Norwood: That’s an interesting challenge. So even if states have a certification system, they don’t necessarily have strong requirements that would actually result in decertification.

Goldman: Absolutely. That’s why my work continues to be not with just states that don’t have the certification systems—like Massachusetts, California, Hawaii—but also with states that have a system but it’s very weak—like Maryland.

And the states I mentioned that don’t have decertification systems are very blue states. That should be an indication that the opposition is going to come from police union officials. Typically, states that have weak decertification laws will also have very strong protections for police. California is interesting. They used to have the power to “cancel,” which is the same thing as decertification. In 2005 or so, the legislature revoked that power. So California is the only state that’s gone in the opposite direction—from having a certification system to not having one.

Norwood: Your research also touches on another big issue in this discussion, which is when police officers—who are either fired or have resigned after instances of misconduct—then find work in another department. This could be within the same state or in a different state. How pervasive is this?

Goldman: In my research, I’ve seen it happen a lot within St. Louis County.

There are many cases around the country where officers leave their departments because of misconduct and then they are rehired—sometimes knowingly, sometimes not—by other departments. This is why you cannot leave it up to local departments to do the right thing. They are going to hire officers with bad records because they can get them at a discount. These officers have had their training. That’s why you absolutely need to have the states come in and prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Norwood: So let’s talk about the federal level. In one of your papers you discuss the limitations of the federal oversight of local police reform. Can you tell me more about that?

Goldman: Now, this was published before Jeff Sessions became attorney general. The overall point I would make is that there are traditional federal remedies for police misconduct. But if the new administration is going to back off of these remedies—such as the consent decrees—then it becomes even more important to have strong state solutions, too, such as the certification systems.

So specifically, regarding the remedies at the federal level: Federal courts operate something called the “exclusionary rule,” which excludes evidence obtained by police in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights. But it’s pretty clear the Supreme Court is backing off enforcing that rule over the last several years. Other federal remedies include suing an officer who commits misconduct for damages, or criminally prosecuting that officer. But criminal prosecution is pretty heavy-handed, and it is very hard to win those cases at all. Civil suits can be successful, but still don’t address the issue of removing an officer from the force. Those are reasons why a state certification program could be a way to make sure this person cannot stay on the job. It’s not one versus the other; federal and state remedies can act in tandem toward police reform.