Attorney General Marty Jackley told the Government Operations and Audit Committee Monday that South Dakota needs to spend more money training its cops:
Law enforcement training is becoming more expensive. There needs to be more of it. But I tell you, it’s a cost savings. The fact that we properly train our officers to do anything from search warrants beyond I think is very important [A.G. Marty Jackley, audio transcribed from “Jackley Says State Needs to Invest More in Law Enforcement Training,” Hub City Radio, 2017.12.19].
Boy, Jackley’s right about that. Train agents in the Division of Criminal Investigation to handle sexual harassment complaints properly instead of retaliating against women who bring complaints forward, and you can save the state at least $1.2 million in lawsuits and legal fees. Maybe Jackley and his DCI agents should sit in on the Legislature’s January 17 training on how to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment. That training wouldn’t cost anything!
Related Reading: John Hult confirms that taxpayers will be on the hook for DCI’s retaliation against Laura Zylstra Kaiser and that the judge could up the damages.
I wonder what his first clue was? Sounds like a guy that is running for Governor
South Dakota Law Enforcement training is overseen by the dci. The dci is overseen by the attorney general. The dci agents and analysts continually receive advanced and ongoing training, regularly traveling many states away to receive that training. Advanced training for county sheriff departments and municipal police departments is nearly non existent. An audit of dci training budget and the law enforcement training budget should be conducted for financing AND for a review of professional training standards. Smaller departments in this state continually lose out on training. Should an officer in a small community be that much less trained than a officer employed by the state? Is it possible that the attorney general’s office is positioning the dci to be the only agency that investigates felonies in most of the state? To do that, the attorney general’s officewould need more employees and a decidedly larger share of the state budget.
Is this the product of a state AG with a guilty conscience who currently is running for governor?