The Perils of Poor Psychological Screening

Why Cutting Corners Creates Catastrophic Risk

According to the U.S. Justice Department, nearly 85% of the country’s 18,000 state and local police agencies employ fewer than 50 officers. With no national laws governing how those agencies hire and vet their applicants, hiring standards vary widely, and, too often, smaller agencies face pressure to fill vacancies quickly in the middle of a nationwide shortage.

Compounding the issue, the wave of retirements and applicant declines since 2020 have left many chiefs and sheriffs with a painful choice: lower their standards or leave critical roles unfilled. Too often, that choice results in weak vetting, poor screening, and ultimately, liability.

As Dr. Michael Bricker explained in a recent NBC interview following the tragic shooting of Sonya Massey:

“There is a lot of importance in doing proper vetting on the front end. That’s the cheaper alternative because when they get a problem employee that ends up using excessive force, or in worst-case situations like this horrible thing that happened with Sonya, that is a much bigger problem.”

The lesson is clear: better screening prevents future tragedies. And when agencies skip steps or cut corners, courts have shown they will hold agencies accountable. You can read the full article here:

Case Studies: When Screening Fails

It’s important to note that this can happen to any agency. Partnering with a firm who is well versed in psychological evaluations for hiring is crucial in the success of your team.

Between 2012 and 2017, Minneapolis reduced its psychological screening process, eliminating the majority of its testing and relying on an unqualified psychiatrist. When officer Mohamed Noor fatally shot Justine Ruszczyk (Damond), her family’s federal lawsuit highlighted these weakened practices as a contributing factor. The allegation: reduced screening directly undermined the city’s ability to make sound hiring decisions.

In Boston Police Department v. Kavaleski, the Superior Court held that the department had discriminated under Massachusetts law (M.G.L. c. 151B). A flawed psychological evaluation incorrectly labeled the candidate as disabled, and bypassing her candidacy triggered discrimination liability. Lesson learned: sloppy or biased evaluations create exposure not only under federal law but also state-level anti-discrimination statutes.

In this case, the NYPD disqualified a candidate after a psychological evaluation flagged depression and poor stress tolerance. Courts ultimately affirmed the legitimacy of the disqualification, but the case underscores how easily evaluation decisions can be challenged when not carefully documented and tied to job-related criteria.

This U.S. Supreme Court case established that agencies may be liable when inadequate hiring contributes to officer misconduct. Inadequate psychological screening creates potential liability for negligent hiring and deliberate indifference to public safety.

Key Takeaways for Agencies

Negligent Hiring: Courts will hold agencies accountable when preventable misconduct is tied to weak or absent evaluations.

Discrimination Claims: Mislabeling candidates or bypassing them without defensible criteria exposes agencies to ADA and state law violations.

Policy Gaps: Cutting costs by skipping tests or using unqualified evaluators appears as deliberate indifference, which is a liability red flag.

Civil Liability: When an unfit officer causes harm, agencies face lawsuits not just for the officer’s actions, but for their own hiring failures.

Risk Mitigation Strategies

Adopt National Standards
Use IACP Psychological Services Section Guidelines and CA POST standards as the benchmark. Courts recognize these as best practices.

Maintain Comprehensive Testing
Every candidate should complete validated normal-personality and psychopathology measures (e.g., CPI, PAI, MMPI-3) that are validated and seen as having wide use with police and public safety personnel, plus a structured clinical interview.

Use Qualified Evaluators
Only licensed psychologists with extensive police and public safety training and expertise should conduct evaluations. Anything less weakens defensibility.

Document Decisions Clearly
Write clear rationales for each evaluation outcome, especially when candidates are borderline or accommodations are requested. Good documentation is your best legal defense.

Review and Update Regularly
Conduct annual audits of your evaluation and hiring protocols with both clinical leaders and legal counsel. Screening practices must evolve with case law and regulatory changes.

The Bigger Picture

The tragedies and lawsuits in Minneapolis, Boston, and elsewhere reveal a sobering truth: agencies that weaken or mishandle psychological screening open themselves up to massive liability. The cost of rigorous, defensible screening on the front end is far less than the very real financial, operational, and human costs of dealing with a problem employee after the fact.

At Psychological Dimensions, we take on that risk on for our clients. With board-certified psychologists, national best-practice standards, and active participation in the IACP Police Psychological Services Section, we ensure that your evaluations are consistent, defensible, and compliant. That’s how we protect your agency from the perils of poor screening.