Eight months ago, Denver police Sgt. Benita Packard returned a firearm to a visibly intoxicated state representative who’d been pulled over in her car even though possession of a gun while drunk is a violation of the law — as Packard knew.
Packard then told a concerned patrol officer to “keep the handgun part of the stop quiet and only we would know.”
She failed to inform her superiors of the existence of the gun, and also failed to mention the gun in a statement she wrote describing the stop, later claiming she “spaced it out.”
Finally, during a roll call a few days later, she seemingly threatened retribution against any officer who talked to the media regarding the event.
Packard’s behavior that night and in the coming days was inexcusable — so much so, in fact, that Chief Robert White recommended she be fired. Not only did she mislead her superiors about a key fact related to a highly publicized traffic stop, she at first lied to them when cornered by the truth. As we’ve consistently held, police agencies cannot afford to tolerate officers who prove themselves untrustworthy given the tremendous power they hold over fellow citizens.
That’s why we’re disappointed that Safety Manager Alex Martinez — one of the good guys in the debate over appropriate police discipline — selected a less serious penalty for Packard. He is demoting her to patrol officer and suspending her without pay for 10 days.
Martinez tells us the decision was a close call in part because she lied about her mental state — she “spaced it out” — rather than an incontestable fact. He also notes that the department’s “biggest concern was that she not be in a supervisory position.” And yet if he terminated Packard’s employment and then lost on appeal to the Civil Service Commission — an all-too-familiar pattern in recent months — she would return to work as a sergeant. So he chose a bird in the hand while avoiding time-consuming litigation by getting Packard to consent to the penalty.
Finally, Martinez notes that Packard “has no significant prior discipline” and “had severe personal circumstances that make her conduct more understandable, although not excusable.”
We respect the safety manager’s reasoning, but we still believe it’s healthier for both the department and public to expect that lies related to official duties will always trigger firing — even if the appeals process sometimes bails the liars out.
Although Martinez didn’t say so, we think his decision also reinforces the case for reforming the appeals process for police discipline so the safety manager’s authority isn’t regularly undermined. He shouldn’t have to wonder whether his decisions — when based on the rules and the law — will be second-guessed without a compelling rationale.
