Do Cops Have Fewer Rights Than You? with @HectorBravoUnhinged

Welcome to Punching the Clock. Today we're taking a look inside one of the most misunderstood workplaces in America: law enforcement. We'll even be joined by former officer Hector Bravo to get an officer's point of view. People see the badge and assume power, but behind it lies a reality most people don't understand. When your boss is the government, your rights as an employee are not the same. Forced interrogations, random drug tests, limited free speech — police officers often have fewer protections than the people that they arrest. Let's break down why, and how the law got us here. You think cops have more rights than anyone else, right? They've got the badge, the union and the backing of the thin blue line. But what if I told you they actually have fewer rights than the people they protect or arrest? So today we're going to unpack the civil rights police officers don't have. Because when your employer is the government, the rules of the Constitution shift, and sometimes disappear. We've talked offline and online, and we've come to the conclusion that when you join law enforcement, you kind of lose some rights, or you're actually subjected to a different set of rules than a regular employee. Absolutely. There are a lot of rights that, unfortunately, law enforcement officers lose. Anyone in law enforcement, really. Rights and privileges that civilians have that we don't even really appreciate until we lose them. Absolutely. People see the retirement package, the benefits, the pay and the title, but they don't really know the hidden cost. We put together a couple of bullet points that we'll go over. Let's just start knocking them out. Well, I wanted to say, it's interesting, because you've sent me some cases and I get a lot of law enforcement cases, because I'm one of the only attorneys locally who is, I guess, brave enough to take on those cases. I really believe in what I do, and so I'm not scared. And they fight really hard. Law enforcement agencies fight really hard, because they have all the attorney fees. They don't have a limitation like a company — "Oh, I don't want to spend $200,000 litigating it." No, our taxes are paying for that. So they fight really hard. So you have a lot of things that happen internally, and people get fired, or treated badly, retaliated against. God forbid you make a complaint and become a snitch. You mean there's no whistleblower laws? Say goodbye to any chance of promotion or anything else. So it's interesting, because people will call me often and I always say, there's a difference between something that's wrong versus something that's illegal. I actually had somebody tell me that I was making a complaint over — they said, being an asshole isn't illegal. And I'm like, okay, facts. It's true. Unfortunately, a mean supervisor is not illegal, unless they're mean to you because of a protected class. And even that, in law enforcement, only goes so far. The work you're doing is so important, because you're actually not against law enforcement. You are very much pro law enforcement, because you want people to know their rights, to understand their rights, and to have equal opportunities. Well, when you break it down like that, all I really care about is rights. The judicial system. We swore an oath to do the right thing, but after 16 years I saw a lot of not good things happening. Yeah. And you're speaking up about it, which is why you're catching so much heat. It's costly. Okay, so let's start with one of the strangest paradoxes in employment law: Garrity v. New Jersey. This is a case back in the 1960s, when a group of officers were accused of fixing tickets. Investigators told them, "Answer our questions or you'll be fired." They answered the questions, and those were compelled statements, and then those statements were used to convict them. The Supreme Court later said that those statements were coerced and couldn't be used in court — but they can still be used to fire you. So here's the catch: if you talk, you risk incrimination. If you stay silent, you lose your job. Civilians never have to face that choice. My boss can't threaten to fire me for refusing to confess to a crime. Forced honesty under penalty of unemployment. So how it relates in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: there's two types of investigation, administrative investigation and criminal investigation. And I'm pretty sure that's what that covers. Criminal, everybody knows you have the right to remain silent. They must read you your Miranda rights. But also, in the administrative policy, it is clearly written in the policy: failure to cooperate in an investigation will lead to termination. Yeah, and that's the problem. And the thing is, a lot of times the officers don't know what it is, and it's not made clear, and it's kind of vague, and then they don't want to not answer, because if they do, then it looks like they're hiding something. But anything they do answer, even if it's coerced, can and is used against them. In fact, I've had quite a few people call me about subpoenas that they received, investigations because of data that your channel released, and a bunch of officers were taken in and questioned. They weren't given Miranda rights, and they weren't told if it was a criminal or just a non-criminal investigation. We really wanted to take those cases, but unfortunately there was nothing really legally we could do to fight that. They also were denied representation. And the other thing is, their cell phones were taken from them. There were quite a few folks that called me about this. Their personal cell phones were taken from them. But they weren't supposed to have them on them. Correct. So when they had them on them, they had no expectation of privacy to them. They were taken away, and it's just such a mess. But is it illegal? You know what I mean, that's the problem. Is it ethical? Absolutely not. And if my employer came to me and sat me down and coerced statements out of me and took my private cell phone away, that would be illegal, and I would sue them for all kinds of things. But unfortunately, as law enforcement officers, they just don't have those same protections. That's devastating news, but it's the truth. I just, to play devil's advocate, I understand the policy behind it, because police officers do have innate knowledge into very confidential things. So I can see why the department would need to have that opportunity to go in and, I guess, question them and kind of force them to provide information. But there should be some limitations. There should be some procedural, I don't know, obstacles in place, so they can't just blindly go in and ask anyone anything and force statements and then fire people. But I'm also a realist, and they cherry-pick what they want to investigate. Yeah. Right. You have 94 murders in the California Department of Corrections since December 2022. It is apparent there is a problem with violence. Uncontrollable problem. Now let me tell you — do you think they're working on fixing that problem? They're not. My advice always, and it doesn't always work in law enforcement, but: everything in writing. If you don't write it down, if you don't send an email, it did not happen. Facts. Everyone who still works there is never going to testify for you. They will never put their own ass on the line to help you make your case. So people are like, "Oh, I told so-and-so, I made these complaints." No one's going to testify to that, I'm sorry. Good for you for believing in humanity, but that's not how life works. You know what I mean? So, everything in writing. So now we're going to talk about workplace searches. When your boss is the government, here's another case: O'Connor v. Ortega. That case said that government employers can search a government employee's workspace without a warrant if it's work-related. That means your sergeant can open your locker, search your desk, even scroll through your department-issued phone, all legally. If a private employer did that to you, you'd have grounds to sue. But for law enforcement officers, it's standard operating procedure. Now, one thing that I spotted on that: you said the case law said department-issued cell phone. What about personal cell phone? So that one's a little tricky. And I actually looked into this, because some of the guys that came to me had their personal cell phones taken from them. But because they had their personal cell phones on them in the correctional facility, and they weren't supposed to, they didn't have an expectation of privacy to those. Generally speaking, I think probably if a judge issues a warrant — if there's actual reasonable cause, that's enough — they could have their personal cell phones taken from them as well. It's wild. It's almost like you're the bearer of bad news right now, but you're just speaking the law. I know. It's the truth. Unfortunately, your rights are limited when you become a law enforcement officer. Do you think that contributes to the high suicide rate in law enforcement? I absolutely think so. I think that contributes to it, just dealing with — it's a pretty toxic environment in law enforcement. Every case I've worked, and I've worked quite a few, people are really mean to each other. It's the most toxic work environment. And I deployed to Iraq for one year, and it was not even that toxic, and people were trying to legitimately kill me. It was not toxic at all. That's traumatic. Let's talk about that type of trauma, because I'm a huge advocate for mental health awareness, and people often associate trauma with the act of violence. This in itself does cause trauma. The immense stress. What kind of emotions have you heard from clients over the phone? I will tell you that in law enforcement — and it's not just law enforcement, but it's a lot of these careers that are life careers — these become a part of your identity. You're not just a mom or a dad. You're a correctional officer. You take pride in that. And most people who go into law enforcement anticipate that they will stay in law enforcement their entire lives until they retire. Correct. It becomes an innate part of who they are as an individual. And the biggest trauma that I've seen is not knowing, like: who am I now? What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to go to an office and get an eight to five? That type of trauma is so much more. And people commit suicide because of this. Facts. I took everything I had at that point in time, when I made the decision to leave the California Department of Corrections on my own terms. That took everything I had. And I'm sure you have a lot of haters who hate you for what you're doing, but no one talks about how brave you are for putting this out there. They may hate, but everything I've said is 100% facts and evidence and documented. And that's the thing. You're not trying to hate on the department. No. You're trying to initiate change so that these awful things stop happening. Tell us a little bit about what you've gone through in terms of how they've been retaliating against you. So, I'm smarter than your average bear. Not to toot my own horn, but it doesn't take much to be smarter than those individuals at the top of the leadership in that department. You've got to know your enemy. You've got to know yourself. And I knew if I remained in the department and I blew the whistle, I was done. They probably would have put some type of illegal false crime on me. I wouldn't put it past them. So what did I do? I stacked all my cards in the background leading up to my resignation, and I resigned in good standing. I didn't hit YouTube immediately with the whistleblowing. I kind of eased into it — strategy — and then I went nuts with it. Then I overwhelmed them for two years. They didn't know what to do with me for two years, which means I have a two-year head start on them. And then it began: search warrants, calling my phone, death threats from anonymous accounts. I don't know where they come from. I've been told that the Office of Internal Affairs were given permission to create burner accounts on social media to kind of combat what I'm saying. And you've got to think, this is all taxpayers' money. They're doing this on taxpayer money. Meanwhile, you've got uncontrolled violence. Assaults on staff are at an all-time high. Attempted murders on correctional officers, all-time high. The murder rate is through the roof. We just had a level four inmate escape from Kern Valley State Prison and murder a Tijuana cop in Mexico. Two ladies that were killed in Mule Creek State Prison in the family visiting overnight visits. And an inmate get killed in front of MacArthur Park at a halfway house. But what are they doing? They're coming after me and the people that are exposing the truth, for exposing all of these things that are happening. That's awful. They don't want anyone to know about that. They don't. So yeah, if you ever have those cases, feel free to send those. Well, there's plenty of cases, unfortunately, people to me. But you're literally just spreading truth, and you've given up so much of your life for it. You could have sat there quietly. Do you ever think about that? That I could have just shut my mouth, sat there quietly, done my time, gotten a big pension and walked out, and my life would be okay? But I wouldn't be chasing your purpose. So from the time I saw the corruption, when I was a lieutenant, from the time my eyes were open, I couldn't. Internally, I couldn't. I had a four-year-old daughter. She's a motivating factor. Everybody knows it. I'm an example to her. I wouldn't have been — that wasn't my purpose. God did not put me on this earth to sit in a lieutenant's office for the rest of my career and just get shit on by the department. And this is why I do what I do, because there's generations that are coming after us. I have a seven-year-old daughter right now. You just said it's important for people to stand up for what they believe in. How would you word that to my seven-year-old daughter? I have a nine-year-old and a five-year-old and a two-year-old, so I'm always struggling with the same things, because you want to protect them from the world. Facts. But you also know that if you protect them too much, they won't be prepared for the world. So you're not really doing them any favors by hiding reality from them. So you really have to find a way to show it to them and make them understand. I always tell my son — my oldest son really understands it better now, he's nine — but if you see something that you think is wrong, come home, talk to me about it, and let's decide. I try to stop him from being impulsive and standing up for things. That's good. Because you never know how someone's going to react. But I want him to be aware. Respond versus react. Yes, exactly. Officers also live under the public employee speech doctrine, from cases like Pickering, Connick and Garcetti. If an officer posts something controversial or criticises the department, they can be disciplined or fired, even if it's political speech. A private citizen could say the same thing and be protected by the First Amendment. But for law enforcement officers, free speech isn't really free. This is a banger of a topic, and we've already been covering so many good topics. I saw this one and I'm like, oh my god. So I've got to let you know, I did go to college, University of Phoenix, for a little bit, GI Bill. And in there I learned, when the professor said, hey, if you work for an employer, a private company, you have freedom of speech, but they also have the freedom to fire you. You don't have the right to work there. Police officers can't post anything against the department. I mean, I guess technically, private employers, it's the same thing. You can't really post something that says my employer is awful. I want to help officers. They have Instagram. Let's use Instagram. If I'm a correctional officer — doesn't matter, Pelican Bay State Prison — and I'm not happy with my boss, and I write "Warden Blank is an asshole." Is that wise, and can they be held accountable if you write it on your Instagram? Oh yeah. Absolutely not wise. Can you be terminated for that? Probably. Especially if it's a supervisor, you're undermining — that could be considered undermining the public trust. If I myself, Hector Bravo, write the same post as a civilian, but a current employee likes it — and I might even hurt my algorithm with this question — can they be held accountable? And that's the problem. It could be. They could be, if it's in violation of a policy. They could be terminated for that, for liking a post. They could. It's scary. But it's true, that you have to be very vigilant about who you follow. I bet you there are people that come and look at your page but are scared to follow you, because they don't want people in the department to see that they follow you. That's a fact. But all of that has been incredibly difficult for you, I'm sure. It obviously broke your marriage up, and now your life is completely different. At the end of the day, it's going to be, at what point do you step back and say, "You know what, I've spread the word. People know that this is happening, and now it's time for the next era of my life." I'm Mila Arutunian, and this is Punching the Clock. If you're any type of public employee, such as a law enforcement officer or firefighter, and you may have lost rights in the name of policy, your story still matters. So share it below. And if this episode made you think differently about law enforcement, subscribe for more workplace truth bombs. Protect your career, protect your rights, and as we say here at Antonyan Miranda, protect yourself at all times.