Deaths of Three USCP Officers Highlights Disparity in Death Benefits for Law Enforcement
Three U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) officers lost their lives in the days following the January 6 assault on the Capitol Building. Despite the fact that all three were present during the violent clash with protestors, their families may not be eligible to receive the same financial benefits.
Officer Brian Sicknick died from injuries that were sustained “while physically engaging with protestors,” according to a statement from the USCP. The department has officially categorized Sicknick’s death as a line of duty death, which means that his family could receive up to $365,670 in federal benefits through the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) program.
That program does not cover any “psychological conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder.” It also doesn’t classify suicide as a line of duty death, which means that the families of officers Howard Liebengood and Jeffery Smith — who took their own lives on January 9 and January 15, respectively — may not be entitled to the same federal payout.
The deaths of Sicknick, Liebengood, and Smith highlight a question that has been debated in the U.S. for years: Should suicide be categorized as a line of duty death?
Some experts, on the one hand, argue that all police suicides should be categorized as line of duty deaths. Jeff McGill, a retired officer and the chairman of Blue H.E.L.P — a nonprofit organization that focuses on mental health awareness within law enforcement — says that this would be an important step towards providing financial protection for families who are left struggling in the wake of an officer’s suicide.
Under the current federal law, McGill explains, “there are no benefits provided to the widows, there’s nothing for the children. The officer is buried and it moves on from there.”
A recent study from Blue H.E.L.P found that 415 police officers committed suicide in the United States between 2019 and 2020. Another nonprofit, the Officer Down Memorial Page — which tracks police line of duty deaths across the U.S. — reports that only a slightly higher number of officers (488) died in the line of duty within that same two-year period.
McGill has been advocating for the expansion of the “line of duty” designation to include mental health disorders and suicide. “If I have a heart attack, it’s covered as line of duty,” he says. “You can’t set that standard to protect the heart and not protect the mind.”
Some experts, on the other hand, argue that providing line of duty death benefits for every suicide would be financially impossible. “If tomorrow the police commissioner said ‘we want to make every suicide a line of duty death,’” says Officer Rich Mack, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, “there would probably be pushback from state legislators who know that it’s going to come out of their pockets.”
At the same time, Mack also feels that it would be reasonable to provide families with line of duty death benefits if a direct link can be drawn between the officer’s suicide and a specific, traumatic incident that occurred during his or her career.
“If there was an actual, discernible incident, and the officer committed suicide, then in my opinion there might be more of a justification for a line of duty death, such as the two officers that committed suicide in the wake of the Capitol riots,” he said.
The United States Capitol Police have yet to respond to a request for comment.
In some states, lawmakers are beginning to push for an expansion of the “line of duty” designation that would include psychological disorders. A bill has just been introduced to the New York State Senate, for example, which aims to guarantee benefits to emergency personnel who have been diagnosed with PTSD. Despite the slow rate of change at the federal level, McGill finds these state initiatives encouraging. “You get enough states on board with this idea, and the feds will fall in line with it.”
