The death of George Floyd, asphyxiated to death on a Minneapolis street while under police custody, has sparked a nationwide, and even worldwide, response. Protesters all over the United States, to include Montana, are calling for police reform, an end to systemic racism, and in many cases, defunding departments in favor of other programs. While Boulder has not experienced these protests firsthand, Jefferson County Sheriff Craig Doolittle took the time on June 15 to sit down with The Monitor to talk about how these ongoing issues affect his department and the way they do their jobs.
The Monitor: What are your thoughts about the events over the past few weeks concerning law enforcement and race?
Doolittle: I think that it obviously looks bad for all law enforcement, but I also don’t believe that the majority of law enforcement is like that. And, I’m fairly certain at this point, 100 percent certain, that my office is not that way. We have had training on that, at least once a year to where we go through training about lots of things, and that (race) is one of them. We do have a specific policy regarding that and don’t think it’s an issue here. I do believe it is an issue in other places. I’ve lived in other places, visited other places and it’s an issue, maybe both ways, maybe all races.
The Monitor: Given that you have made a career of law enforcement, how have the events over the past few weeks concerning policing made you think and feel about your profession?
Doolittle: I love my chosen profession. I love the residents that I work for. I believe we have the support of most of them. But I think a lot of that has to do with where I chose to do my profession. The state of Montana, as a whole, is kind of like that. Not that we don’t have issues here, not that we don’t have problems sometimes in the state, but I have never regretted one minute of this job, nor the people that I work for.
The Monitor: Have you watched the George Floyd video? What is your reaction to the actions of those officers?
Doolittle: I have not watched the video. I have seen pictures of it, of several different things, but have not watched the video.
The Monitor: Why not?
Doolittle: I guess it’s not that I wouldn’t have watched it, I just never really found where it was playing and didn’t feel the need to search it out.
The Monitor: There have been widely publicized videos of police misconduct in the past, why do you think this particular video has sparked this level of worldwide response?
Doolittle: I would have to say it’s probably the times that we live in. And I believe you had the same type of response back — how long ago was Rodney King? (The arrest and beating of Rodney King, which was caught on video and sparked riots and protests in Los Angeles in 1992). I think that got some of the same thing, but not on the grand scale that it has now, and I think there’s been a lot in between. But I think it’s because people have more access to the video and social media — the outrage from it probably has a lot to it. They’re watching it with their own eyes, rather than just being told part of the video. I think people have a lot more access to that now.
The Monitor: Why do you feel that police and law enforcement are under special scrutiny right now and how does that scrutiny feel as part of that community?
Doolittle: I think it’s that people have better access. They’re not just being told or it happened to them. They’re able to see what’s happening in certain parts of the United States, and the world, and I think that affects them differently. It’s different from sitting on a jury or somebody who knows somebody it happened to. I can honestly tell you that today’s law enforcement is much different than when I started in 1989. It is much different. The things that we deal with are much different and how we deal with them are much different. That came through a lot of the training and issues that have come up, and the nature of the calls have changed significantly, especially in Jefferson County.
The Monitor: Such as?
Doolittle: I’ll use a bar fight for an example. When I first became a law enforcement officer we used to respond to bar fights a lot. Honestly, I can’t remember when I was at a bar fight, not to say we don’t have issues at places, or restaurants or grocery stores, but that’s just one of the examples I would use.
The Monitor: What are most calls now?
Doolittle: Lots of drug calls, a lot of our crimes are fueled because of the drugs and it makes our thefts go up, our burglaries go up, things like that. Those crimes come from trying to get drugs, to get money for drugs, so I think that drives a lot of it.
The Monitor: There are numerous videos and reports of officer misconduct in circulation right now. Why do you think there are fewer videos and reports of officers behaving in a positive way?
Doolittle: Because I don’t think that people pay attention to the positive stuff. I don’t think the positive stuff gets reported as often as the negative stuff. That’s not against any particular reporter or anything else, but my view of what is newsworthy may differ. And other people’s views of what is newsworthy are two different things. Whoever is reporting that decides what they’re going to report, but I do think that’s a lot of it. I’m also of the opinion that the good that the law enforcement does very much outweighs the bad. And like every profession out there, I believe you’re going to have a cop do a bad thing, just like you might have a store owner do a bad thing, a reporter do a bad thing, a truck driver do a bad thing. It does reflect on all of us, but that’s not how everybody is just because somebody did something wrong in that profession.
The Monitor: Has this attention on policing changed the way you and your deputies approach your job and the public? Has it caused you to think of your work in a different way?
Doolittle: I don’t think so. Maybe to a certain extent, but that started prior to this, even when the coronavirus stuff that was out there. We were more cognizant of who we were dealing with, where they were from, so it was more of that type of thing. And I think just because of the nature of this, I would say that they are more aware of what they might be dealing with. Although people call them routine traffic stops, they never really are. But I don’t think it would affect us if you had a flat tire on the side of the interstate. If somebody from this office saw you, they would still stop and help you. There’s not a doubt in my mind.
The Monitor: Are you angry at those who have behaved badly? Has it made it more difficult to do your job?
Doolittle: I don’t want to say that I’m angry, but I’m very disappointed in that it happened and why it did happen. I honestly wasn’t there so I can’t answer those questions, other than what I’ve read and what I’ve seen. But those aren’t necessarily the facts. I honestly don’t know and don’t know how to answer that. But I don’t think it’s changed my view on the job, but that’s because of being in this profession where I’m at.
The Monitor: Can you possibly see how a department culture could lead to this type of behavior? Is there something in the training process or general viewpoint that could change?
Doolittle: I’ve never really worked in a really, really large department, but from some of things I’ve heard about it, I could certainly see that in a very large department, and I’m not sure how they deal with that. I could see, especially at my (department) size, where training, being cognizant of what’s going on and going through that training and it’s understood. It’s not a one-time training. Our training never ends, even after the law enforcement academy, we certify on a regular basis and re-train.
The Monitor: Such as?
Doolittle: Our policies and procedures for one. We’re currently in the process of re-doing our policies and procedures and using a company that is going to make it easier and more time and cost effective. Rather than — so now we have the coronavirus — we’re not going to have training this month. Or were not going to do that this month because of something else or a big fire, because we’re all up doing evacuations. This will alleviate some of that. I believe it will make them (deputies) more cognizant of some of the policies, such as those they don’t see or pay attention to on a regular basis. Dispatch and detention is the same way.
The Monitor: What is the size of your department?
Doolittle: I have 14 full-time sworn law deputies, including myself and the undersheriff. I have six dispatchers, six detention officers, a civil officer, a part-time civil clerk, a full-time administrative assistant, and a couple of part-time (employees). We have 12 reserve deputies right now. Most of them have been here a long time, a couple of them just starting out and getting into the program and getting their training finished. We have one part-time dispatcher who works some shifts. We average about 211 calls a week, recently anyway.
The Monitor: In terms of the funding issue, is there possibly a different role for law enforcement and incarceration in the future — such as funding front line mental health providers.
Doolittle: I believe we are the front line because if you look at the smaller communities, they don’t have a full-time mental health person. I was just in a meeting this morning (Monday) over some assistance we’re going to get from the Center for Mental Health, not only crisis intervention training. Everyone here has crisis intervention training, but classes were cancelled due to the coronavirus. We’re getting that taken care of by grants and other funding.
They’re looking at other ways to get those services to the smaller communities. If you have someone in mental health crisis, we are the ones who are going to get that call and we’re going to respond to it. The better trained we are, the better it will be for our own safety and of that person who’s in that mental crisis. But I’m a firm believer that jail ends up being the option, and the only option, and I believe that’s because we just don’t have those services here.
The Monitor: Does this movement suggest that law enforcement, as it has been practiced in the United States, should change? If so, how?
Doolittle: I believe we are constantly changing and sometimes we’re changing for the better, but I think there’s been times we’ve changed for the worst and have had to come back and fix that.
The Monitor: Such as?
Doolittle: I can’t think of an example off the top of my head. I’m not necessarily saying since I’ve been the sheriff, but if you look at the laws, they’re constantly changing. Sometimes you can change one word in there that will not change the intent, but the meaning. By that I mean, you might have a law that says ‘may do this,’ and that law might get changed and that one word gets changed to ‘shall’ and it’s not your choice anymore. The law is directing you to do this, not giving you the choice if you should do this. It’s now you shall. You could have that vice versa, maybe.
The Monitor: Does a lot depend on the legislature?
Doolittle: I think it does. How the law is worded, how the laws are. Laws get repealed, something happens with the (Montana) Supreme Court or it might go to the Court of Appeals, it might even end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Monitor: What should the public know about being a law enforcement officer today that is not being addressed? What is getting lost in the rhetoric that people need to understand about your role in the community?
Doolittle: I think it’s that we really do care. I really do believe that’s why most people do this job, even though cops will sometimes tell you, ‘I get to drive fast and they give me a fancy car,’ and things like that. But the cops that I know and those I deal with on a regular basis — they really do care about your problem.
They really do care about you and taking care of you and solving your problems for you. I think we get overloaded with things sometimes, I think that sometimes things end up on the back burner because other things happen, but I would really say that the cops do this because they care about their community — the students in the school, they care about the businesses, they care about the business owners.
One thing about being a cop in the community of Jefferson County, we’re not just a cop. We don’t live in Gallatin County and drive over here and go to work. We are part of the community — our kids go to school, we shop the grocery stores, we frequent the bowling alleys, we use the pharmacies, we go to the restaurants and eat, we go to the basketball games, we go to the football games, we go to the graduation. We’re not just coming here to work. It’s our community too. Maybe you don’t have that in some other places.
The Monitor: What does the concept, defund the police, mean to you?
Doolittle: I’m not too sure. The way it sounds they just want to take the police departments and defund them. That’s the way it sounds. Take all their money away and try to do some other program with it. What I believe it means, in some fashion, is maybe not just defund, but use some of those funds for other programs. Maybe social work, maybe mental health, I don’t know what some of them are looking at.
The Monitor: If money were put in some of those other areas, it might make your job easier?
Doolittle: I don’t think it would make our job easier. Dealing with that and with those calls, it’s not just going to go away. If they had a full-time, seven days a week mental health facility in Boulder, Montana, I don’t believe that would stop, that wouldn’t just take away the fact that we’re going to have to deal with that. These calls don’t happen just from eight to five. You never know, it could be three o’clock in the morning and that’s why we have the detention office and dispatch center. They’re open 24/7 taking those calls, and the deputies are responsible for going to those 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I don’t think it would take it all away. I do think it would help, I certainly believe it would. I don’t think it would just go away because of that.
