A King for the People

 A King for the People
by Alex King

    I submit, for the peoples' consideration, several issues I have with a recently passed state law. Following the adoption of West Virginia House Bill 2891, additional financial strain will soon be placed on smaller police departments in our state; and, while it seems a bit hyperbolic to use the word "defund," I can think of no better term for what may inevitably happen to our local police if the law is allowed to remain in its current form.

The delegate who sponsored the bill has always acted as a champion for law enforcement, so I have no reason to doubt his intentions. That said, I still find the need to call out HB 2891 as the detrimental heap it is. Aspects of the law are so awful I am left wondering if my representative bothered speaking with our local police departments before going to work on a legislation directly affecting them and their duties.
A line of this new legislation reads verbatim: requiring direct supervision of a pre-certified law enforcement officer by a certified law enforcement officer while engaged in law enforcement duties.

Such a requirement sounds practical on its surface. Until recently, many officers were trained locally and then permitted to patrol on their own, as long as they received their academy certification within a certain amount of time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting stronger assurance that those who serve and protect us are adequately trained before patrolling on their own. However, the bill utterly disregards small departments employing only a handful of officers.

I find myself asking the following: What about the massive surge of payouts that will deplete department funding because officers who normally earn overtime will be forced to log even more hours babysitting? Will fatigue and burnout become issues for those officers putting in the extra hours? How are small departments to plan and budget for this when the timeline for getting an officer into the academy can be unreliable and dependent on a variety of factors? Will officers begin cracking down on petty offenses to make up for the dip in funding?
Those questions are just the beginning. House Bill 2891 gets even worse. Not only does it effectively raise the costs of local policing and drain more of the peoples' taxes (which will likely result in tax increases if we want to keep our smaller departments), it also robs our local communities of the ultimate decision regarding who polices us. Instead, that control now belongs to an unelected board at the state level.

Per HB 2891, potential officers will now undergo a polygraph test and psychological evaluation (paid for by individual departments and not the state). Those results will then be submitted to the state, coinciding with a thorough background check. Finally, a state-appointed committee will decide if that person is allowed to be an officer. And, despite how much funding and energy was invested in this applicant, the state may ultimately say no.  
Once again, those measures sound practical on the surface, and I would be willing to have a deeper conversation about the need for police reform. But despite how well-meant the regulation, this new piece of legislation creates a frightening opportunity for political discrimination when determining who polices our communities.

I wonder if the following questions will one day be asked by one or more members of the state committee: "Is the applicant a free thinker? Will the applicant enforce unlegislated state edicts, such as mask mandates and stay at home orders? Is the applicant politically active one way or another? Will the applicant adhere to the constitution or do exactly as the state says?"
I'm not posing a conspiracy theory, as if the state government is trying to enact authoritarian control over local law enforcement. I'm simply making an argument for how such a law will eventually be abused. Where there are loopholes, those who feel they can gain something by exploiting them will most certainly find a way to do so-even if those gains are a form of ideological control.

The law may have been passed under the premise of forming safer police standards, but the criteria described creates a scenario for political and ideological discrimination. In these increasingly reactionary times (with departments across the country being defunded and Washington D.C. beginning to occupy actual states with its police force), we must be more discerning of the laws we tolerate, even at the local level… especially at the local level.
I therefore call upon county commissioners, city council members, and passionate citizens to band together and fight for the right of our local communities to determine who polices us. We must overturn this bureaucratic nightmare of a law and return the powers stolen by HB 2891 to our local branches of government where they belong.