While literally anyone could commit a crime, it is police suspects that perhaps receive the closest interpretation to due process in our legal system. My work often throws me in the middle of police misconduct, and as a result, I am constantly trying to understand it.
What LEOBOR Actually Gives Police Officers
A Columbia Law Review article examines how police officers are treated during investigations and the special rights afforded to them, specifically the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR). Prosecutors routinely extend these protections rather than hold bad actors accountable.
LEOBOR — What Police Officers Typically Receive That Other Suspects Do Not
Written notice of the nature of an investigation before being required to answer any questions
A waiting period — often 48 hours — before questioning can begin, giving officers time to consult with counsel and coordinate a response
The right to have a union representative or attorney present during any interrogation
The right to review prior statements before responding to new questions
Restrictions on the conditions of interrogation — duration, location, who may question them
The Columbia Law Review Argument — Paraphrased
The analysis documents a self-dealing problem at the core of LEOBOR: officers have used their insider knowledge of interrogation to build protections for themselves that the system denies to everyone else. The same tactics police argue are essential to catching dangerous criminals are the exact tactics they have shielded themselves from. The result is a distributive inequality — protection scales with sophistication — that undermines the fairness and legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system. Read the full article →
Three Compounding Problems That Make This Worse
Police-Prosecutor Conflict
There is a significant conflict of interest in police-prosecutor relationships that shouldn’t exist. The same prosecutors who depend on police testimony to win cases are the ones responsible for investigating and charging those same officers. The incentive to protect the relationship is structural, not incidental.
Officer Perjury and Judicial Deference
Officer perjury and judicial deference to officers are also problematic. Courts have long extended credibility to police testimony over that of defendants, even in cases where contradicting evidence exists. This deference makes officer misconduct harder to prove and challenge at trial.
Qualified Immunity on Top
Even when misconduct is proven, qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability unless the victim can identify a prior case with nearly identical facts. LEOBOR protects officers in the disciplinary process. Qualified immunity protects them in civil court. Together, they form a nearly impenetrable accountability wall.
The system is in dire need of overhaul.
Unfortunately, another thing that isn’t new.
Source — Columbia Law Review
Police Suspects — Columbia Law Review
Academic analysis of the special procedural rights police officers receive during criminal investigations, the role of LEOBOR in creating a two-tiered due process system, and the structural consequences for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
Work With Rita — Forensic Consulting
Police Misconduct Pattern Recognition. Civil Rights Exposure. §1983 Analysis.
View Services →
Rita Williams works with attorneys and advocates documenting police misconduct, officer perjury patterns, qualified immunity exposure, and the structural conflicts that prevent accountability in Michigan courts and beyond.
Related Coverage — Police Accountability and Civil Rights
How to cite: Williams, R. [Rita]. (2025, January 4). Why Police Suspects Get More Due Process Than Everyone Else. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/01/04/police-due-process-leobor-accountability/
