Police officer may be terminated for encouraging fellow cops to honor the Constitution

I’ve long believed that progressive-led jurisdictions have little respect for the First Amendment unless it’s protecting leftist speech. The Left’s speech is information while the Right’s speech is misinformation. The Left’s speech is truth and love while the Right’s speech is lies and hate. That’s how it works, right?

And the least respect they have is for the free speech rights of law enforcement officers. I know firsthand. About a decade ago, my agency launched an official seven-month investigation into my writing a series of articles that appeared in our police union newspaper and then discussing them after being invited on various media.

The articles presented a viewpoint opposing the social justice indoctrination that was saturating city policy and seeping into police department training. Simply put, I felt the police department needed to adhere to constitutional equal justice and equal protection under the law standard. Not adhere to an unconstitutional social justice outside of the law regime. Ironically, these were articles the police chief conceded I had a right to write.

With this in mind, I was disappointed to hear about what’s happening to Officer Greg Anderson of the Port of Seattle Police Department (PSPD). As reported at LawOfficer.com, on May 5, Officer Anderson posted a video he’d recorded in his patrol car, imploring his fellow officers across the nation to stop enforcing tyrannical rules issued by leftist governors and other political leaders. Affronts such as arresting surfers, dads playing with daughters, and grandmas walking in a city park. This while they’re emptying jails of real criminals.

Officer Anderson, an Army veteran who deployed as a Ranger to the Middle East in the early 2000s, is obviously passionate about his job and American liberty. He became most animated when he said, “That is not how our job works, okay, what really has been pissing me off lately is the fact that these officers that are going out here and enforcing these tyrannical orders… what they’re doing is they’re putting my job and my safety at risk because what you’re doing is your widening the gap between public trust and law enforcement officers.”

The officer told his fellow cops regardless of one’s position on the virus, cops don’t have the power to violate people’s constitutional rights just because the governor or mayor says you can. He said, “I don’t care if it’s your sergeant or your chief of police. We don’t get to violate people’s constitutional rights because somebody in our chain of command tells us otherwise. It’s not how this country works. Those are de facto arrests. You know we’re violating people’s rights.”

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, Officer Anderson reminds us that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void. Of course, it takes a court ruling to make that official, but I understand his sentiments. Some violations of people’s rights may be debatable, but others are not.

For example, closing off a park during a state of emergency, especially one health-related, doesn’t seem instantly unconstitutional. Arguments could be made on both sides. However, if a governor or mayor were to order police to confiscate residents’ guns during an emergency declaration, as happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, that would explicitly violate the plain meaning of the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment. As a cop, I would never have obeyed such an order.

The key point on the side of Officer Anderson’s commanders was he was in uniform and in his department patrol car when he recorded the video. Though, he never says what agency he works for and at no time does he display any item on his uniform that identifies his employer.

Still, one of the reasons my department wanted to discipline me but couldn’t was I was off duty and not in uniform or using any department equipment when I committed my “egregious” offense. I also made clear I was speaking for myself and not the department. Of course, in my case I was speaking against what the department was doing. So, they could hardly argue I was speaking for the department.

Not so much for Officer Anderson. His bosses were much less clear or consistent, which clearly caused the officer confusion. Lawofficer.com reported, “Three hours after he was told by his department they were in full support of his video, Greg got a call instructing him to take down the video.” He refused to take it down. Now, he is on administrative leave pending investigation, which could lead to his termination.

But that doesn’t mean he didn’t violate the letter of agency policy. However, in my jurisdiction (within which Officer Anderson’s agency operates), city government often allowed/overlooked officers and firefighters who participated, sometimes in city vehicles, in the annual Gay Pride Parade. And anyone who argues that event is not political needs his or her head screws checked for tightness. Never mind disciplined—city leaders lauded these city employees, though they were clearly violating department policies.

Anyone think I would have been allowed to participate in an NRA parade in uniform—while driving my patrol car?

I understand Officer Anderson’s confusion with his leadership’s waffling. Similarly, I once met for coffee with the police chief I mentioned above who had me investigated for writing the “liberty” articles. I’d served under him in another command when he was a captain. I’d always thought he was a nice guy (I still do) and an excellent leader (not so much). But this is what so often happens to many good police chiefs who work at the pleasure of a leftist mayor.

He was an assistant chief when we met that day. I always intended my police guild articles to be a voice for patrol officers against the encroachment of the social justice warriors permeating the city. I’d listen to their concerns and attempt to convey them through my articles. At the time, the assistant chief told me, “Don’t stop writing your articles.” I didn’t. And then, as police chief, he buckled under the political pressure.

Officer Anderson talks about risking his job. He said he has a wife and kids and two homes. He said his integrity is at stake and he’s willing to suffer the consequences for his stance. As it often is with these kinds of investigations, Anderson’s superiors say they were not threatening termination for his posting the video but for insubordination in disobeying a direct order to take it down.

In a follow up video, Officer Anderson gave a synopsis of his situation. You’ll recall he said his superiors had initially supported the video before demanding he take it down. He elaborated about the initial conversation with the command staff. According to Officer Anderson, they told him, “Wow, Greg. What a powerful message. We all agree with that 100 percent.” A few hours later they order him to take the video down. He refused, and now this military and police veteran’s career is on the line.

He didn’t hurt anyone or violate any rights. He simply expressed his view of an issue intended for other police officers and allegedly technically violated department policy while doing it. On the video, Officer Anderson encapsulated the issue poignantly when he asks, “What changed in three hours?” Every cop in America knows it’s not a policy violation if, in a given situation, the command staff says so. Cops see that double standard all the time.

So, while I understand the department’s stance regarding existing policies, which officers are expected to follow, there seems to be some mitigation here. First, I doubt Officer Anderson was thinking specifically about an administrative policy when he made the video. He refers to his superiors already agreeing with his stance on this issue. He’d likely spoken with them to know that.

Next, he tells us explicitly his command staff initially lauded him for his video. So, for three hours Officer Anderson’s “violating policy” didn’t seem to bother them at all.

Lastly, to reiterate, the officer says the police chief ordered him to take the video down. Well, which is it? How is an officer who feels so passionately about American liberty and about his oath to the Constitution supposed to reconcile this dichotomy? He’s being given conflicting messages.

For his part, Police Chief Rod Covey, who seems by all accounts —even Officer Anderson’s— to be a good guy to work for, issued a statement. While what Chief Covey had to say was pretty standard, he didn’t mention anything regarding the command staff’s contribution to the confusion. He didn’t even deny or address Officer Anderson’s contentions about support from the command staff or even defer to there being an investigation as to a possible reason he could not speak to it.

The statement says nothing about insubordination and only alleges “he violated our policy on the use of social media.” Certainly, that cannot be a firing offense in this case. Officer Anderson made no disparaging comments, racist statements, or threats. The chief also said he told the officer he “would support his right to talk about these issues as long as he did so while not claiming any affiliation to our police department.” Officer Anderson did not claim any affiliation to the PSPD in either video. Again, could add to the confusion.

Regardless, with all of the difficulty in hiring qualified candidates and retaining good veteran police officers, these days, termination seems extreme. His defiance was clearly not motivated by intending to be insubordinate but, in part, caused by the confusion created by his leaders who were obviously not as steadfast in their moral stances as Officer Anderson is in his.