CPDs "You Lie, You Die" Rule, Chicago Police Depts Rule 14 and Its Impact on Officer Accountability

CPD's "You Lie, You Die" rule under scrutiny due to over 100 violations not included in mandatory report

Photo bykevitra/flickr [CC BY-SA 3.0]

CHICAGO - The Chicago Police Department (CPD) operates under a strict set of guidelines that govern officer conduct, including Rule 14. This rule states that any officer found to have knowingly made false statements in official reports, investigations, or testimonies is subject to immediate dismissal. Commonly referred to as the "You Lie, You Die" rule, this policy underscores the department’s supposed zero-tolerance stance on dishonesty and has significant implications for officer accountability. Provided actual instances are truthfully reported. A recent investigation suggests this is not the case at CPD.

What is Rule 14?

Rule 14 explicitly prohibits CPD officers from providing false information in the line of duty. Whether during an internal investigation, court testimony, or official reports, any dishonesty triggers severe consequences, including termination. The rule was established to preserve the integrity of the police force, ensuring that officers adhere to truthfulness in all their professional duties.

The Origins of the "You Lie, You Die" Rule

The implementation of Rule 14 can be traced to efforts aimed at rebuilding trust between the Chicago Police Department and the public, particularly following years of high-profile incidents that drew criticism over police misconduct. It became a cornerstone of police reform, intended to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability.

Impact on Officer Accountability

Rule 14 plays a crucial role in holding officers accountable for their actions, as it enforces strict consequences for any attempt to deceive. The impact of this rule can be seen in several key areas:

• Disciplinary Actions: Officers found guilty of violating Rule 14 face immediate termination, which serves as a deterrent against unethical behavior. The CPD's Internal Affairs Division is tasked with investigating claims of dishonesty, and if officers are found in violation, they can lose their jobs and pensions.
• Legal and Community Implications: In a broader context, Rule 14 aims to reduce instances of corruption and misconduct. With more stringent internal accountability, the public and legal systems can have greater confidence in the integrity of the police force. This is particularly important in Chicago, where allegations of police abuse and corruption have plagued the department for decades.
• Impact on Police-Community Relations: Public trust in law enforcement is fragile, especially in communities that have historically experienced strained relations with the police. By enforcing Rule 14, CPD seeks to restore public confidence. Knowing that officers are held to high standards of truthfulness can help bridge the gap between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Criticisms and Challenges

While Rule 14 is lauded for its firm stance on dishonesty, it is not without controversy. Some officers argue that the rule creates an atmosphere of fear, where even minor discrepancies in reports could be perceived as lies, potentially leading to wrongful terminations. There have been cases where officers claim they were unjustly disciplined for errors made in good faith.

Furthermore, critics argue that Rule 14 does not address deeper, systemic issues within the department. They suggest that while the rule punishes dishonesty, it doesn’t necessarily prevent misconduct from occurring in the first place. Others question the consistency of its enforcement, pointing out that officers from different ranks and backgrounds may not be treated equally under the rule. And the recent investigation revealed over 100 cases of officers blatently breaking Rule 14 were not included in the Brady Report.

Notable Cases

Several high-profile cases have brought Rule 14 into the public eye. For example, in the case of officer Chavez Siler, later found guilty of whipping an unarmed Black man violently with a pistol, two other officers who witnessed the incident made false statements when testifying for investigators. They stated that had not observed Siler whip the victim with a pistol, although it was later determined that they did actually witness the violation.

In another case, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability determined that officer Jonathan Ridgner purposely ommited information in a 2019 case which should have discussed the fact that he grabbed an unarmed Black man by the throat and proceded to slam him face down into the sidewalk in the course of arresting him.

In some instances, officers were dismissed after being found guilty of lying in official reports, while in others, they faced legal action or were subject to civil lawsuits. These cases often serve as reminders of the rule’s importance, but also spark debates about its application.

Conclusion

Rule 14, the "You Lie, You Die" policy, is intended to be a critical component of the Chicago Police Department’s framework for officer accountability. It was written to enforceshonesty and integrity, to rebuild trust with the public and prevent corruption within the force.

However, recent reports and investigations have demonstrated that the rule is only effective when officers are truthful in reporting their own and other officer violations. Unfortunately, it is clear that many cops cover up their own abuses as well remaining loyal to other officers by not reporting their abuses either. Without a way to double check potential violations and the willingness of police supervisors to hold those who break the rule accountable, it's usefulness will be greatly limited and the nickname "You lie, you die," will become entirely meaningless.