Omaha residents will get a chance to weigh in on a proposed agreement that would formalize how the city and Douglas County identify and disclose police officers whose credibility has come under question. The item, listed as No. 37 on the city council's agenda, concerns an interlocal cooperation agreement between Douglas County and the City of Omaha that would spell out when officers must be flagged to prosecutors as what's known in legal circles as Brady-Giglio officers.
According to the agenda notes reviewed by WOWT, the agreement would formalize a process for the city attorney and county attorney to determine when law-enforcement officers must be disclosed to prosecuting agencies as Brady-Giglio officers. The agenda describes those officers simply as ones whose credibility or honesty has been called into question due to past issues or incidents. Omaha and Douglas County have maintained an interlocal agreement establishing a process to analyze law-enforcement conduct and disclose credibility information for roughly 10 years, per the seed reporting tied to this agenda item.
Why Credibility Disclosures Matter in Court
The underlying legal obligation traces back to two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that prosecutors across the country must follow. In Brady v. Maryland, decided in the 1960s, the court found that the government had failed to provide the defense with information that might have helped its case — meaning prosecutors must provide defense attorneys with evidence that could help the defense. Giglio v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, extended that duty further, meaning prosecutors must also disclose information about law-enforcement personnel who may have been untruthful in the past.
Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine said officer credibility concerns — such as prior false testimony, lies, or bias — must be disclosed to defense counsel. Kleine said the new interlocal agreement ensures compliance with a state statute passed the year before, according to the seed reporting behind this story. The updated agreement is described as aligning the existing county process with that statute, and Kleine said the ordinance aims to ensure fair trials.
How Omaha Police Already Handle These Cases
The Omaha Police Department already operates under a written policy addressing exculpatory and impeachment evidence that predates this proposed agreement. Per Omaha Police Department policy, officers shall document all exculpatory evidence and provide it to the relevant prosecuting office. The department's policy document also states that it has extended such disclosures to include impeachment evidence against government witnesses, including against law-enforcement employees.
Under that existing policy, each internal investigation, citizen's complaint, or line investigation involving OPD employees who may be subjected to testifying in court shall be reviewed to determine whether Brady-Giglio disclosure standards apply. Any finding of misconduct that reflects upon the truthfulness or possible bias of an employee triggers notification requirements to prosecutors, the department's policy document states.
Protections for Officers Facing Disclosure
Officers named as Brady-Giglio employees may have procedural protections. Those procedures may include a reasonable opportunity to respond to a proposed determination, an opportunity to contest it, and a right to counsel.
Those same tensions are playing out at the state level. Nebraska's LB1123, introduced by Senator Elliot Bostar, would create additional procedural protections for officers before they are designated on Brady-Giglio disclosure lists, according to Citizen Portal. The bill would require prosecuting agencies that maintain such lists to adopt written criteria for placement and provide notice and an opportunity for officers to respond.
The same report notes that LB1123 would also permit a judicial in-camera reconsideration process and add anti-retaliation employment protections for officers placed on disclosure lists. Law-enforcement unions backed the change, the outlet reported, while county attorneys and defense groups said it risks hampering prosecutors' constitutional disclosure duties — a disagreement that underscores why Omaha's own agreement, and the hearing attached to it, matters to how these cases get handled locally.
The interlocal agreement under consideration would formalize a process for determining when officers must be disclosed to prosecuting agencies, and the public will have an opportunity to comment on it as part of the city council's process. Supreme Court precedent underlies the interlocal agreement between Omaha and Douglas County, tying the local measure to decades of constitutional case law even as state lawmakers debate how much additional protection officers should receive before being named to such lists.
