Steven Shea
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
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
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
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
Based on the case law cited herein, it seems unlikely that the courts will order the
existing precedent is not likely to overturn a ruling disallowing such release. Its unclear why
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
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.
courts/FSupp/869/828/1495481/