emergencies across vast rural areas of the state. Paris noted that smaller stations that see multiple officers involved in the same incident could have operational challenges if they are removed from full duty for the entire length of an internal affairs investigation.

The other case considered involved a man whose nose was broken while resisting arrest for a domestic violence incident. Again, the commission found no evidence of wrongdoing.

The remaining recommendations all posed potential threats to officers’ and defendants’ 5th Amendment rights, according to Paris.

The commission recommended that officers involved in shootings be required to provide a written timeline of events following the incident. The agency currently requires them to give a public safety statement, which has a narrower scope.

Later criminal interviews, which aren’t compulsory, then provide the opportunity for deeper inquiry into the officer’s mindset and actions. According to the angency, most officers voluntarily participate in these interviews during the course of investigations.

The commission also recommended that defendants be given the opportunity to provide written statements to internal affairs investigators through legal counsel. State police argued that contact with defendants would potentially jeopardize the legal process and provide opportunities for their statements to be used against them. Typically, further contact between police and defendants is reserved for instances in which a complaint is filed.

Overall, the agency’s track record with transparency around critical incidents and use of force is spotty. The nonprofit organization Police Scorecard, which tracks incidents of police violence in local departments, lists Pennsylvania as one of 36 states where a police officer’s individual records are unavailable to the public.