Standards for police officers are not uniform; different states have different requirements. In some states, the standards and certification body also directly runs the
police academy. The 2013 BJS study found that academies run by state POST agencies and colleges/universities were more likely to use a "nonstress" training model (based on "academic achievement, physical training, and a more relaxed and supportive instructor–trainee relationship") as opposed to a "stress" training model (a
military-style training regime based on "intensive physical demands and psychological pressure").
In-service training requirements In some states, police officers are required to undergo
continuing education ("in-service training") Moreover, in some states where continuing police education is mandatory, funding for training and mechanisms for tracking compliance are lacking. Between 2014 and 2017, many
state legislatures adopted legislation requiring police officers to receive
crisis intervention and
deescalation training, which has been demonstrated to reduce
police use of force. As of 2017, however, 34 states do not require deescalation training for all police officers, and other states require minimal training in deescalation (for example, 1 hour per year in Georgia). In most states, officers do not receive firearms training sufficient for the proficient handling of guns in real-world scenarios. Many police practices taught in training are not
evidence-based or supported by empirical research. As of 2009, 23 states with a certification process exempted certain personnel (usually
elected sheriffs, and less commonly,
police chiefs,
state police officers, and
reserve police officers) from the certification requirement. By 2016, six states (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Hawaii) still lacked decertification authority. In a 2009 survey, almost all states reported that they had the authority to revoke an officer's certificate upon conviction of a
felony; a smaller number of states reported that they had the authority to revoke an officer's certificate upon conviction of any
misdemeanor or for certain misdemeanors. States differ dramatically in the number of officers decertified. At least since the late 1990s,
Georgia has been the most active state in decertifying "problem" officers. In some states, a law enforcement agency must report the firing (or the firing
for cause) of a police officer to the state certifying commission; in other states, a law enforcement agency only needs to report to the state certifying commission when an officer is arrested or convicted of a crime (or, in some states, a felony); and in some states, there is no notification obligation even under those circumstances. For example, in
Maine, "Agencies must tell the state about officers arrested or convicted of a crime, as well as those fired or allowed to resign for misconduct." However, the criteria for decertifying a police officer is extremely narrow, Officers can only be decertified in Washington state following a felony conviction or a firing for perjury or dishonesty; illegal drug use or possession; "actions that lead to a loss of gun rights"; or misconduct
under color of authority. As of 2005, only 13 states participated in the national decertification database; by 2018, that number rose to 43. The goal of the national index is to prevent officer decertified in one state from moving to a new state and obtaining certification and police employment in the new state. NDI has received no federal funding since 2005, and is privately maintained. The database does not contain the reasons for the decertification; a hit on a decertified officer's name will refer the person conducting the query to the specific agency that decertified the officer. Law professor Roger L. Goldman, an expert on police certification, notes that "Since the grounds for decertification vary greatly among U.S. states, the fact of decertification does not mean the officer is automatically ineligible to be an officer in the state to which he or she has moved. For example, in some states, conviction of a felony is the only grounds for decertification; whereas, in other states, the commission of specified misconduct, such as filing a false police report, could trigger decertification." As a result, an officer whose license is suspended in one state for misconduct, or even for conviction of a crime, may be able to
find a police job in another state with laxer requirements. In its 1998 report
Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States,
Human Rights Watch recommended that all states have decertification authority; that federal legislation should be adopted to create a database of state POSTs' records "so that 'problem' or abusive officers are not allowed to obtain law enforcement employment in a neighboring state"; and that decertification procedures "should be reinvigorated and fully funded." A 2015 AP investigation uncovered numerous incidents of police officers who were terminated or resigned from a police agency after being accused of
sexual misconduct, were then rehired by a different policy agency, and were subsequently accused again of misconduct. A study of 98,000 Florida police officers over three decades (1988–2016), published in the
Yale Law Journal in 2019, found that "wandering officers"—police officers terminated from one law enforcement agency for misconduct who then are hired by a different law enforcement agency—were about twice as likely to be fired for misconduct or to be the subject of a complaint alleging a "moral character violation" in their next police job. The study authors, Ben Grunwald and John Rappaport, concluded: "In any given year over the last three decades, an average of roughly 1,100 full-time law-enforcement officers in Florida walk the streets having been fired in the past, and almost 800 having been fired for misconduct, not counting the many who were fired and reinstated in arbitration. These officers, we have shown, are subsequently fired and subjected to 'moral character' complaints at elevated rates relative to both officers hired as rookies and veterans with clean professional histories. And we likely underestimate the prevalence of the phenomenon nationwide. We have, moreover, only a partial understanding of the extent of the problem wandering officers pose. Beyond their own misbehavior, wandering officers may undermine efforts to improve police culture, as they carry their baggage to new locales. Worse yet, wandering officers may 'infect' other officers upon arrival, causing misconduct to metastasize to the farthest reaches of the law-enforcement community." ==See also==