Running

head: RELEASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 1

Release of Psychological Reports

Steven Shea

University of San Diego

RELEASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 2

This past year our agency has experienced a higher than normal number of fatal officer

involved shootings. Members of the community have demanded the release of pre-

employment psychological evaluations on the basis of rumors that some of the involved officers

were shown to have a propensity for violence during those evaluations. As the agency works

through the investigations, the potential litigation, and the public demand for transparency, the

leaders of the agency must proceed cautiously so as to consider all aspects of the issue at hand.

For the purposes of this document, I shall not comment on the nature and findings of

the psychological evaluations in question. One can assume that each of the involved officers

received a passing score on the psychological evaluation; otherwise, he or she would not have

been hired in the first place.

Although each officer agreed to the psychological evaluation and agreed to have it

released to the agency, it is reasonable to assume the officers did not expect the results of the

exams to be made public. Very few things in life can be considered as private as ones own

psychological being. Having the public peeking into the most private portion of a persons mind

is similar to having ones sex life open for public viewing.

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut law

unconstitutionally trespassed into the private life of a marital couple. Specifically, a married

couple sought contraceptives in the State of Connecticut against the state law. The court

determined that police should not be searching the bedrooms of married couples for

contraceptives for, the very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the

marriage relationship (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The level of privacy one expects for his
RELEASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 3

or her own thoughts must be similar to, if not greater than, that expected between two

spouses.

In a 1994 case, the plaintiff in a civil rights case sought discovery of entire personnel files

for involved officers of the City of Haysville Police. The US District Court reviewed the files in

camera to determine what, if any, files should be considered part of the discovery. The judge

found that the files should be released to plaintiff with the specific exemption of the pre-

employment psychological evaluations. The judge in the case wrote, the court views only

one type of item in their personnel files as so highly personal and sensitive in nature that it

should be safeguarded as privileged: the psychological evaluations of each of the Haysville

police officers (Mason v. Stock, 1994).

In deciding Mason v. Stock, the court relied, in part, on Denver Policemens Protective v.

Lichtenstein. In this case, the court determined that some personnel files should be released to

the defendant in a criminal trial, but the court recognized that personal information could be

redacted before release to the defendant (1981).

Based on the case law cited herein, it seems unlikely that the courts will order the

release of individual officers psychological evaluations. Further, a reviewing court relying on

existing precedent is not likely to overturn a ruling disallowing such release. Its unclear why

the attorneys representing the city feel otherwise.

It is my recommendation that the individual psychological examination results be

withheld at this time. It would be prudent to explain the examination process and

expectations. Finally, elucidating the hiring process and that all officers must satisfactorily pass
RELEASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 4

the aforementioned psychological exam as a condition of employment should help to dissuade

those who believe otherwise.

RELEASE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 5

REFERENCES

Denver Policemens Protective v. Lichtenstein. (1981, September 18) United States Court of

Appeals, Tenth Circuit. 660 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1981) Retrieved from

https://casetext.com/case/denver-policemens-protective-v-lichtenstein

Griswold v. State of Connecticut. (1965, June 7) United States Supreme Court. Retrieved from

https://ole.sandiego.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-720125-dt-content-rid-

2326137_1/courses/LEPSL-530-MASTER/Griswold_v_Connecticut.pdf

Mason v. Stock. (1994, August 24) U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. 869 F. Supp.

828 (D. Kan. 1994) Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/FSupp/869/828/1495481/