Ethics, Accountability & Misconduct

Ethics

Why place limits onthe police?

Trustworthiness of the results– Weak-willed may falsely confess– Innocent may confess to gain

leniency– Witnesses may shape their

testimony to what authorities want– Officers convinced of someone’s

guilt might lie or shade the truth Democratic values

– Balance of power between citizens and the State– Fairness to the weak – “the little guy”– Public trust and confidence in the police

Professionalism– Avoid brutalizing the police– Encourage craftsmanship and attention to detail– “Slippery slope”

Carl Klockars’“The Dirty Harry Problem”

Police driven by the “noble cause” of making the world safer

Means – ends dilemma: are “bad” meansjustified when seeking “good” ends?

Police frustrated by laws and regulations– Miranda v. Arizona (1966): If custodial interrogation must read rights– Exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961): Evidence gathered in violation of the

Constitution is inadmissible– Conduct that “shocks the conscience”: Due Process clause, Fourteenth

Amendment– Right to counsel: Sixth Amendment– Criminal and civil law– Agency regulations

Police frustrated by moral standards imposed by outsiders. Police frustrated by practical obstacles

– Uncertainty, lack of information– Uncooperative victims, witnesses and suspects

Dirt Harry was a “utilitarian”-- a moral “relativist”

Concerned with consequencesof an act

Utility (“greatest happiness”)to all concerned– Calculus of costs and benefits– Short-term (act utilitarianism)– Long term (rule utilitarianism)

Difficulties?Difficulties?

Utilitarianism - difficulties

Predicting consequences Calculating cost and benefits Individual rights may be overlooked No moral compass

The opposite of relativism --Absolutism

Categorical imperative (Immanuel Kant)– Universality of decisions – same acts

would be taken regardless of circumstances– Human beings are not just means to an end

Other tests– Is one acting from a sense of duty?– Is an act motivated or affected by self-interest?– Is the decision based on underlying principles or

on personal preferences?Difficulties?Difficulties?

Absolutism – the difficulties

In the real world, consequences of an act are important

Pressures and expectations on police Severely limit police practices and techniques

– Lying and deception– Undercover

Two models of lawenforcement

What’s the worst kind of error?– Type 1: Arrest and convict the

innocent (guilty not charged)– Type 2: Failure to arrest or

convict anyone, or mistakenlyexonerate or acquit the guilty

Crime control model– Maximize efficiency of crime control– Prone to type 1 errors

Due process model– Getting it right is more important– Prone to type 2 errors

Eight dead in Dinuba

On 8/8/09 Dinuba police tried to pullover a Dodge Neon with threeoccupants for a traffic infraction.

The vehicle sped away, with police in pursuit. The chase left the city and entered rural roads. The truck blew two stop signs. At the second it collided with a pickup truck carrying a family of two adults and four children ages 1 - 7. None of the children were secured and all were ejected.

All three occupants of the Dodge Neon were killed, along with the four children. One adult occupant of the truck was killed and the other was left in critical condition.

It turns out that the Dodge Neon had been carjacked the previous evening.

Misconduct and Corruption

Causes and enablers ofmisconduct

Officer selection– Personalities drawn into policing– Weeding out unsuitable candidates

Workplace issues– Pressures to produce (how work is measured)– Meeting legal requirements for search and arrest– Getting along with coworkers– Citizen expectations– Limited resources

Police culture– Peer pressures “code of silence”– Solidarity - “us” v. “them” mentality

Rampart

In September 1999 officer Rafael Perez, charged withstealing cocaine from an evidence locker, said that officers of the Rampart “CRASH” unit (anti-gang) routinely framed suspects, beat them up, planted evidence and covered up excessive uses of force, including unnecessary shootings.

Investigation led to the dismissal of more than 150 felony convictions. $70 million was paid to persons, mostly gang members, who were unjustly arrested, beaten or shot. Nine officers were charged with crimes, including filing false police reports, and 23 were fired or suspended. Some of the convictions and firings were later overturned.

Perez and his partner, Nino Durden, pled guilty to State drug charges for the cocaine theft and to Federal civil rights violations for covering up a shooting. Each served a total of five years.

Edward Ortiz — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned). One of three sued for malicious prosecution, shared a $15-million jury award.

Brian Liddy — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned.) Shared in $15-million award. Later fired for misconduct related to a narcotics arrest.

Paul Harper — Acquitted of obstructing justice, shared the $15-million award.

Michael Buchanan — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned)

Manuel Chavez — Pleaded no contest to assault under color of authority for the 1996 beating of a gang member. Sentenced to 60-day jail term and placed on three years' probation.

Shawn Gomez — Pleaded no contest to filing a false report in the 1996 beating of a gang member. Sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to serve 400 hours of community service.

Ethan Cohan — Pleaded guilty to obstructing justice and filing a false report in the 1996 beating of gang member. Sentenced to one year in jail.

Outcomes for other key players, from the Los Angeles Times (7/12/06)

Page 14: “While it is impossible to substantiatecompletely, it appears that the application of ourhiring standards was compromised when theseofficers were hired during periods of acceleratedhiring in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is not tosay 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 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 Rampart, March 1, 2000

Discussion about four of the fired officers

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 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.”

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... [established as result of the beating of Rodney King and the riots that followed ] all but predicted that a weak application of hiring standards was allowing risky candidates to become Los Angeles Police officers...”

...on the other hand

On 2/9/06 a Federal court jury awarded$5 million each to LAPD Sgt. Edward Ortiz,former officer Paul Harper and former Sgt.Brian Liddy, who were fired in 2000 andtried for allegedly framing a suspect while working at Rampart.

After being acquitted or having their cases dismissed, each sued the City for malicious prosecution. They accused prosecutors, detectives and former Chief Parks of making them “scapegoats” by suborning false testimony from officer Rafael Perez, who informed on his colleagues in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence for stealing three kilograms of cocaine from evidence.

Ortiz and Harper are back on the force. Liddy is now working in private security.

In July 2008 the Federal awards to the three officers were upheld by the Ninth Circuit, which agreed that disciplinary policies encouraged filing charges against officers even if there was no probable cause.

but on the OTHERhand...

On February 28, 2005 19 persons,including five former cops, were chargedfor twenty robberies between 1999-2001.

Led by LAPD officer Ruben Palomares,they wore LAPD uniforms & used LAPDcars to stage phony raids, stealing drugs, guns and money from drug dealers and others.

Those charged include former LAPD officers William Ferguson and Jesse Moya, former LBPD officer Joseph Ferguson, and former LASD deputy Rodrigo Duran.

William Ferguson was appointed an LAPD officer even though his background check turned up five prior arrests for theft and burglary.

Many of those charged have pled guilty. Palomares, serving 15 years for trying to buy ten kilos of cocaine from DEA agents in 2001, is cooperating. He was originally fingered as corrupt by Rampart figure Rafael Perez, who encouraged investigators to check out all of Palomares’ arrests.

Maywood P.D.

On 4/29/09 the California Atty. Generalreleased a study of Maywood PD

It concludes that Maywood officers have engaged in extensive misconduct– Routine use of excessive force– Lack of probable cause to justify searches and arrests– Lack of cause to stop cars, and punitive impoundments– Sexual assaults by an on-duty officer– Discouraging the public from filing complaints

Causes and enablers of these problems– Hiring unqualified officers and those rejected from other agencies– Poor supervision, including supervisory indifference to obvious problems– Lack (until recently) of a professional Chief

In June 2009 Maywood consented to a court order– Revamped selection, training and supervision– Install cameras at the station & in police cars– Officers to carry digital recorders on patrol

Corruption

Slippery slope– “Grass eating” -- passively

accepting gratuities– “Meat eating” -- actively

seeking illicit gain Causes

– Rotten apples: one infects others– Environmental: political atmosphere allows corruption to flourish

Most serious corruption is drug-related– Large sums of money– Social ambivalence about drugs

Neutralizers– Drugs are “victimless” crimes– Drug dealers don’t deserve profits– Taking money punishes drug dealers– Officers are poorly paid and deserve more

1980’s: Buddy Boys –NYPD 77th. Precinct

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

Preventing misconductand corruption

Continuous dialogue within an agency “Supply side” issues

– Officer selection – Internal and external pressures– Measuring performance

Agency climate– Corrective or punitive?– Distinguish between working

mistakes & willful misconduct – Communications must flow up as

well as down– Enhance bond between managers

and subordinates Supervision

– Quantity and quality– Avoiding co-optation

Technology– Early warning programs– Recorders, cameras

Agency guidelines– Establish explicit boundaries– Thorough and realistic– Enforce through inspection– Disclose results of internal

investigations “High-risk” units (drugs, intelligence)

– Oversight by command staff– Careful, merit-based selection– Rotation

The Craft of Policing

Selection, training and supervision often fail – Unsuitable candidates always slip through– Internal controls ignored or insufficient– Supervisors can’t be everywhere

Quantity v. quality– Superiors just want numbers– Craze for measurement and quantification far

outweigh quality concerns Means v. ends

– Frustration over bad guys getting away with it– Justification in media, culture and politics for

brutality (“Dirty Harry”)– Problem of the “symbolic assailant”

Use of Force

Use of force

Historical abuses of minorities and poor Physical force used infrequently

– Actual prevalence is uncertainas most policing is done in private

– Officers may downplay or not report– Citizens may not report or exaggerate

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

Physical confrontations with police– Race, ethnicity, social class– Nature of officers, antagonists and encounters in lower class areas

Many excessive force complaints involve persons already in custody– Officers often fail to restrain or to complain about colleagues

Law on use of force

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

Use of force continuum

1. LOW: Verbal commands, touching

2. Use of hands, chemical agents

3. INTERMEDIATE: Punching, canine, baton, other impact weapons

Head blows, etc. are lethal

4. Taser, less-than-lethal projectiles (i.e., bean-bags) Repeated application of Taser may be lethal Projectiles that strike the head are lethal force

5. LETHAL: firearms or other means

Less than lethal force

Kicking and punching

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 and

techniques are available?

Inglewood incident

In July 2002 an Inglewood police officer wascaught on an amateur video slamming ahandcuffed black youth against a patrol carand punching him.

The youth had been arrested for allegedlyinterfering during a traffic stop of the car his father was driving.

Two white officers were tried.– One officer was acquitted of falsifying a police report and was reinstated.– Charges of assault against a second officer were dismissed after juries

deadlocked twice (7-5 for conviction, then 6-6). The officer was fired.– A black officer was also disciplined.– Both white officers later won a lawsuit against the city for reverse

discrimination and were awarded a total of more than $1.5 million. The city then sued the law firm it had retained to handle the case for incompetence.

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," said Deputy D.A. Margo Baxter.

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 Rodney King. 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 demonstrated that the officer was “at best, out of control.”

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.

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

Officers often respondemotionally

Appearances are important What we can realistically expect?

– From officers?– From citizens?

Are there limits to training and rulemaking? – Uncertain and threatening environment– Impact of chases and critical incidents

Dispassionate oversight is often required– Supervisors can’t do their jobs if they’re

(a) unavailable or (b) always want to be liked

– Command staff must be present whenever there is the possibility of a confrontation between officers and multiple citizens

2009 New School sit-in

Birminghamincident

On 1/23/08 a man being questionedabout drug dealing by Birmingham(Alabama) police took off, leadingofficers on a long chase. One copwas struck and injured.

After 22 minutes the suspect’s vehicle rolled. The man was ejected and knocked unconscious. Five officers pounced on him, kicking and beating him with a club and fists.

The suspect pled guilty to felony assault and is serving a ten-year term. The beating was covered up for over a year. On May 19, 2009 five officers were fired for unnecessary and excessive force and face prosecution. Other officers who helped in the cover-up also face discipline.

El Monte incident

On 5/13/09 El Monte PD pursueda vehicle that did not yield for atraffic stop. Three gangmembers were inside.

During a slow-speed part of the chase one of the gang members exited the vehicle and gave himself up. The others remained in the car until it crashed some time later into a parked car. The passenger surrendered; the driver, Richard Rodriguez, a parolee at large, ran off.

Rodriguez was eventually cornered and lay down. Newscopter video depicts an El Monte police officer, gun drawn, approaching Rodriguez. The officer kicks Rodriguez for no obvious reason, striking him in the head. Other officers then arrive and Rodriguez is handcuffed.

Deadly force

Justifiable homicide in California

California Penal Code, sec. 196, homicide by public officers– When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to

execution of legal process, or in the discharge of a legal duty– When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have

escaped, or when necessarily committed to arrest persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing or resisting

California Penal Code, sec. 197, homicide by any person– When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a

felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person– When necessary to arrest for a felony, or in lawfully suppressing

any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace BUT: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (US Supreme Court, 1985)

– Cannot use deadly force to apprehend escaping suspects unless they pose a threat of serious injury to the officer or other persons

US DOJ policy on use of deadly force:Fleeing suspects

“Deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject if there is probable cause to believe: (1) the subject has committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury or death, and (2) the escape of the subject would pose an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”

Armed carjacker pursued by several agencies. He bails out, runs away, is pursued by a police officer on foot. Officer shoots and kills the suspect, whom he said turned at him a pointed the pistol. The weapon is recovered at the scene.

Some situations are 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 third party?

If third party, is the person reliable? Are the events believable?

Timeliness 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 unarmed 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. The detectives, members of a night club squad, thought that one or two of the men were armed and that a shot had been fired.

Officers approached the car and ordered the men to exit. Instead the driver, Sean Bell, gunned it forward, striking an officer in the leg and a police van. Bell was legally drunk.

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

In April 2008 the officers were tried by a judge and acquitted. The judge said that he did not believe the victim’s witnesses, in part because they had records and had changed their stories. Listen to NY Times podcast

Officers after acquittal

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.

Chief Bratton and the PoliceCommission disagree

Chief Bratton ruled that the shooting was consistent with department policy, which allows officers to shoot at a vehicle if it presents an immediate danger. The D.A. declined to file charges against the officer.

Later, on 1/31/06, the LA Police Commission voted 4-1 that the officer who shot Devin Brown violated departmental policy. It based its decision on a reconstruction showing that the rounds entered the car at an angle, placing the officer to its side.

John Mack was appointed Chairperson of the Commission after the shooting. A “civil rights activist and long-time LAPD critic,” he had already criticized the officer’s actions.

Airman shot by San Bernardino deputy – part II (L.A. Times, 2/1/06)

On January 29, 2005 a 21-year old man wasshot by a SBSO deputy after the vehicle hewas riding in crashed during a pursuit.

Witnesses say that a deputy orderedElio Carrion, 21, an Air Force securityofficer, to the ground and that Carrioncomplied. There is confusion aboutwhat happened later, but a grainyvideotape made by an onlooker suggeststhat Carrion was told to get up. When hedid so, the deputy fired, striking Carrionthree times. Carrion will recover. The videotape recorded Carrion’s pre-shooting comments, that he was “on the deputy’s side”, expletives shouted by the deputy at Carrion, and Carrion’s protests after he was shot, that he was complying with the deputies.

Deputies were trying to stop the Corvette for speeding. Its driver has an extensive driving record. Neither he nor Carrion were armed or wanted.

The officer, Deputy Ivory Webb, was charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter, a felony, and is awaiting trial.

“Contagion” shootings

Riverside PD shootingof Tyisha Miller

In December 1998 four RiversidePD officers responded to a citizen indistress call. They found a black19-year old woman in the driver’s seatof a parked car, foaming at the mouthand apparently unconscious. A handgun was in her lap.

The car was locked and the officers couldn’t get the woman to respond so they decided to break in. As they tried the woman suddenly woke up. One or more officers thought that she went for her gun and fired. So did the others. In all they fired 24 rounds, with half hitting the woman, who was instantly killed.

The shooting provoked great anger. The four officers were fired along with their Sergeant, who made inappropriate comments about black persons.

The D.A. refused to prosecute. The California Atty. General had Riverside PD placed under court supervision to improve training, tactics and equipment. Steps were taken to improve community relations. A new chief was hired.

Each officer sued. Three were reinstated and given disability retirements. The other two, both probationers, were not reinstated.

L.A. County Sheriff’sDept., Compton

On May 9, 2005 LASD deputiesapproached the victim’s vehiclewhile investigating a shots fired call.

The victim, a multi-convicted felon who was unarmed but on drugs, panicked and led officers on a slow-speed chase through a residential area of Compton.

His path blocked, the victim tried to drive around a police car while a dozen deputies approach on foot. They opened fire -- each deputy said he was protecting another from being potentially run down.

Ten deputies fired a total of one-hundred twenty shots were fired by ten deputies. Nine struck the victim. Sixty-six struck his vehicle. Eleven hit other deputies’ vehicles. Eleven struck residences.

Sheriff Baca disciplined the deputies for their uncontrolled fire. A civil jury awarded the victim $1,326,468 for excessive force.

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”?