Transcript Corruption and Use of Force

Corruption and Use of Force
NOPD officers looting.wmv
SBSD Det shooting.wmv
Pepperballs end chase.wmv
Devin Brown.wmv
NOPD officers beat, fired.wmv
NYPD Sean Bell\NY GJ Indicts...mp3-wav
\Corruption\Chicago PD.wmv
Orlando PD chase policy.wmv
LASD drops, IPD takes.wmv
Crazy euro chase.wmv
Drug corruption.wmv
Arrest struggle.wmv
Peak, chp. 8
A litany of police
corruption




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 for
robbing 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 Buddy
Boys” – 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” – LASD
Narcotics – Majors Squad





During the late 1980’s members of an
elite Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
narcotics squad stole millions of dollars
from drug dealers and used the money to
buy 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 unit
disbanded



In October 2007 the Chicago PD’s
“Special Operations Section,” a
centralized unit that battled guns and
drugs was disbanded after several
members 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.
2.
3.
4.
Identify the most relevant values
Identify the dilemma
Apply the most appropriate ethical theory and resolve the
dilemma (see text, pp. 242-243)
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 – 1972
New York City





Large scale corruption infected police at all
levels of the department, including patrol
Patrol did not make as much dirty money as
detectives, 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”
LAPD Board of Inquiry Report into the Rampart Area Corruption Incident
March 1, 2000
Page 14: “While it is impossible to substantiate completely, it
appears that the application of our hiring standards was compromised
when these officers were hired during periods of accelerated hiring
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is not to say that anyone
intended to do so. But, one need only look at the pre-employment
histories of these four people to see that something was seriously
wrong when they were approved for hire. The fact that these men
were 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.”
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:
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.
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 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.
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.”
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 misconduct
and 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 use
of 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 Justice
use-of-force continuum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Verbal commands
Use of hands
Chemical agents, baton or other impact
weapon
Canine
Less-than-lethal projectiles
Deadly force
Some situations seem ambiguous
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.
L.A. Times, 12/9/05
Information processing in
rapidly shifting situations
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
Could deadly force have been used? Should it have been used?
If so, at what point(s)? What would be the justification?
Three NYPD
detectives 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.
Videotaped Officer Won't Be Charged
The decision was denounced by minority community leaders
and Mayor James Hahn.
After a five-month review, the LA District Attorney
concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to
charge Officer John Hatfield, who struck suspect
Stanley Miller 11 times with a 2-pound steel flashlight
after a June 23, 2004 car-and-foot chase in South L.A.
"In light of the totality of the circumstances facing
Officer 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
LAPD Shooting of
Devin Brown





On 2/6/05 an LAPD officer shot and killed
Devin Brown at the end of an early-morning
pursuit. The 13-year old was driving a stolen
car while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs.
After stopping Brown jammed his car in
reverse 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.
2.
3.
4.
Identify the most relevant values
Identify the dilemma
Apply the most appropriate ethical theory and resolve the
dilemma
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