Supreme Court hears case on police due process in Indianapolis, Sept 2024
- The National Police Association filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Captain Manuel Adams, Jr., who is challenging his inclusion on a "Giglio" list.
- Captain Adams was terminated and added to the list based on false allegations, which the NPA argues lacks due process and transparency.
- The NPA's brief calls for the Supreme Court to establish protections for officers unfairly placed on such lists, highlighting the need for accountability in law enforcement.
On September 16, 2024, the National Police Association (NPA) submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Captain Manuel Adams, Jr., a law enforcement officer from Louisiana. Captain Adams is challenging his inclusion on a "Giglio" list, which is an unregulated registry that questions the credibility of officers, often leading to their inability to secure future employment in law enforcement. This case, known as Adams v. City of Harahan, arises from a Fifth Circuit ruling that denied Captain Adams the opportunity to pursue a due process claim after being terminated based on false allegations. The NPA argues that the current system surrounding Giglio lists lacks transparency and proper legal safeguards, which can ruin the careers of innocent officers. The brief emphasizes that the arbitrary nature of these lists can lead to severe consequences for law enforcement professionals, as they are often included based on unverified or false accusations. The NPA's spokesperson, Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith (Ret.), highlighted the need for the Supreme Court to address these due process violations. The implications of this case extend beyond Captain Adams, as a ruling in his favor could establish necessary protections for officers nationwide who find themselves unfairly placed on such lists. The NPA is advocating for a system that ensures due process rights are upheld, preventing the misuse of Giglio lists as tools for unjust punishment. This case represents a critical moment for the law enforcement community, as the Supreme Court's decision could reshape the landscape of accountability and fairness in the treatment of police officers facing credibility challenges.