Raleigh Police Chief Claims Right To Restrict State and Federal Law and Deny Legal Right Of Self Defense To All Raleigh Officers

By John C. Midgette, NCPBA Executive Director

In what many have described as the most astonishing testimony ever heard from a purported law enforcement executive in North Carolina, Raleigh Chief of Police Jane Perlov has testified under oath that she has authority to restrict state and federal law. “A police department or any employer can restrict federal law and state law...,” Jane Perlov, November 16, 2006, transcript at 1164.

Ms. Perlov’s testimony arose in a civil service hearing adjudicating the termination of employment of PBA member and Raleigh Police Officer Michelle Peele. Officer Peele had become the second officer victimized by the chief’s unlawful policy. In a similar shooting incident involving officer Jared Reyes, talks with PBA and Ms. Perlov broke down after the policy was modified, but remained unlawful.

Officer Peele had been terminated by the Raleigh Police Department for allegedly using excessive force when a criminal suspect stole her vehicle and attempted to run over her and a bystander. Nyles Arrington, a convicted felon, with an extensive criminal history, stole Officer Peele’s vehicle and drove it directly towards Officer Peele and a bystander. Following traditional training, Officer Peele maneuvered to the right to avoid being run over. She fired in self defense and in defense of the bystander and killed the fleeing felon.

The City of Raleigh had promulgated a use of force policy placing certain restrictions on an officer’s right to fire at moving vehicles. However, even in Raleigh’s own policy, an exception was made when the officer’s life was endangered by the vehicle. Officer Peele, the eyewitnesses, Chief Mel Tucker as Peele’s expert, and even the City of Raleigh’s expert all agreed that Officer Peele was in immediate danger of death.

Raleigh police attorney Dawn Bryant, who was introduced by the City as a 25-year law enforcement professional, had previously testified that she believed that the Department had the authority to limit and take away an officer’s legal right to self-defense. Although Bryant’s testimony stunned everybody in the hearing room, it paled in comparison to that of Ms. Perlov who took the fiction even further.

Ms. Perlov testified that “a police department or any employer can restrict federal law and state law to conform to what their needs and their environment are, and it’s a very common thing.” (Hearing transcript at 1164.)

When asked if she meant that the Raleigh PD “can restrict state and federal law” she responded, “Absolutely.” Perlov’s testimony and its implications underscore why the law enforcement profession is losing too many of its finest officers and why officers continue to be injured through such tactics employed by certain police management.

It is inconceivable to believe that any reasonable police administrator could believe that they have legal authority in any way to restrict state or federal law. However, the new police management tactics seem to reveal that some chiefs will not just destroy careers, but will destroy lives to protect themselves from perceived litigation or political harm. Under our constitutional system of government, all citizens and governmental entities are required to respect and obey fundamental principles of law. We all have to respect and obey state and federal law, whether we like it or not. No individual or governmental entity has any authority to restrict any higher body of law.

Perlov’s testimony reminds us all of a bygone era in the American civil rights movement. When civil rights legislation was initially enacted in the 1960s, many local governmental entities passed various local policies attempting to take away legal rights granted by the United States Congress. Southern chiefs of police such as the infamous Bull Conner in Birmingham, Alabama became notorious for favoring their own policy while disrespecting federal law.

Until we heard Perlov’s testimony, we thought that the era of Bull Connor was over. Despite the fact that the North Carolina General Assembly and all levels of North Carolina courts have recognized that police officers have fundamental legal rights to self-defense, Ms. Perlov has officially proclaimed that she is above that law and that Raleigh police officers are relegated to a loss of constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans.

In 2006, we have a chief of police in North Carolina’s capital who believes that she has some supernatural legal right to restrict officers’ rights to save their own lives, commonly known as the historic right of self-defense.

Interestingly, in a police shooting case against the City of Raleigh, (Hinton v. City of Raleigh), the City of Raleigh made the same legal argument that Officer Peele made in her defense. In its legal brief, the City of Raleigh argued then that the right of self-defense has existed since 1400 A.D. However, Chief Perlov has attempted to change that by claiming that she has the right to restrict state and federal law, and deny the right of self defense to Raleigh police officers. We enjoyed 606 years of the right to self-defense - until along came Ms. Perlov.

Interestingly, other police management officials who testified in the Peele case not surprisingly contradicted Perlov’s far fetched fiction in this regard. Others recognized and testified that Raleigh police officers, like all the other citizens, enjoy a right to self defense as well as a right to defend others.

Perlov went out of her way during her testimony to attempt to defend the convicted fleeing felon that nearly killed Officer Peele and the bystander. Perlov testified, under oath, that Arrington’s vehicle theft and driving the vehicle directly at Michelle Peele wasn’t a violent offense. (Hearing transcript at 1168). Perlov’s testimony in this regard further conflicted with the City of Raleigh’s own purported expert, Professor Geoffrey Alpert, who had previously testified that Officer Peele was within harm’s way of the charging vehicle and could have been run over and killed. Ms. Perlov felt free to go out on her own limb and directly contradict Raleigh’s own purported expert witness and other members of the command staff in her zeal to see that an extraordinary police officer remains fired for defending her own life.

Perlov’s testimony was supported in part by her belief that officers, such as Officer Peele, should have simply gotten out of the way of the approaching vehicle. She testified that while she did not know how many officers each year are intentionally run over and killed by moving vehicles, she claimed that most such vehicle deaths resulted from accidents. Ms. Perlov emphasized her belief of this by claiming that “I read a lot.” Apparently, Ms. Perlov did not read the latest FBI statistics that reveal each year 12% of officers feloniously killed in the line of duty are gunned down by motor vehicles. Perlov’s testimony and position greatly enhances the likelihood that Raleigh police officers will die or be severely injured in the line of duty. At least now, Raleigh officers know that their Chief will fire them for exercising their constitutional and common law right of self defense.

Equally disappointing was the Raleigh Civil Service Commission’s 5 to 1 decision against Officer Peele. After three days of hearings spread ridiculously over three months, the Commission deliberated for less than 30 minutes. They ruled that Officer Peele, who had the burden of proof, did not prove that the police department violated its own policy, and therefore Peele could not be reinstated. The Commission made no other ruling concerning Officer Peele’s actions and refused to rule on whether the shooting policy was unlawful.

In addition, what was supposed to be an impartial proceeding, Commission Chairman Reeve, refused to consider lawful motions, suppressed the admittance of appropriate evidence and even voted twice during a single motion. Such antics convinced most observers that Officer Peele would be denied a fair hearing.

There was a time when the Raleigh Civil Service System was a respected process. 606 years of self-defense used to be a pretty solid precedent. Ms. Perlov’s fiction and the Commission’s disregard for the law will be brought before the Wake County Superior Court, where the rule of law will hopefully be restored. Stay tuned.