Throughout our wonderful law enforcement profession, recruiting has become increasingly challenging, but it is important to emphasize that this article is not written based on that present reality. More importantly, this article is dedicated to the process of bringing into our profession some fine men and women who might otherwise not be hired because of a background investigation that did not dig deeply enough.

The expression “There but for the grace of God go I” is very pertinent to the discussion and should be strongly embraced by each person who plays a role in the selection process of hiring men and women to be law enforcement officers. There are a couple of life’s realities that are absolutes: we hire from the human race, and most young people occasionally do stupid things based on immaturity. Those who forget the latter are either liars or in denial!

As I reflect on my past, I must ashamedly admit that I did a few truly stupid things, both as a civilian and in the military. Had the existence of those brain farts surfaced during my background investigations, I would probably not have had the honor of being a peace officer. Before getting too smug, I challenge each reader to look back on a few foolish things you have done that, like my misdeeds, most likely would have resulted in failed backgrounds as well.

Until the crystal ball is invented, we must dig deeply in the background process and then exercise our very best judgment.

Most of us have frequent conversations with or about people who are considering or should consider applying to be law enforcement officers. Until the crystal ball is invented that would enable us to always hire only the most suitable candidates, we must dig deeply in the background process and then exercise our very best judgment. Looking back on my many civilian and military experiences where I played a role in selection processes, I must admit that I made some hiring decisions that I came to regret, but I also continue to be troubled by the realization that I most likely (most certainly, in a number of cases) failed to hire a number of folks who would have been decent peace officers. In looking back on various aspects of the selection process, I came to place particularly strong emphasis on four factors.

First, do not permit a background investigator to be the person who makes the hiring decision, and do not be hesitant to go against their hiring
recommendation. Their job is to dig deeply and thoroughly in a balanced way and to provide you with the information you need to make the hiring decision. Background investigators are just like everyone else in that they have biases or pet peeves that are occasionally out of sync with others, typically because of the weight attached to those types of factors. We’ve all experienced situations where other employees (sometimes us!) have provided input in the background process; that is typically a most valuable source of information, but make sure it is accurate and not based on personality factors, either overly charitable or critical.

Second, make it clear that you expect those doing background investigations to dig deeply throughout the process, and not prematurely cease the inquiry when derogatory information is uncovered. This is the time to reflect on our personal misdeeds and apply our experiences to the background investigation underway. In your case, was the indiscretion a single and out-of-character event that was not indicative of your overall persona, or a foolish phase that you learned from and outgrew? My heart aches for some of the wonderful people who wanted very badly to join our profession, but who were disqualified for some of the same misdeeds for which others were not caught!

Third, do not permit a polygraph examination to be the key factor in a disqualification. The polygraph is a valuable tool but can be misused and given more weight than is reasonable. I must confess to a bias and skepticism that may well be unfair, but I choose to tread lightly and carefully because of too many cases where I was most uncomfortable with some disqualifications. Obviously, a big issue is the interview skills of the polygrapher during the course of the polygraph examination itself. As in candid conversations with background investigators, do not be hesitant to be equally as straightforward with polygraphers, but certainly in a positive and nonconfrontational manner. Not all polygraphers see the same “absolutes” and recognize the same degrees of “uncertainty” as others.

Finally, be willing to take a chance with a candidate if you truly and strongly feel that they have what it takes to grow into a solid officer. If you do take a chance, however, keep close tabs on the person and do not permit the candidate to get lost in the shuffle where skills are neither tested or exhibited because of less-than-stellar training officers. Exceptional situations require exceptional training processes, and the absence of a solid probationary officer training program may weigh against taking hiring chances.

One of my all-time heroes is a long-deceased police background investigator, Bill Lesner. In doing my background to be a Los Angeles police officer, he got a real earful of dirt from one of my neighbors — much of which was somewhat accurate. He also looked closely at the circumstances of a mischievous situation described as a burglary arrest. But Bill did not stop there; he dug more deeply and opined that my sins were part of my path through immaturity and not likely a reflection of my overall character, and I got hired. Had he not done some additional digging, I would likely not have become a cop.

Encourage those who have the honor and awesome responsibility of doing background investigations to dig deep, to go that extra mile and to look for the permanent strengths as opposed to the temporary weaknesses in those who seek to join our profession.