Corruption and Use of Force

Peak, chp. 8

NOPD officers looting.wmv SBSD Det shooting.wmv Pepperballs end chase.wmv Devin Brown.wmv NOPD officers beat, fired.wmvNYPD Sean Bell\NY GJ Indicts...mp3-wav\Corruption\Chicago PD.wmv Orlando PD chase policy.wmv LASD drops, IPD takes.wmv Crazy euro chase.wmvDrug corruption.wmv Arrest struggle.wmv

A litany of policecorruption

Late 1960’s – New York City– NYPD drug detectives routinely robbed and extorted

narcotics dealers.– 1972 Knapp Commission hearings -- Frank Serpico

Mid 1980’s – New York City– Thirteen officers of NYPD’s 77th. precinct (“Buddy Boys”) arrested for

robbing dealers and selling confiscated drugs. Led to 1994 Mollen Commission hearings.

Late 1980’s - Miami– Miami drug detectives sold large quantities of cocaine they stole during

raids– Officers spent most of their time planning robberies rather than fighting

crime Late 1980’s – Los Angeles

– LASD narcotics squad stole millions of dollars from drug dealers– Money used to buy boats, cars and vacation homes– Squad supervisor instigated corruption and testified against his crew

Mid 1990’s – New York City– More than two dozen officers

From the 30th. Precinct(“The Dirty Thirty”) Arrested forrobbing drug dealers and selling drugs

– One cop pocketed $100,000 in cash that he found in a home– Another auctioned off a kilo of stolen cocaine from his patrol car

Mid 1990’s – New Orleans– Dozens of police officers charged with rape, robbery, drug dealing,

theft, murder– NOPD officer committed on-duty armed robbery of Vietnamese

restaurant, shot and killed security guard (her partner) and two others

Types of corruption

Gratuities– Passively accepting something of value– Free coffee, discounted meals

Graft– Actively exploiting one’s position– Taking bribes and “protection” money

“Criminal cops”– Using one’s position to cover conventional, profit-making crimes– Robbing drug dealers, selling drugs– Burglary and robbery

Continuum of misconduct– “Grass eating” to “meat eating”– From passively accepting bribes and gratuities to engaging in serious

crime

Gratuities

Something of value received because of one’s role– Common to many occupations

Teachers, postal carriers – Police officers often get free coffee and discounted meals

Issues– Is it a gift or an exchange?

Giver’s motivations Acceptor’s intentions

– Accepting may tarnish image, erode public confidence Cultural differences

– Accepting may cause enforcement disparities Police may favor patronizing certain establishments Police may treat certain persons more leniently

– Accepting may bring police and public together; rejecting may offend– How much to accept?– “Slippery slope”

Graft

Exploiting one’s role by accepting bribes and protection money

Examples– Mid 1990’s – Washington D.C.

Twelve police officers convicted of protecting a cocaine distribution ring that was actually an FBI “sting”

– Mid 1990’s – Chicago Seven Chicago police officers were arrested for taking

protection money and robbing undercover agents– Late 1990’s – Cleveland

Forty-nine Cleveland-area cops and jail guards received prison sentences ranging from 2½ to nine years for guarding what they thought were drug shipments

Criminal Cops – “The BuddyBoys” – NYPD 77th. Pct

Impoverished high-crime drug sales area Officer misconduct

– Illegal drugs and alcohol abuse– New officers “tested” to see if they “measured up”

“Tough on crime” - extralegal means to punish offenders– Falsification of arrest reports, perjury

Burning money - “psychological” abuse of suspects Traditional corruption – payoffs, thefts of evidence, robberies of drug

dealers, resale of drugs, housebreaks disguised as “searches” Dumping ground for problem officers “Grass eating” to “meat eating”

– Began with burning and flushing confiscated dope– Progressed to selling dope to other dealers

“Criminal cops” – LASDNarcotics – Majors Squad

During the late 1980’s members of anelite Los Angeles County Sheriff’snarcotics squad stole millions of dollarsfrom drug dealers and used the money tobuy boats, cars and vacation homes.

Rumors of their new-found wealth found their way back to agency executives, who enlisted the help of the FBI.

In due course, an elaborately staged undercover sting caught the officers stealing cash from what they thought was a drug dealer’s hotel room.

In 1992 testimony by the squad’s supervisor, Sgt. Robert Sobel, who actually instigated the corruption, led to the conviction of his entire crew. He said that the squad stole $60 million in 1988 and 1989 alone.

The corruption began in a relatively minor fashion, with deputies using money found during search warrants to buy investigative equipment and meals.

Elite Chicago PD unitdisbanded

In October 2007 the Chicago PD’s“Special Operations Section,” acentralized unit that battled guns anddrugs was disbanded after severalmembers were accused and arrested of abuse and corruption.

In August seven officers were arrested for participating in a series of home invasion robberies and kidnappings. One was later charged for trying to arrange the murder of an officer who turned State’s evidence. Other officers were later accused of brutally mistreating bar patrons during a raid.

Many SOS officers came from a prior unit, the Gang Crimes section, which was disbanded in 2000 after one of its officers was charged with using gang members to run a drug ring.

Ethical dilemma

You are a police patrol officer working a graveyard shift. You stop in at the only coffee shop open in your beat and order a small meal. When the check comes it is discounted fifty percent and the coffee is not included.

1. Identify the most relevant values2. Identify the dilemma3. Apply the most appropriate ethical theory and resolve the

dilemma (see text, pp. 242-243)4. Identify factors discussed in Chapter 8 that might influence

how police officers perceive this dilemma, and how they might resolve it

Causes of misconduct

Knapp Commission – 1972New York City

Large scale corruption infected police at alllevels of the department, including patrol

Patrol did not make as much dirty money asdetectives, but cumulatively had a large impact

Required support systems at every level of the department Officer “stubbornness, hostility and pride” allowed corruption to

spread Grass-eaters passively accepted a corrupt system

– They were the heart of the problem because their great numbers made corruption respectable

Meat-eaters aggressively pursued payoffs Atmosphere of deviance made it easy for neutralizers to kick in

Commonly cited causes

Individual predispositions Environment

– Atmosphere that allows corruption to flourish– Great temptations (e.g., vice and drug enforcement)– Rotten apples -- one bad cop infects others

Slippery slope– “Grass eating” weakens moral inhibitions

Pressures to produce– Citizen and agency expectations– Personal goals– Limited resources: means/ends dilemma

Officer selection– Questionable personalities drawn into policing– Weeding out unsuitable candidates

Police culture– Peer pressures & solidarity (“us v. them” mentality) “code of silence”

Page 14: “While it is impossible to substantiate completely, itappears that the application of our hiring standards was compromisedwhen these officers were hired during periods of accelerated hiringin the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is not to say that anyoneintended to do so. But, one need only look at the pre-employmenthistories of these four people to see that something was seriouslywrong when they were approved for hire. The fact that these menwere hired with egregious information in their packages leaves only two explanations: 1) Recognize that erosion has occurred and shore up the systems to prevent it from recurring; or, 2) Insist that the application of our standards did not erode, which means that criminal conduct, drug dealing, financial irresponsibility and violent behavior are consistent with our standards. Clearly, there has been erosion, the blame for which cannot be placed on one individual or group, but rather on a multifaceted system with competing interests. We must recognize that it has occurred and commit ourselves to never sacrificing quality for the expediency of numbers.”

LAPD Board of Inquiry Report into the Rampart Area Corruption Incident March 1, 2000

Page 9: Of the 14 officers, four had questionable issues in their pre-employment background which strongly indicate they never should have been hired as Los Angeles Police Officers. Those four officers were hired in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1994, and three of them have since been fired for felonious conduct:

It is important to note that the July 9, 1991, Report of the Independent (Christopher) Commission...all but predicted that a weak application of hiring standards was allowing risky candidates to become Los Angeles Police Officers.

The officer hired in 1994 sold marijuana to two other students on one occasion while he was in high school. At age 15, the police detained him for investigation of tampering with vehicles on a car sales lot. He was taken to the station and released to his parents. Those law enforcement contacts were self-admitted and nothing on his criminal history printout indicates that he was ever formally arrested. However, there is a notation in the package that “All records have been sealed” indicating that he may have had a juvenile record that could not be accessed for the background investigation. In any event, the Police Department recommended his disqualification, but it was overturned by the Personnel Department.

The officer hired in 1990 had been arrested three times before he became an officer at the age of 24. As a juvenile, he was arrested for stealing hubcaps. As an adult, he was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). One year before his hire, he was cited for having an open container of an alcoholic beverage in his car and was arrested for driving on a suspended license (suspended from the earlier DUI) for which he was sentenced to ten days in jail. In the military, he was disciplined for disobeying a lawful order. His background investigation disclosed that he "loses his cool very easily“ over minor incidents, and acted like a "big macho man." The psychological examiner advised the Personnel Department that there was not enough negative information to warrant his disqualification.”

The officer hired in 1988 had been arrested as an adult for grand theft. The incident occurred when he struck a public bus driver during a dispute over a transfer. When the driver's watch fell to the ground, the officer picked it up and began walking away, which resulted in his arrest. The Department did not recommended his disqualification or deselect him under three whole scores.

The officer hired in 1989 admitted losing his temper during arguments with his wife and pushing her on six different occasions. He was psychologically eliminated due to "temperament/impulse control." However, he was eventually cleared for hiring by the Personnel Department psychologist.

Neutralizers and justifications

Taking gratuities is socially expected– Builds relations with shopkeepers and public– To refuse causes hurt feelings– Even professionals accept gifts

Stealing from criminals hurts no one Criminals don’t deserve to profit Taking criminals’ money is a punishment Criminal justice system doesn’t adequately punish

criminals Officers are poorly paid

Preventing misconductand corruption

“Supply side” issues– Officer selection – Internal and external pressures– Measuring performance

Control measures– Continuous dialogue and frequent training– Real “supervision” -- not just oversight– Special attention to drug and vice units

Agency climate– Corrective, not punitive– Distinguish between working mistakes and willful misconduct – Communications must flow up as well as down– Bond between managers and subordinates

Excessive Force

Coercion and useof force

When are force or coercion necessary?– Striking the balance between coercion and

understanding (Muir)– Overemphasis on coercion brutality– Overemphasis on understanding ineffectiveness

Use of force and coercion varies according to agency and among officers– Agency characteristics – demographics, local crime problems, staffing– Officer variables

Personality characteristics, physical limitations Lack of training

– Peer pressures– Perceived challenge to authority– Fear arousal

Environmental variables Past incidents Poor officer tactics

Reducing use of force and coercion– Peer counseling (Oakland PD)– Character training in the academy -- virtue

Use of force

Historical abuses, especially of minorities and poor Prevalence

– Prevalence uncertain -- most policing is not in public view– Officers may downplay, not report, or discourage reporting

by citizens– Citizens may choose to not report or may exaggerate

Community issues– Demographics, social class

Police culture and workplace– “Whatever it takes”, “don’t back down”, don’t “lose face”

Relatively few officers generate the most complaints Many excessive force complaints involve persons already in

custody– Officers often fail to restrain or complain about colleagues

Law on use of force

Authority and responsibility devolves on individual officer Must act reasonably - actions cannot violate law or “clearly

established” legal precedent Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (US Supreme Court, 1989)

– Claims of excessive force are evaluated by the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard: were the officers' actions "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances at the time?

– The "reasonableness" must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene

– There must be an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

US Department of Justiceuse-of-force continuum

1. Verbal commands

2. Use of hands

3. Chemical agents, baton or other impact weapon

4. Canine

5. Less-than-lethal projectiles

6. Deadly force

Some situations seem ambiguous

L.A. Times, 12/9/05

Parolee suspected of jewelry thefts drives off with associate as plainclothes deputies prepare to serve a search warrant at his residence. Deputies chase parolee, shoot and kill him when he bangs up police cars and refuses to surrender. Passenger is arrested. He allegedly tells police that he and the driver knew it was the cops. Passenger later became a suspect in the thefts and a fugitive.

Information processing inrapidly shifting situations

Could deadly force have been used? Should it have been used? If so, at what point(s)? What would be the justification?

Constraints on decision-making

• Confusion and uncertainty • Personal observation or knowledge?• If from a third party, is the person reliable? Are the events believable?• Timeliness of receipt of information

Three NYPDdetectives indicted

On 11/25/06 five NYPD detectives, two white and three black, shot 50 rounds at a vehicle occupied by three black men, killing Sean Bell, a 23-year old man on his wedding day, and seriously wounding his companions. One detective fired 31 shots, reloading once. No weapons were found. The detectives, members of an enforcement squad that investigates problem night clubs, thought that one or two of the men were armed and that a shot had been fired. When they ordered the men to exit the car they did not comply, instead gunning their car forward and striking an officer and a police van.

Two officers were indicted for manslaughter, one for reckless endangerment.

After a five-month review, the LA District Attorneyconcluded that there wasn't enough evidence tocharge Officer John Hatfield, who struck suspectStanley Miller 11 times with a 2-pound steel flashlightafter a June 23, 2004 car-and-foot chase in South L.A.

"In light of the totality of the circumstances facingOfficer Hatfield, we cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [his] actions were without legal necessity," Deputy District Attorney Margo Baxter said in a statement.

Miller, who is black, was beaten on the ground after he appeared to surrender. The arrest, which was videotaped by television news helicopters, was compared to the 1991 beating of black motorist Rodney King by four white officers. Hatfield, who is Hispanic, ran up and joined other officers who had pushed Miller to the ground at the end of a foot chase.

Officer Hatfield was fired by LAPD Chief Bratton after a three-officer police board of rights found that the one kick, 11 flashlight blows and five knee blows administered by Officer Hatfield demonstrated that he was “at best, out of control.” L.A. Times, 7/30/05

Chief Bratton said this type of flashlight would be “phased out. In November 2006 Miller’s civil rights lawsuit was settled by Los Angeles for $450,000. L.A. Times, 11/29/06

Videotaped Officer Won't Be ChargedThe decision was denounced by minority community leaders and Mayor James Hahn.

LAPD Shooting ofDevin Brown

On 2/6/05 an LAPD officer shot and killedDevin Brown at the end of an early-morningpursuit. The 13-year old was driving a stolencar while under the influence of alcohol ordrugs.

After stopping Brown jammed his car inreverse and backed up, striking the police car.

The officer said he fired because he thought that Brown was trying to crush him. A late-coming witness said that the officer, who had exited his car, was nearly “sandwiched”, leapt out of the way at the last moment and instantly began firing.

On 12/5/05 the L.A. County DA issued a detailed report on the incident. The DA refused to charge the officer, concluding that his use of force was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

The shooting was later determined to be “in policy” by Chief Bratton, who said the officer was defending himself. But Chief Bratton was overruled by the L.A. Police Commission, which determined the shooting was unnecessary.

Discussion

Are kicking and punching legitimate tactics?– Should they be?– If so, under what circumstances?

Were they necessary in these cases?– Do the videos provide sufficient info?– What other tools are available?

Are appearances important? Are there limits to training and rulemaking? What we can realistically expect from

officers?– Uncertain and threatening

environment– Reaction to chases and critical

incidents– What we can realistically expect from

citizens?

Ethical dilemma

You arrest a drunk for disturbing the peace and transport him to the station with another officer. On arrival, your partner opens the prisoner’s car door. The prisoner, who is handcuffed, spits on your partner, landing a big goober on his forehead. Your partner reacts by punching the handcuffed prisoner in the face, hard.

1. Identify the most relevant values2. Identify the dilemma3. Apply the most appropriate ethical theory and resolve the

dilemma4. From Chapter 8, what factors might influence how police officers

perceive this dilemma, and how they might resolve it?

Police Pursuit

• Hurtling down the street in a 4,500 pound block of steel is a use of force.

• It differs from other uses of force in its potential effects on innocent persons.

• Can this particular use of force ever be “reasonable”?

Policy differences among agencies