Pre-Employment and Fitness-for-Duty in the Law Enforcement Arena

Abstract

Integration of Internet-based data as an additional factor for consideration in hiring and termination decisions is no longer considered a pioneering method; in fact, it is now emerging as an important source of collateral data. However, the precise and systematic use of this information, including the degree of emphasis on its inclusion, in conducting and making determinations as related to pre-employment psychological evaluations (PEPE) and fitness-for-duty evaluations (FFDE) by psychological evaluators is still in its infancy. This chapter provides an overview of generally accepted practices for performing these types of evaluations for law enforcement (LE) agencies. Benefits and risks of incorporating information gathered from social networking sites (SNS) in decision-making by psychologists about a candidate’s suitability and a peace officer’s ability to safely and reliably perform the essential functions of his/her position are analyzed within ethical and legal contexts. Case examples are presented that illustrate the relative weight such collateral data can be afforded. A series of best practices is concomitantly introduced for the inclusion of Internet-based data in PEPE and FFDE to assist the LE agency in reducing negligent hiring, retention, and the potential for other types of litigation.

Appendices

Case Profile 1

7.1.1 Type of Evaluation

Pre-employment Psychological Evaluation (PEPE) of Peace Officer candidate.

7.1.2 Case Context

The candidate in this case is 44-year-old Christopher Powers, who was evaluated for approximately 4 h as part of the pre-employment psychological evaluation for a peace officer position with a local LE agency.

7.1.3 Sources of Information

• 1. A clinical interview with Mr. Powers.

• 2. Administration of the following psychological measures:

  • a. Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory- 2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2RF)

  • b. California Psychological Inventory (CPI)

  • c. Psychological History Questionnaire (PHQ)

• 3. Background Investigation Jacket including polygraph findings and summary of SNS posts

7.1.4 Relevant Background

Mr. Powers is a 44-year-old male who was born in Kansas City, Kansas and was raised in California. He stated that his parents were divorced when he was in the sixth grade and his father was continuously absent from his life after their separation. To this date he has no relationship with his father who was reportedly married and divorced more than five times. His mother is currently married to her third husband. Mr. Powers has one biological brother and sister and he estimated about five half siblings. He stated that his second step-father physically abused him; however, he denied any sexual abuse while growing up.

Mr. Powers graduated high school with a 2.0 grade point average. He reported being suspended for 3 days from high school for fighting. He denied receiving any special education, being diagnosed with any learning disabilities or Attention Deficit Disorder. The candidate obtained two bachelor’s Degrees in Business Administration and Occupational Education. He also earned a Paralegal Certificate.

Moreover, Mr. Powers served in the U.S. Air Force from 1993–2000 and was part of security forces (military police). He joined the Air National Guard in 2001 and served full time for one and a half years followed by the same duration of time on a part-time basis. He re-enlisted in the U.S. Air Force Reserves in 2004 and remained an active reservist with the rank of Master Sergeant (E-7). Review of the documents related to his military service (as part of the background investigation jacket) resulted in the following findings:

• 1. He received a letter of reprimand for driving under the influence of alcohol on the Base.

• 2. He had an unacceptable rating on the Off/On duty conduct category. Comments noted outstanding traffic warrants, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and letter of reprimand and an “unfavorable information.”

• 3. An investigation had ensued after it was reported that Mr. Powers had been making false statements and filed false claim, indicating that he was providing financial support to his wife and child, in order to receive basic allowance in excess of his entitlement. He blamed filling out the documents incorrectly on what his superiors had told him. Although he had been ordered to repay the government, he did not take any actions to do so.

• 4. He was accused of excessive force; however, he stated he was exonerated.

• 5. His security clearance was revoked when he failed to respond to a financial inquiry from the military.

Apparently, after separation from the military, Mr. Powers started working as a security officer with a private company; however, soon afterwards, his employment was terminated due to a “safety violation.” Mr. Powers is currently married to his third wife. He stated there was “domestic violence” with his first wife after they had an argument over infidelity and her use of illegal substances. Reportedly, since he was with military police at the time, he decided to detain her and as he was physically restraining her, she slapped him. He also admitted that when he was going over the divorce papers, his second wife “bit” him. Mr. Powers denied any instances of domestic violence in his relationship with his third wife; nevertheless, he admitted that a few years ago when he and his wife were arguing, his step-son became involved and swore at him. Mr. Powers had in turn slapped him. Although the police were called, no charges were filed. Mr. Powers has a 23-year-old child from his first marriage and two younger children ages 13 and 8, as well as a 22-year-old step-son.

Mr. Powers stated he was mandated to receive counseling after his DUI; however, he has not received any other type of mental health services, has never been psychiatrically hospitalized, and has never been prescribed any psychotropic medication.

Mr. Powers stated that he drinks socially and has never abused alcohol. After further exploration, he stated that he drinks alcohol about three times a week and has 1 or 2 beers each time. He stated that other than the DUI which he received years ago, there are no other instances when he has driven with a buzz or under the influence. He denied ever missing work due to a hangover or needing a drink in the morning to get going. He admitted he has used marijuana only once in the sixth grade. He denied use of any other illicit drugs or abuse of prescribed pain medication.

Mr. Powers stated that several of his accounts were turned over to collection when he was going through his second divorce because he had changed his address and had not received the statements. He denied any history of bankruptcy or foreclosures. He admitted to receiving citations for two moving violations which were “red light camera” tickets that occurred at the same intersection on both occasions. He has not been involved in any traffic accidents in the past five years. He admitted to driving without insurance on couple of instances and has also driven with a suspended license when he “didn’t know” about the suspension.

7.1.5 Behavioral Observations and Mental Status

Mr. Powers arrived on time and was professionally dressed. He was well groomed and appeared his stated chronological age. He was cooperative, alert, and maintained appropriate eye contact throughout the interview process. Rapport was easily established. He was oriented in all spheres. There were no sensory, perceptual, or psychomotor abnormalities noted. His thought process was linear, and goal directed. There was no indication of distorted, delusional, or bizarre ideations. Speech was clear and of normal prosody, volume and tone.

Mr. Powers’ mood was euthymic with congruent affect. He denied any symptoms of mania, anxiety and depression at the time of the evaluation. He did not report any difficulties with appetite, and fluctuating energy level. He stated he had slept well the night before and generally does not experience any symptoms of insomnia or intermittent awakening.

Mr. Powers exhibited adequate fund of general knowledge. His concentration, short- and long-term memory appeared intact. There were no discernible difficulties with abstractions and reasoning abilities. Nevertheless, his impulse control and judgment based on history seemed moderately impaired and/or questionable. The candidate’s overall attitude towards the examiner emerged as acceptable for a valid interview process.

7.1.6 Summary of Test Results

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2- Restructured Form (MMPI-2RF) contains 338 true-false items. Specifically, MMPI-2-RF Police candidate interpretive report (PCIR) which is utilized by many psychologists who conduct pre-employment psychological and fitness-for-duty evaluations, has updated comparison group based on 2074 subjects from agencies throughout North America. PCIR features evidence-based information and all correlate-based interpretations are grounded on findings from peer reviewed research. This measure is more relevant and transparent, whereby the source of every interpretive statement in the report is identified, and all interpretive statements pertain to behaviors and performance domains that are meaningful in police work.

Mr. Powers’ MMPI-2-RF profile was demonstrative of defensiveness, nevertheless interpretable. The Validity T-scores were L-r (Uncommon Virtues, T = 66) and K-r (Adjustment Validity, T = 62). His score on RC3 (Cynicism, T = 65) and AGG-r (Aggressiveness-Revised, T = 65) suggested that he is cynical and tends to use instrumental aggression as a primary method of interpersonal influence. Additionally, utilizing law enforcement norms, he obtained elevated scores on RC1 (Somatic Complaints, T = 56;98th percentile), NFC (Inefficacy, T = 48; 91st percentile), and FML (Family Problems, T = 53;96th percentile), indicating a greater sense of inefficacy, family issues, and somatic problems. Mr. Powers’ T-score on Substance Abuse was elevated (SUB, T = 58) as well, raising more concern about substance abuse proclivities.

The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) contains 434 items which can be scored to yield 18 scales. The 18 scales are further grouped into four classes: (1) measures of poise, ascendancy, self-assurance, and interpersonal adequacy; (2) measures of socialization, responsibility, intrapersonal values, and character; (3) measures of achievement potential and intellectual efficiency; and (4) measures of intellectual modes and interest. The CPI Police and Public Safety Selection Report aids psychologists, who are involved in the examination of police and other public safety applicants and employees, to discern the psychological suitability and emotional stability of the candidates. This test is known to be effective in identifying the traits that may interfere with or enhance an applicant’s effective performance of specific job functions.

Reviewing the CPI results, Mr. Powers’ profile was considered to be interpretable even though, similar to MMPI-2-RF , he had a defensive response style. His Good Impression Scale, (Gi) was T = 59 based upon Incumbent norms. Based on these norms, his profile showed low scale scores on Empathy (T = 49). There were also indications of high risk for anger management problems and medium risk for substance abuse proclivity, integrity and job performance problems.

7.1.7 Diagnostic Conclusions

No specific diagnoses were made as part of this evaluation.

7.1.8 Summary of Data Relevant to PEPE

The background jacket information contained the following information: (1) pictures and excerpts of posts which showed Mr. Powers. in inappropriate poses with drinks in his hand taken at different times on multiple dates; one also depicted him rolling a joint; (2) multiple pictures of guns and rifles with magazines as well as knives and assault rifles; and (3) specific polygraph results to explore aggressive incidents and substance use after two polygraphs were inconclusive. The LE agency indicated that once exploration was conducted on the picture of rolling a joint, Mr. Powers said it was a joke and he was trying to be funny, because he did not know how to roll one. As related to inappropriate poses with drinks, he had cited that these were taken at special occasions. The background jacket did not contain information addressing the picture(s) that contained multiple weapons. The LE agency raised concern about impulsivity and substance abuse, as it relates to the essential functions of a peace officer and POST psychological dimensions .

Mr. Powers’ Account as Related to the SNS Posts

As the content of the posts and the pictures were explored during the clinical interview, Mr. Powers was consistent in his responses, and identical to his conveyance to the background investigator, he said he was “goofing off.” When the fact that he had been disciplined in the military for a DUI was brought up, he shrugged and stated he did not have much to add other than he was joking and having a good time with his friends. He vehemently denied that he had used marijuana at the time the photo was taken and stated that he had rolled it as a dare by one of his friends. His explanation about multiple pictures of rifles and weapons was given in a matter of fact manner and he stated that his career has been in the military and he likes to show his “knowledge” and mastery. He denied existence of any obsessions and stated that, as related to weapons, he keeps up in his “trade.”

7.1.9 Suitability Opinion and Recommendation

After all the components of findings were given appropriate weight, it was concluded that there were concerns about Mr. Powers in relation to the following CA POST psychological dimensions :

• Emotional Regulation/Stress Tolerance: ability to maintain even-tempered composure and demeanor in highly charged emotional events and other stressful situations. This also includes being able to accept criticism of one’s personal limitations and mistakes, and not become excessively defensive when challenged or criticized.

• Decision Making/Judgment: being able to make sound decisions and size up situations quickly to determine what to do and take appropriate action. This includes having common sense and using practical judgment while also prioritizing competing demands.

• Impulse Control/Attention to Safety: taking proper precautions and avoiding impulsive or unnecessarily risky behavior to ensure the safety of oneself and others. It entails keeping one’s “knee-jerk reactions” in check and instead behaving in conscious respect for the bigger situation at hand.

Thus, Mr. Powers did not meet the minimum standards for psychological qualification as a peace officer due to not being able to fulfill the aforementioned POST psychological dimensions .

7.1.10 How Did Social Media Impact This Case?

Social media posts by Mr. Powers were presented in the Summary section of the Background Investigation jacket. Even though the nature of the posts had not led to Mr. Powers’ disqualification at the Background stage, it nevertheless had been forwarded to the psychologist for further exploration based on its relevance to the essential functions of a peace officer, as well as POST psychological dimensions . The candidate’s SNS posts converged with some of the critical findings from results of the administered psychological measures and his background history. Founded on the coalescence of all the gathered information, it was opined that they were not in accordance with the above-mentioned psychological dimensions of POST and the psychologist could not certify that Mr. Powers was a suitable candidate.

Case Profile 2

7.1.1 Type of Evaluation

Psychological Fitness-For-Duty Evaluation of a Peace Officer.

7.1.2 Case Context

Harvey Reeves is a 42-year-old peace officer who was evaluated for approximately 6 h in response to the LE agency’s request to determine whether he can safely perform the essential functions of a peace officer after he had exhibited unusual and inappropriate behaviors.

In April 2016, the Agency requested a consultation from this examiner by offering all personnel records, investigations as related to claims of discrimination that Mr. Reeves had alleged against the agency, his performance evaluations, medical certifications, and most notably the videos and information he had posted on different SNS. Based on a letter from Mr. Reeves’ primary care provider alleging that additional time off following a work-related injury was required due to safety issues, the fact that Mr. Reeves was in a safety sensitive position, and that behaviors he was exhibiting off-duty called into question his ability to demonstrate adequate impulse control, judgment, emotional regulation and stress tolerance, and social competence, the agency was advised to seek a psychological FFDE prior to returning the employee to work.

In May of 2016, upon being released to full duty, the agency assigned Mr. Reeves to work from home and placed him on administrative leave with pay after holding an interactive process meeting (IPM) with him and requesting that he voluntarily submit to a FFDE. This decision was made due to the fact that a clearance by his physician only addressed the physical injuries and not the safety issues that had subsequently been raised. Initially, Mr. Reeves stated he would discuss the evaluation with his legal representative and would inform the agency at a later time whether he was willing to comply. However, despite the LE agency’s efforts for a few months, Mr. Reeves did not consent to the evaluation.

While the LE agency was trying to pursue requesting an ordered FFDE, Mr. Reeves was placed off work by his psychiatrist, from December 2016 through March 2017, for treatment of issues related to alleged “harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.” After his release date in March 2017, the LE agency continued its IPM with the employee and made an effort to again secure his consent for a FFDE. Nonetheless, despite numerous meetings and correspondence with Mr. Reeves and his representative, Mr. Reeves maintained that he has been released to work by his treatment providers and there is no need for another examination to occur. The agency took the position that because Mr. Reeves’ psychiatrist had not directly addressed the safety issues involved and it was unclear whether this treatment provider had been aware of the off-duty conduct to include the videos and posts on the SNS and may not have offered an “informed clearance.” the officer was compelled to attend and cooperate with the FFDE to discern whether he can safely perform his peace officer duties.

7.1.3 Sources of Information

• 1. Documents and collateral information from the LE agency regarding the employee’s past and recent performance, conduct and functioning, including:

  • a. Job description

  • b. Performance evaluations for the past three years

  • c. Commendations and testimonials

  • d. Incident reports related to any triggering events

  • e. Medical records and certifications, and

  • f. SNS posts and videos on Youtube

• 2. A Clinical Interview with Mr. Reeves

• 3. Administration of the Following Psychological Measures: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Third Edition (MCMI-III), and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), MMPI-2-RF , as well as PHQ

• 4. Mr. Reeves’ pertinent treatment records

7.1.4 Relevant Background

Mr. Reeves was born and raised in Pomona, California to the intact union of his parents; he is the third out of four children with two older brothers and one younger sister. He stated he would work at his father’s business after school and during summer and since his older brothers had moved away. Reportedly, his father was hoping that one day Mr. Reeves would take over running the business. However, Mr. Reeves had always wanted to be a peace officer and was excited when he was placed on the list, and successfully passed all stages of the process and became an officer in 1997. He stated that he was able to move into his apartment soon afterwards and was married to his high school sweetheart a year later. Their daughter was born about a year after the marriage and, at that time, they moved to a house they bought. He stated they began to have marital difficulties when their daughter started kindergarten and his wife appeared “jealous” of his interactions and perceived relationships with female officers. They were separated and divorced a year and a half later. His ex-wife and daughter moved to another state to live closer to his ex-wife’s siblings.

Mr. Reeves married his second wife a couple of years after the divorce. She is a homemaker and they have two children, a 12-year-old daughter and a 10-year-old son. Mr. Reeves stated that a few years in to his second marriage, he started a business with one of his friends in swimming pools; however, after an injury, his friend left the business and Mr. Reeves was spending his time off trying to maintain the business. Following a few complaints to the Better Business Bureau and negative information posted on Yelp (an online business directory and crowd-sourced review forum) about his business, Mr. Reeves reported that “everything went downhill.” Apparently, the decline of the housing market resulting in most homeowners not being able to invest in installing pools also contributed to lack of income in his personal business. Therefore, Mr. Reeves filed for bankruptcy.

Concurrently, Mr. Reeves was injured on duty and had been considered temporary totally disabled (TTD). He stated that a few months later, one of his close friends who was diagnosed with cancer, died by suicide by “eating his gun.” Mr. Reeves was devastated and was trying to help his friend’s widow with the arrangements and fund the funeral. At this time, he stated that he started feeling very alone and thought the LE agency he had “dedicated” his life to was not offering any assistance to him during his recovery. He stated that he would have disturbed sleep and no energy. He gained about 50 extra pounds and started drinking. Additionally, he was taking more pain medication to deal with the physical pain from the injury.

7.1.5 Behavioral Observations and Mental Status

Mr. Reeves arrived on time for the ordered psychological FFDE in June 2017. He was attired in long shorts and a plaid, short sleeved shirt that was not tucked in. He had his hair in a ponytail and had a long and bushy beard. He was wearing dark glasses and was resistant to taking them off due to his “light sensitivity.” As he was working on the psychological measures, Mr. Reeves took the glasses off. Mr. Reeves was carrying a brief case and as soon as he sat down, he took out his tablet, some documents, and put his cell phone on the table with the recorder on. Then he sat back and crossed his arms. The fact that he had cell phone recorder application on was explored and he was informed that he is unable to record the evaluation. He replied that his attorney wanted him to do that. The reasons that the recording cannot occur was explained to him. He was presented with the consent form as well as authorization forms pertaining to the release of pertinent treatment records. Mr. Reeves leaned forward, read the documents, and stated that this was not explained to him by the LE agency and he still needed to discuss the recording of the evaluation with his attorney. The process for the FFDE, including the reasons for not allowing the recording and the need to obtain treatment records were discussed. He was informed that it was his option if he did not want to proceed with the evaluation, until such time that he had discussed the matters with his attorney. He stepped outside to make a call and returned within a few minutes stating that the attorney was unavailable, and he wanted to proceed. At that time, he reviewed the informed consent form and signed it. He understood the nature of the evaluation and understood the limits of confidentiality, and the fact that this evaluator is not his treating psychologist but is conducting a fitness for duty evaluation of him. Mr. Reeves was reminded that his cell phone should be turned off, he grinned and stated “so, you know, I recorded my conversation with the Chief without his knowledge. You know I did it because I knew they were coming after me and were planning to get me.” Then he asked, “When was the last time that you checked this place for bugs?” Upon seeing the look of confusion on the evaluator’s face, he stated that he was not sure that his agency or the evaluator were not recording the conversation. This evaluator assured Mr. Reeves that the evaluation was not being recorded and took this opportunity to discuss the process and procedure again.

At various times during the evaluation, Mr. Reeves seemed to be short of breath requiring pauses in his responses. He explained that his health has been compromised by the distress that he has experienced, and his only wish is to return to work at this time. Towards the middle of the evaluation, he appeared fatigued and his physical movements were slow. He said that he has been depressed, and “this whole situation has taken a toll on my health and my family.”

Mr. Reeves stated he has gained a lot of weight (approximately 50 pounds) due to a “metabolic syndrome.” He complained of having problems falling asleep and intermittent awakening as a result of nightmares he has in which “a couple of the guys that I used to work with are holding my head down and knocking my teeth out, then they are putting chemicals in my mouth.” He added, “It is totally scary.”

He stated that his workers’ compensation case had been resolved since last February and it had been more than 6 months since he was released to full duty. Mr. Reeves explained that the LE agency played games with him and ordered him to be absent from work, which he reported only happened to 10 people in the entire law enforcement agency and that is a “top secret thing.” He said he gets full pay but is restricted to his home by his employer from 8 AM to 5 PM with an hour for lunch. He said he feels like an inmate, given his home restriction, and that this is currently chiefly bothering him and making him very sad. Mr. Reeves cried at this time during the interview and stated that “instead of treating me like a hero because I came forward with a whole bunch of stuff and called out the corruption and am a whistleblower, they’re treating me like a villain.” He stated that he has since received a letter of reprimand for the information and videos that he had posted on different SNS.

Mr. Reeves denied experiencing any memory problems or issues with focus and concentration. He believed that he is a “pretty good self-evaluator.” He stated that as soon as he is returned to duty, he wants to be involved as a “mentor to others and give them a voice.”

Mr. Reeves stated that he has thought about killing himself in the past although he denied any present suicidal ideation in the past several months. He denied any psychiatric hospitalization; he further disclosed that he has not entertained any past or current homicidal ideations, intent or plan.

7.1.6 Summary of Test Results

Mr. Reeves’s results on the MMPI-2-RF were deemed to be valid and interpretable. The MMPI-2-RF validity scales T-scores were L-r = 52 & K-r = 72 indicating underreporting and Mr. Reeves’ response style was to present himself as remarkably well-adjusted. No significant elevations were noted on the substantive scales. On the Item Level Information under Unscorable Responses Mr. Reeves left the statement Someone is trying to rob me blank. When reviewed, Mr. Reeves reported he did not realize he had skipped that statement and clarified he did not believe anyone is trying to rob him. On the Restructured Clinical Scales, Mr. Reeves’ score on RCd (Demoralization, T = 68) and RC6 (Ideas of Persecution, T = 79) were elevated. The high score on RCd indicated he feels discouraged and generally distressed. He may be insecure and pessimistic and may have poor self-esteem. He may expect to fail or may believe he has failed in various areas of his life. Additionally, higher T-scores on RC6 are suggestive of the individual being characterized by paranoid thinking and reflect symptoms of delusional disorder or other disorders within the psychotic spectrum.

On the Internalizing Scales, Mr. Reeves’ high score of T = 70 on the Anxiety (AXY) scale signified that he reports life as a strain on him much of the time and he is consistently feeling anxiety or distress about something or someone almost all the time. He worries quite a bit about possible misfortune, and he finds it difficult to keep his mind focused on tasks.

On the Somatic/Cognitive Scales, Mr. Reeves’ high score on GIC (Gastrointestinal Complaints, T = 70) confirmed his complaints about his gastrointestinal symptoms that he had voiced during the interview. He is likely to be pre-occupied and report recurrences of stomach aches and related ailments.

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – Third Edition (MCMI-III) is a 175 question, true/false psychological instrument utilized in clinical settings with individuals 18 years and older. This test’s normative population is comprised of patients seen in individual practices, forensic settings, hospitals, mental health centers, and residential facilities. The MCMI-III uses “Base Rate” (BR) for scores for the purpose of interpretation and reporting. A BR score of 60 is representative of a median score which is similar to 50 T. The presence of a specific personality trait is generally reflected at BR75; whereas a BR85 and above suggests the full presence of a personality characteristic. The MCMI-III has 28 scales including 14 Personality Disorder Scales, 10 Clinical Syndrome Scales, 4 Response style/validity Scales.

As related to Mr. Reeves, on the MCMI-III, two Validity Scales (V = 0 and W = 0) met criteria for a valid and consistent protocol. The Modifying Indexes showed the following scores: Disclosure (BR = 47); Desirability (BR = 85); and Debasement (BR = 63). Mr. Reeves’ responses suggested an effort to present a socially acceptable appearance with resistance to admitting personal shortcomings. Taken together, these scores may reflect either a broad-based concern about being appraised unfavorably by others or an active suspicion of the arcane motives of psychological inquiry.

The Clinical Syndromes and Severe Clinical Syndromes revealed two elevations on Anxiety (BR = 77) and Major Depression (BR = 89). These findings signaled that Mr. Reeves has many feelings associated with worthlessness, fatigue, inefficiency, and inability to concentrate. He may be withdrawn and is not inclined to exhibit emotions. Furthermore, Mr. Reeves had endorsed a number of items which indicated that he feels tense, agitated, suffers from chest palpitations, muscular pain, and may feel jumpy, weak and fatigued.

Although the Severe Personality Pathology section did not show any elevations that would have met the minimum criteria of the MCMI-III, the Clinical Personality Patterns of this test revealed three elevations on the Histrionic (BR = 67), Compulsive (BR = 90) and Narcissistic (BR = 67) scales. The Clinical Personality Patterns profile indicated Mr. Reeves tends to be somewhat overly dramatic with a strong need to be the center of attention. His profile also suggested that he may be behaviorally rigid, constricted, meticulous, polite, conscientious, over conforming, organized, and respectful. He may often be perfectionistic, moralistic, efficient and inflexible. Per the test publisher, these types of individuals are known to suppress the resentment and anger towards those whose approval they seek (usually authority figures). These individuals also tend to have a strong sense of duty and they strive to avoid criticism. They rely on achievement and accomplishment of personal goals to feel worthwhile, and expect others to consistently recognize, praise, and admire them for their special qualities. They feel excessively entitled and demand special favors simply on the basis of who they are. When they experience a narcissistic injury, they are prone to develop an affective disorder or even paranoia.

In addition, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) was administered. PAI is an objective test of personality and a multiscale inventory that contains 344 items which comprise 22 non-overlapping scales: 4 validity scales, 11 clinical scales, 5 treatment scales, and 2 interpersonal scales. Like the MMPI-2-RF , PAI scales are expressed in T-scores that are based on sampling a reference group was mean score is 50 and standard deviation is 10. Mr. Reeves’ validity scales where as follows: ICN (Inconsistency) T = 67, INF (Infrequency) and NIM (Negative Impression) were both T = 44, and PIM (Positive Impression) T = 54. Despite the elevation encountered on the Inconsistency scale, which suggested Mr. Reeves’ may have not been forthright and may have tended to make himself appear to be free from any short comings, the protocol was within the normal range. The highest elevation of the Full-scale Profile was noted on the PAR or Paranoia scale which was at T = 72. Discerning the Paranoia scale is a difficult task because individuals who experience mistrust and suspiciousness are often very defensive and unwilling to disclose information that would describe them as paranoid. The paranoia scale measures vigilance in monitoring the environment for potential harm, and those who score higher on this scale tend to be resentful and hold grudges. Additionally, they may tend to feel that they are being treated unequally and others are involved in a concerted effort to undermine them. A review of the subscale profile also revealed a significant elevation on the Persecution dimension which was also T = 72. Individuals who score in this range believe others are attempting to obstruct or impede their efforts. Of the three subscales of the PAR scale, the persecution is most closely associated with manifestations of delusional disorder involving paranoia. Moreover, individuals who score in this range have working and social relationships that are likely to be very strained; despite many efforts made by others to demonstrate support and assistance.

7.1.7 Diagnostic Conclusions

No specific diagnoses were made as part of this evaluation.

7.1.8 Summary of Data Relevant to FFDE

Documents received from the LE agency indicated that prior to the denoted incidents, Mr. Reeves had minimal disciplinary and interpersonal problems. However, on or about March 2016, this employee began exhibiting behaviors that were of concern to the agency. Reportedly, while on medical leave due to an injury, Mr. Reeves. had presented himself at a commanding officer’s work location unannounced, wearing sunglasses and a bandana. This manner of attire had been very different from his previous off-duty appearances, based on the information from those who had worked with him. Without waiting to be granted permission, he entered the office and ignored that the executive was involved in a private phone conversation; Mr. Reeves had closed the door behind him and had sat in front of the executive with crossed arms. After the executive concluded the phone conversation, Mr. Reeves started “ranting” and, per the commanding officer, he “was not making any sense.” The executive considered these actions as “inappropriate and unusual behavior” by a subordinate and someone much lower in rank. Shortly thereafter, the agency had become cognizant that Mr. Reeves tape-recorded a conversation between himself and another high-ranking officer without the other individual’s knowledge or consent and posted YouTube videos on the Internet of himself wearing his uniform or showing his badge, while acting in a “potentially irrational manner.” Furthermore, Mr. Reeves contacted the agency’s Employee Relations Unit and used profanity, was yelling, and then started crying. Despite the fact that he was on medical leave, the agency had consulted with the mental health professionals who were employed by the agency appropriately as related to these incidents, since this behavior concerned the agency as to the psychological well-being of their employee. On the same date as his contact with Employee Relations, the LE agency received information from a compliance officer who interviewed Mr. Reeves about a complaint of discrimination. The compliance officer had reported similar interactions with Mr. Reeves while reflecting the same consternation about Mr. Reeves’ safety and well-being. After discussing the matter with the appropriate security and safety unit, the agency took steps to ensure the welfare of the employee by requesting assistance from another LE agency that had jurisdiction over the area where Mr. Reeves resided. A mental evaluation team was requested later and responded to Mr. Reeves residence. At the time they evaluated Mr. Reeves, it was determined that he did not meet the criteria to be put on a 72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold pursuant to California Welfare and Institution Code 5150.

However, a few days later, Mr. Reeves reportedly went to a nearby police station, while still being off duty and after identifying himself as an officer, he proceeded to yell and use profanity towards the watch commander. As a result of feeling threatened based on Mr. Reeves’ “body language,” behavior, and verbalization that he would return to the station later in the afternoon, the officers in the station were on alert and informed Mr. Reeves that his actions would be reported and he should “stand down” and leave immediately or they would take steps to detain him. Mr. Reeves did not in fact return later that day, but it was discovered by the LE agency that he had posted more videos of himself on Facebook and other social media accounts wearing army fatigues and hiding behind bushes, or jumping out from behind a non-descript building and stating that he knew he was being watched/followed by others due to his race. There were other videos showing him opening the door to his residence and having a frightened look on his face, peering outside, and then crying. At this time, the agency received a letter from Mr. Reeves’ treatment provider, stating he needs to remain off work “for his safety and the safety of others.” Thus, Mr. Reeves’ medical leave due to the physical injury that he was claiming was extended for a longer period of time.

Review of Records

Per his authorization, a large amount and myriad of documents and records was received from Mr. Reeves treatment providers. This also included the letters that these providers had offered for Mr. Reeves’ workers compensation case, as well as the discrimination lawsuit.

The psychological treatment records entailed that Mr. Reeves had first sought treatment about non-work-related issues (suicide of his friend) in August 2014. He was deemed to have a psychological condition and was referred to his primary healthcare provider for medication management. After reporting a decrease in symptoms, psychotherapy had been terminated. It appeared Mr. Reeves had several phone conversations and had been in treatment with the clinician sporadically from February 2015 until September 2015. The records revealed that treatment resumed in March 2016, a few weeks prior to manifestations of Mr. Reeves concerning behaviors while he was off duty. The treatment provider’s notes for the next 3 months indicated improvements of symptoms. Curiously, this is the time period when Mr. Reeves’ psychiatrist placed him on medical leave. Additionally, there was a note provided to the agency by Mr. Reeves’ psychologist dated a few months later indicating he was “fit for duty” and that the “best ‘therapy’ would be for Mr. Reeves to be released to active duty without restrictions.” However, there was no mention of administration of psychological measures, knowledge or coordination of treatment with the psychiatrist, or any objective means of arriving at this conclusion.

The primary care physician’s (PCP) notes from early 2016 indicated Mr. Reeves had various medical problems and physical injuries. Although some psychological symptoms were noted and pharmacotherapy was offered, the clearance that the PCP offered for Mr. Reeves to return to work mainly considered his physical ability and his limitations. There was also a notation clarifying that the letter sent to the LE agency approving Mr. Reeves’ return to work was a result of the doctor’s concern for Mr. Reeves’ wellbeing. Specifically, the PCP concluded Mr. Reeves’ “history of a brief psychological problem” should not be an obstacle for Mr. Reeves maintaining a full-time position. This notation was not indicative of whether there had been any consultation with Mr. Reeves’s other treatment providers as related to the nature and intensity of the “psychological condition” and its brevity.

The treatment records from Mr. Reeves’ psychiatrist stated Mr. Reeves was seen for psychopharmacological management purposes and had been placed on Temporary Total Disability (TTD) during the initial consultation visit for one month in 2016. Although there was indication that some psychological measures (most notably MMPI-2) were administered, the progress notes did not contain any results or interpretation of the testing that would provide more information or confirmation of the self-reported symptoms by Mr. Reeves, neither did it offer the purpose of the testing by the psychiatrist. Also, on the other self-report measures that were administered, Mr. Reeves endorsed items and/or intensity of experience that were not consistent with the data about symptomatology reflected in the psychiatrist’s initial report. That is, Mr. Reeves had not endorsed experiencing guilt, sadness, lacking self-confidence, being discouraged about the future, whereas, the psychiatrist had laid out in his report that Mr. Reeves. experienced these feelings and perceptions. Nonetheless, Mr. Reeves was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, and had been prescribed a variety of medication to include Pristiq 100 mg, Seroquel XR 50 mg, Ambien CR; Actiq for pain; Abilify; Clonazepam; Testosterone; Vitamin D3; CoQ10; and Omega 3 fish oil.

Additional notes from the treating psychiatrist stated that Mr. Reeves’s diagnosis had remained active and he was experiencing a myriad of symptoms. Yet, as noted previously, these were inconsistent with the psychologist’s notes documented around the same time that conveyed improvement and ability to return to duty. In fact, it was not discernible whether Mr. Reeves was referred for further psychological treatment, and/or the treatment providers had ever conferred with each other about Mr. Reeves’ treatment plan. Despite the use of the aforementioned medications, Mr. Reeves was noted to be very symptomatic and his prognosis was guarded. Further certification was offered by his psychiatrist of Mr. Reeves’ need to be off work and remain on TTD until the end of January 2017. Finally, a few months later there was notation from the same provider releasing Mr. Reeves to unrestricted duty.

Despite the fact that Mr. Reeves denied any psychiatric hospitalizations during this evaluation, he gave authorization to obtain hospital records. The review of the records revealed that in late 2016, Mr. Reeves had been brought in by the police after driving very slowly with the “loudspeakers blasting.” When peace officers had approached him after being stopped, they found him to be confused and unable to make eye contact. He told police he had been driving around town for a couple hours. Then he had started to laugh uncontrollably. He was not able to provide any valid identification but declared himself to be a peace officer while continuing to laugh. He also disclosed that he was going through a divorce. When he had arrived at the emergency room accompanied by the officers, Mr. Reeves was noted to have been in “great distress,” yet continued to laugh as questions were posed to him. Upon evaluation, he had questioned the credentials of the attending psychiatrist and then started to laugh uncontrollably again, per admission notes. He reported taking Ativan and Klonopin before but preferred Klonopin. He also stated that he was prescribed “Nuvigil” for his depression. According to admission notes, he stated he had “not slept for more than one year.” As he had continued to laugh, he had also related that he had read the manifesto of Chris Doner and realized why he wanted to kill people. At that point, Mr. Reeves had started crying.

Following these observations, the attending psychiatrist had placed Mr. Reeves on a 72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold for danger to others and grave disability. At the time of hospitalization, Mr. Reeves received an initial injection of Haldol and Ativan. Benadryl had also been administered to him. Later in the day, was found pulling the fire alarm, destroying property, and unable to be redirected verbally or with gentle physical redirection. He was put into seclusion and restraints and had received another Haldol injection. The next day while the hospital attending psychiatrist had talked to him, he could not be convinced to take any medication and just wanted to be transferred to a different hospital. On the third day he was released to his mother’s care. Over the three days Mr. Reeves spent in the hospital, he had attended two groups, but remained symptomatic, not exhibiting a logical thought process, and had shown a range of behaviors suggestive of impulsive dyscontrol.

Interestingly, there was no mention of this hospitalization anywhere in his outpatient treating psychiatrist records.

Mr. Reeves’ Account as Related to the SNS Posts

When Mr. Reeves’ posts and videos on SNS were discussed with him during the clinical interview, he acknowledged them with a smirk. He asked the evaluator how she had become aware of them. When he was told that, along with notification of his behaviors, his employer provided the information, Mr. Reeves leaned back with his arms crossed and asked what the evaluator thought about those posts and videos. Clarification was provided that the issue of importance in the present evaluation was his psychological state and decision-making process at the time he created and then posted these videos and pictures. At that point, he once again started looking around the room, gazing at the door, and stated he would not discuss the posts. He asserted he was only interested in ensuring the evaluator understood he had been discriminated against and the chain of command in the agency was “out to get him” because he was a whistleblower.

7.1.9 Suitability/Fitness Opinion and Recommendation

Based on the information outlined above, Mr. Reeves suffers from a pattern of pervasive and characterologically rooted issues and a history of depressive episodes which appeared to have become exacerbated into delusional symptomology during periods of stress. Mr. Reeves has also had a history of symptomology which have required medication management; however, other than the brief and inconsistent psychotherapy, no other modalities of psychological/therapeutic treatment had been utilized. During the evaluation, Mr. Reeves presented an inconsistent account of his use of psychotropic medications, previous treatment history, and experienced difficulties. Mr. Reeves presented with minimal insight into his behavior and the impact of his behavior including SNS posts and videos on others. He tended to blame others and engaged in rumination while attributing his behaviors to situations that he believed were brought on by the LE agency and other people’s action towards him. He continuously minimized his role in the indicated situations. As noted above, he believed he was a hero because he brought forth the “corruption” within the LE agency. Of noteworthy concern was the fact that, despite being relieved of duty with pay and being away from the work environment, he had been psychiatrically hospitalized. Furthermore, based on the results of the objective testing, Mr. Reeves continued to report significant amount of distress related to work. Mr. Reeves’ preoccupation with the discrimination along with the alleged harassment he believed he had endured and his hypervigilance for potential threats in the workplace may significantly impact him in performing his job functions as a peace officer.

As noted earlier, a safety sensitive position as defined by the CGC§1031 (f) requires that the individual “Be free of any physical, emotional, or mental conditions that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer.” Based on the abovementioned behaviors and manifestation of symptomatology, Mr. Reeves was deemed as unable to meet the requirements of CGC§1031(f) due to his serious psychological and emotional impairment. Furthermore, considering POST psychological dimensions Mr. Reeves did not meet the following guidelines:

• Social Competence: ability to read people and an awareness of the impact of one’s own words and behaviors on others; and being able to communicate with others in a tactful and respectful manner.

• Teamwork: working effectively with others to accomplish goals; and being able to establish and maintain effective working relationships with coworkers, supervisors, and clients.

• Emotional Regulation/Stress Tolerance: ability to maintain even-tempered composure and demeanor in highly charged emotional events and other stressful situations. This also includes being able to accept criticism of one’s personal limitations and mistakes, and not become excessively defensive when challenged or criticized.

• Decision Making/Judgment: being able to make sound decisions and size up situations quickly to determine what to do and take appropriate action. This includes having common sense and using practical judgment while also prioritizing competing demands.

• Adaptability/Flexibility: adaptability and flexibility so that one may adjust to many different, sudden, and sometimes competing demands of the job.

Consequently, as a result of his hypervigilance for potential personal threats regarding discrimination and harassment on the job and based on the problematic nature of Mr. Reeves’ exhibited behaviors and his preoccupation with the harassment and discrimination, it was opined that there is a higher risk for occurrence of a serious event that could result in harm to himself and/or others. Thus, Mr. Reeves was deemed as not fit to be a peace officer at the time of the evaluation.

7.1.10 How Did Social Media Impact This Case?

Mr. Reeves’ posts and videos on the SNS were offered by the LE agency as providing further justifications for the request of the FFDE along with other documentation depicting the problematic behaviors Mr. Reeves had exhibited while on leave due to injury incurred at work. Due to their relevance to the essential functions of a peace officer, they were considered by this evaluator. In fact, there was a convergence of critical findings from the results of the administered psychological measures, review of treatment records and the in-depth clinical interview during the FFDE with the displayed behaviors and information, particularly videos, that were posted by Mr. Reeves on SNS. After diligently considering to the essential functions of a peace officer and POST psychological dimensions , the psychologist was unable to certify that Mr. Reeves could return to work and safely and reliably carry out the powers and privileges of a peace officer.