The justice system of the United States is meant to protect the rights of the accused, who are innocent until proven guilty, often with the qualification of beyond a shadow of a doubt. This means providing the jury with all the evidence in order to facilitate their assessment of the crime and come to an appropriate verdict, which will be used to determine punishment. This includes prosecutors disclosing evidence and information to the defense which may be favorable to the defendant but not so favorable to government witnesses, including police officers. Officers with document histories of lying in official matters represent liabilities to their agencies. This may render them unable to testify credibly in court, not to mention undermining the public’s trust in law enforcement (Mamitova, Kumarbekkyzy, Tapenova, & Mahanov, 2016).
However, it should be noted that sometimes police officers will protect their fellow officers. This means refusing to speak out against their peers who have committed crimes or to report dishonest behavior, especially on the job. This has led to a phenomenon referred to as the blue wall of silence (Nhan, 2014). Nolan (2009) characterizes this phenomenon as “the institutionalized culture of deception, misrepresentation, lies, and tacit silences that exists in many law enforcement organizations” (p. 251). Nhan (2014) describes it as an “us versus them” mentality. Combating such behavior can be difficult. Nolan (2009) describes the case of Boston police officer Michael Cox who, in a case of mistaken identity, was beaten and left for dead by fellow police officers. Following Cox’s report and refusal to remain silent about his experiences, he was harassed and threatened by the officers responsible for the crime, many who reportedly saw nothing when Cox was being beaten (Nolan, 2009).
The irony is obvious, as Nolan (2009) points out. Police officers are intended to protect the public and pursue truth through the investigation of crimes. Law enforcement is held to high moral standards, and in American society, moral standards tend to be based on Judeo-Christian principles such as the Ten Commandments. One of the Ten Commandments is, according to the King James Version, is “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). In other words, people should not lie. But even more ironic than that: cops often lie to suspects as a means of obtaining information, appealing – and sometimes even coercing – suspects to give themselves away by telling the truth (Alpert & Noble, 2009; Benneworth-Gray, 2014). In those situations, very few people would object to police officers lying to people who may be criminals. However, outside of the interrogation room – or even an approved undercover operation – it is harder to accept that police officers may be susceptible to corruption.
A series of Supreme Court cases, beginning with Brady vs. Maryland in 1963 which lent its name to what some scholars refer to as “Brady issues” (Brockway, 2013), have given rise explicit practices regarding the disclosure of evidence to the defense, including any documented history of lying on the part of police officers. Officers with histories of integrity issues are often referred to as “Brady Officers” (Brockway, 2013). Brockway (2013), writing from a perspective of Texas law enforcement and best practices for “Brady issues,” asserts that an officer associated with “a sustained act of any form of untruthfulness” should be terminated (p. 8).
The weight of the cases which form the foundation for Brady issues and the public’s faith in law enforcement demand that the officer who was investigated for inappropriate use of the computers in the patrol division should not escape the consequences of his actions. It is true that the officer in question initially denied any knowledge of the incident; it is also true that the officer did eventually admit to wrongdoing. Other than this incident, this officer’s conduct has been above-board. He has had only one other disciplinary action taken against him, an at-fault traffic accident ten years ago, which does not appear to be an issue of integrity, in contrast to the current situation. To the knowledge of the Deputy Chief, the pornographic websites in question did not involve illegal acts (i.e., child pornography or sex trafficking). However, the accessing of these websites is not authorized and represents an inappropriate use of the department’s resources. One must, as court justices do, weigh the evidence against the punishment.
With all of this in mind, I would not terminate this 15-year veteran with a virtually clean record. Brady Officers represent a sustained pattern of behavior – that is, they have repeated incidents of issues with integrity over time. This single act on the part of the officer cannot be considered a pattern of behavior. The disciplinary action ten years ago does not appear to be an issue of integrity and, as such, cannot be used to establish a pattern of behavior. His behavior and his initial denial of the act are both unethical and problematic. However, he subsequently admitted to wrongdoing, which is counter to the idea of a sustained act of untruthfulness. As such, terminating this individual does not seem appropriate.
However, as noted earlier, the officer must face the consequences of his actions. I would impose significant disciplinary action as opposed to termination. Not only would I impose significant disciplinary action on him as a consequence of his actions but also as a means of not reinforcing the blue wall of silence – that is, to show the Deputy Chief and all of my officers that I will not allow inappropriate behavior to permeate the force and that I take such infractions seriously. Taking disciplinary action would also show the public that law enforcement is not above the law; this would hopefully preserve the public’s faith in law enforcement. The specific punishment may be suspension without pay or something equally serious.
It is important to maintain public faith in law enforcement. It is also important to maintain integrity so that law enforcement can serve as credible witnesses in court. It is a critical part of upholding the law. As such, that credibility should be preserved.
- Alpert, G. P., & Noble, J. J. (2009). Lies, true lies, and conscious deception: Police officers and
the truth. Police Quarterly, 12(2), 237-254. doi:10.1177/1098611108327315 - Benneworth-Gray, K. (2014). ‘Are you going to tell me the truth today?’ Invoking obligations of
honesty in police–suspect interviews. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 21(2), 251-277. doi:10.1558/ijsll.v21i2.251 - Brockway, D. D. (2013). Best practices for dealing with Texas peace officers who have Brady
issues (Brady v. Maryland) [white paper]. Retrieved from https://shsu-ir.tdl.org/shsu-ir/bitstream/handle/20.500.11875/1867/1475.pdf?sequence=1 - Mamitova, Z. A., Kumarbekkyzy, Z., Tapenova, A. R., & Mahanov, T. G. (2016). On certain
aspects of acts of corruption countermeasures. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(13), 5857-5871. - Nhan, J. (2014). Police culture. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. - Nolan, T. (2009). Behind the blue wall of silence: Essay. Men and Masculinities, 12(2), 250-257.
doi:10.1177/1097184X09334700
