The Database Problem:

It's Exactly Like the Church Problem

The systems that enable problem police officers to move between departments and evade accountability are structurally identical to how the Catholic Church moved predatory priests from parish to parish for decades.^1,2

The mechanism is the same: incomplete records, fragmented reporting, informal communication among leadership, legal fear of liability, and institutional incentives to avoid public scandal by quietly moving the problem elsewhere. The priest accused of abuse gets transferred to a diocese in another state. The officer disciplined for excessive force resigns before formal action and applies to a neighboring jurisdiction. Both exploit gaps in the systems designed to prevent exactly this.

The key difference: The church has been repeatedly exposed and shamed for this practice. Law enforcement has largely evaded equivalent scrutiny, partly because the failures remain obscured by confidentiality statutes and fragmented record-keeping.

What Actually Exists: The National Decertification Index

There is a national database. It's called the National Decertification Index (NDI), and it has existed since 1999—over 25 years.^3,4 The NDI is maintained by the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) and contains records of approximately 30,000 officers whose law enforcement certifications have been revoked by state POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) agencies.⁴

In theory, the NDI works like a doctor's licensing board: an officer decertified in one state for serious misconduct gets entered into the national database, and any other state can check it before hiring.⁴

In practice, the NDI is a system held together by voluntary participation and institutional goodwill—two things law enforcement has consistently lacked.

Why the NDI Doesn't Work: Structural Failures

Problem 1: Not All States Participate or Can Participate

California does not report to the NDI. Neither do New Jersey, Hawaii, Georgia, or Rhode Island.⁵ That's five major states, representing millions of people and thousands of police departments, with no participation in the national system.

California's excuse is particularly revealing: the state claims it has "no authority" to decertify officers for misconduct.^6,7 This was technically true until 2021, when Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) created a decertification system for the first time. But even with SB 2 in place, California was slow to implement and report to the NDI. As of 2021, CNN's reporting found California was still not reliably participating in the national database.⁵

An officer terminated in California for serious misconduct may not appear in the NDI. An officer in Nevada or Oregon checking whether to hire that officer would find no record. The officer can claim a clean slate.

Problem 2: Reporting Is Voluntary, Not Mandatory

Of the 44 states (45 agencies) that technically report to the NDI, participation is not legally mandated. Even among states with POST agencies, there is no federal requirement that decertifications be reported to the national database.⁴ Some agencies submit regularly; others sporadically; some not at all.

The IADLEST director told CNN in 2021: "The NDI is intended for use by law enforcement agencies and POST organizations. But like many tools, it only works if agencies use it—and right now, they aren't required to."⁴

This is equivalent to saying: "We have a medical licensing board, but doctors aren't required to report disciplinary action to it. They can if they want."

Problem 3: The NDI Is Not Public

The NDI is not accessible to the general public. Only law enforcement agencies and POST offices can query it.⁴ If you want to know whether the police officer who stopped you has a history of violence or perjury, you cannot look him up. Communities, civil rights organizations, and watchdog reporters cannot use the system.⁴

Even many police departments don't know the NDI exists or how to use it.⁴ Small departments with limited resources may not have access to or knowledge of the database when screening lateral hires.

Problem 4: The NDI Contains Only "Pointer" Information

The NDI does not store details about what an officer did to be decertified. It merely says "Officer X was decertified by State Y" and directs the inquirer to contact that state's POST for specifics.⁴ State POST records are governed by different confidentiality laws in each state. Some states release details; others do not.⁴

So a hiring department in one state might query the NDI, find that an officer was decertified in another state, but be unable to learn the details because the other state's records are confidential. The practical value of the database is diminished.

Problem 5: Decertification Standards Vary Wildly

There is no national standard for what misconduct triggers decertification. Some states decertify only for criminal conviction. Others include sustained use-of-force findings. Some include dishonesty; some do not.⁴ This means a finding that results in decertification in Texas may not qualify for decertification in Louisiana, even if identical conduct.

An officer decertified in one state might move to another and be hired, because the new state's standard for decertification is narrower.⁴

The Institutional Escape Hatch: Resignation Before Discipline

The NDI problem is made worse by a practice unique to law enforcement: officers can resign before formal discipline is imposed, and the record of their conduct may never be reported to the NDI or to other agencies.^8,9

In San Diego, KPBS and inewsource found that officers involved in serious misconduct—including dishonesty, excessive force, and sexual assault—often resigned during or immediately after the internal investigation process, before the department issued formal discipline.⁸ Because no formal disciplinary action was taken by the department, no record was entered into the NDI. The officer was simply separated from employment.

The officer then applies to a department in another state. The new department asks: "Were you ever disciplined by your previous agency?" The officer truthfully answers: "No, I was not formally disciplined; I resigned." The hiring department checks the NDI and finds nothing. The officer is hired.⁸

This is the institutional equivalent of the church paying off accusers and quietly reassigning priests without notifying the new diocese. The record is deliberately incomplete, making the system impossible to trust.

The Comparison to Other Professions

How Other Professions Handle This

Medicine: The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) is mandatory and comprehensive. All adverse actions against physicians—malpractice settlements, licensing board disciplinary actions, hospital privileges revoked—must be reported. The system is searchable by hospitals, clinics, and licensing boards nationwide. A doctor with a history of misconduct cannot simply move to another state and start fresh.¹⁰

Law: State bar associations maintain integrated, reciprocal systems. A lawyer disciplined or disbarred in one state cannot practice in another without disclosure and review. The records are semi-public and available to courts and bar associations. Disciplinary decisions follow the attorney across state lines.¹⁰

Hairdressing/Cosmetology: Most states require licenses that are not transferable across state lines without verification. A hairdresser disciplined for unsanitary practices in California must reapply in Nevada and disclose the prior discipline. The history is portable.

The Catholic Church (Post-Boston): Following the clergy abuse scandals exposed in 2002, the church established more rigorous tracking systems, though voluntary and incomplete. Dioceses are now more likely to share information about credibly accused priests, and some information is publicly accessible through the Diocese of Boston's database and similar efforts by other dioceses.

Why Police Records Don't Work the Same Way

The Confidentiality Excuse

California and other states cite "peace officer confidentiality" laws as the reason they don't participate in the NDI or don't disclose details. California Penal Code § 832.7 makes peace officer personnel records confidential unless they fall into specific categories (use of force, sexual misconduct, dishonesty directly related to crime reporting).¹¹

These confidentiality laws were originally written to protect officers' privacy and prevent harassment. But they have evolved to shield the institution itself. An officer's record of complaints, discipline, and performance evaluations—information that would be routine public knowledge in medicine or law—is locked behind confidentiality statutes.

The Union Resistance

Police unions have actively opposed stronger accountability systems. When states pass laws like California's SB 2 or Washington's SB 5051 to strengthen decertification, unions argue that such laws are unfair to officers and lack due process. While due process is important, union resistance often extends to even basic transparency—preventing the sharing of disciplinary information across agencies or to the public.¹²

The Liability Fear

Police departments fear that releasing information about prior discipline exposes them to defamation lawsuits or wrongful termination claims. An officer might sue if his prior misconduct is disclosed to a new employer, even if the information is truthful and accurate. This legal risk creates an incentive to remain silent or move the problem elsewhere rather than formally document and report it.

This is exactly what the church did with priests. Settling abuse allegations quietly, transferring the accused priest without documentation, and relying on confidentiality and informal communication to avoid legal exposure.

What Exists But Doesn't Work

There is a system. The NDI exists and is free to use. But it fails because:

The Five System Failures:

1. Not all states report (California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Georgia, Rhode Island do not)

2. Reporting is voluntary, not mandatory

3. The database is not public, limiting transparency

4. It contains only pointer information, not details

5. Decertification standards vary so wildly that a decertified officer in one state may be hireable in another

Plus the institutional escape hatch: Officers can resign before discipline is imposed, never entering the system at all.

What Would Fix This

Fixing the system would require federal action, because law enforcement is fragmented across 18,000 agencies in 50 states with different laws and incentives. Solutions proposed include:

1. Mandatory National Reporting: Congress could pass legislation requiring all states to participate in the NDI and report all decertifications. Failure to report would result in loss of federal law enforcement grants.

2. Expand Beyond Decertification: The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (2021) proposed a National Police Misconduct Registry that would include all complaints, not just decertifications—whether substantiated, pending, or unfounded.¹³ This would allow a hiring department to see that an applicant has 15 complaints on file, even if none resulted in formal discipline.

3. Make It Public: At minimum, basic information (name, agency, reason for decertification) should be publicly searchable. Communities have a right to know about their police officers' disciplinary histories.

4. Uniform Standards: Federal baseline standards for what constitutes serious misconduct (dishonesty, excessive force, sexual misconduct) would ensure consistency across states.

5. Prevent the Resignation Escape Hatch: Require that all officers separated from employment due to investigation into misconduct be reported to POST and the NDI, regardless of whether formal discipline was imposed. Resignation would not prevent entry into the database.

Why This Hasn't Happened

The answer is political. Police departments and their unions oppose mandatory reporting and transparency. Police chiefs oppose federal mandates on hiring practices. Attorneys worry about confidentiality and liability. State legislators are reluctant to impose requirements on local law enforcement.

The church faced similar resistance and denial for decades—until the Boston Globe's 2002 investigation and the subsequent flood of abuse cases forced accountability. Law enforcement has not faced equivalent institutional pressure.

Law enforcement's approach to problem officers is functionally identical to how the church handled abusive priests. Move them quietly. Keep records incomplete. Exploit gaps in systems. And rely on confidentiality and institutional loyalty to prevent accountability.

The difference is that when the church was exposed, it faced public shame, victims' lawsuits, and legislative action. Law enforcement, fragmented across 18,000 agencies and shielded by confidentiality statutes, has avoided equivalent reckoning.

Sources and References

1. "Spotlight" film (2015) and Boston Globe investigation (2002) on Catholic Church clergy abuse and institutional responses to transferring accused priests.
2. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States," 2004.
3. International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST), National Decertification Index (NDI). Founded 1999.
https://ndi.iadlest.org/
4. "There's a Database Whose Mission Is to Stop Problematic Police Officers from Hopping Between Departments. But Many Agencies Don't Know It Exists," CNN, May 16, 2021.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/16/us/police-national-decertification-index-database/index.html
5. CNN 2021 investigation found that California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Georgia do not report to the NDI.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/16/us/police-national-decertification-index-database/index.html
6. California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), as of 2021, claimed to have no authority to decertify officers (prior to SB 2 passage in 2021).
https://post.ca.gov/
7. "SB-2-FAQs," California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, 2023.
https://post.ca.gov/SB-2-FAQs
8. Jill Castellano and Gustavo Solis, "Police Officers' Disciplinary Files Don't Always Follow Them to New Jobs," inewsource and KPBS Public Media, September 5, 2023; "Some Officers Escape Discipline Despite New Police Transparency Laws," KPBS Public Media, March 10, 2023.
https://inewsource.org/2023/03/09/san-diego-police-sb-16-midsconduct-records-deleted-new-jobs/
9. "San Diego Police Officer Stages Suicide, Shoots Gun in Home, Solicits Sex Workers — But Was Never Disciplined," inewsource, September 6, 2023.
https://inewsource.org/2023/04/27/san-diego-police-department-cesar-alcantara-misconduct/
10. Roger L. Goldman, "NDI: Tracking Interstate Movement of Decertified Police Officers," Police Chief Magazine, September 30, 2024; comparison to medical and legal licensing systems.
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/ndi-tracking-decertified-police-officers/
11. California Penal Code § 832.7, Peace Officer Records Confidentiality.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=832.7
12. Police union opposition to SB 2, SB 16, and similar decertification laws documented in legislative records and reporting by KPBS and inewsource.
13. "George Floyd Justice in Policing Act," H.R. 1280, 117th Congress, proposed National Police Misconduct Registry.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1280

Search This Blog

County and City of San Diego California