Journal: What Would You Do? The Facts Change/Student Replies/Professor
Success50
WK4READINGMATERIALONLY1.pdf
p.166
8 Police Discretion and Its Control
Michael Matthews–Police Images/Alamy Stock Photo
Media Library
CHAPTER 8 Media Library
P R E M I U M V I D E OP R E M I U M V I D E O
S AG E N E W S C L I PS AG E N E W S C L I P
Missouri – Ferguson Response
New Jersey – Newark Police De- partment
C A R E E R V I D E OC A R E E R V I D E O
A Police Department’s Experience with the Use of Discretion and Me- dia Relations
Division Chief
O P E N AC C E S S V I D E OO P E N AC C E S S V I D E O
‘Ferguson Effect’? Chicago Police Re lease Video of Beaten Officer Who Didn’t Pull Weapon
LAPD Outfits Every Officer with Bo dy Cameras
AU D I OAU D I O
Police in Other Communities are Co nsumed by Ferguson
Police Departments Issuing Body C ameras Discover Drawbacks
W E BW E B
Police Officers’ Decision Making an d Discretion: Forming Suspicion and Making a Stop
The Ferguson Effect
J O U R N A LJ O U R N A L
Officer Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Before and After De-
ployment: A Study of Three De- partments
Public Perceptions of the Justifia- bility of Police Shootings: The Role of Body Cameras in a Pre- and Post- Ferguson Experiment
p.167
Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be able to:
• Discuss the meaning of police discretion, why it is necessary, and why it needs to be controlled
• Identify the factors that have been shown by research studies to strongly and consistently influence the decisions of officers
• Propose how discretion may best be controlled
• Discuss the limitations of organizational rules and policies in controlling the discretion of officers
• Describe the limitations of trying to control police discretion by enhancing the professional judgment of officers
• Explain how body-worn cameras might serve to control the discretion of
officers
• Discuss the importance of ethical conduct in policing and the limitations of ethics training in police departments today
• Evaluate how departmental values can affect the use of police discretion
Fact or Fiction
To assess your knowledge of police discretion prior to reading this chapter, identify each of the following statements as fact or fiction. (See page 190 at the end of this chapter for answers.)
1. Police discretion is problematic and efforts should be made to eliminate it.
2. Police discretion and selective enforcement of the law are completely different things.
3. A bad decision results in a bad outcome and/or is a decision that was made poorly.
4. The research is clear: If an officer has a college education, that officer is much more likely to make good decisions.
5. Most studies show that race has an impact on officers’ arrest decisions.
6. Organizational culture has a major impact on officers’ decisions and behaviors.
P
7. Policies of police organizations are often vague, thus officers are still required to use discretion.
8. Body-worn cameras can eliminate police discretion.
9. Ethics training seminars have been shown to be effective in controlling officers’ discretion.
10. For ethics to have any chance to impact the integrity of a police department, the department first needs to specify the values by which its members should operate.
erhaps no issue relating to the police has received as much attention as discretion. This chapter
discusses the importance and necessity of police discretion, the factors that may influence the discretionary decisions of officers, and how and why discretion should be controlled, focusing in particular on the role of departmental policy and ethical standards of conduct.
Discretion De!ned
Discretion exists when a person makes decisions based on his or her own judgment. In contrast, when a person is following directions, that person is not making discretionary decisions; he or she is just following a prescribed course of action. Police officers seldom have specific
directions to follow when doing their work. Rather, they are required to use their judgment to figure things out on a constant basis, even when it comes to law enforcement situations. The police are not expected to enforce every single infraction of the law. Using their discretion officers decide what laws will be enforced, on what occasions those laws will be enforced, against whom they will be enforced, and how they will be enforced. In essence, when police officers use discretion, they selectively enforce the law.
p.168
Police Spotlight: Ethics, Policy, and Discretion
“The values and ethics of the agency will guide officers in their decision- making process; they cannot simply rely on rules and policy to act in encounters with the public. Good policing is more than just complying with the law. Sometimes actions are perfectly permitted by policy, but that does not always mean an officer
should take those actions.”1
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : President’s Task Force on 21st
Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the
President’s Task Force on 21st Century
Policing. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services.
OPEN ACCESS VIDEO ‘Ferguson Effect’? Chicago Police Release Video of Beaten Officer Who Didn’t Pull Weapon CLICK TO SHOW
DISCRETION ABOUT WHAT?
Common circumstances in which patrol officers must use discretion include the following:
• Deciding whether or not to make a traffic stop and whether to warn or cite the motorist
• Deciding whether or not to stop and question a suspicious subject on the sidewalk
• Deciding where to patrol
• Deciding whether or not to pursue a fleeing suspect
• Deciding whether or not to make an arrest, particularly for a minor offense
• Deciding whether or not to use force against a resisting subject and how much and what kind of force to use
Patrol officers are not the only ones who use discretion on the job. Detectives use
©iStockphoto.com/kali9
PHOTO 8.1 Police officers frequently use discretion when performing their work; this need can arise in routine situations, such as traffic stops, and in extraordinary circumstances, such as incidents that may involve the use of force.
discretion in the following situations:
• Deciding what actions should be taken in a criminal investigation
• Deciding how much time and effort should be spent investigating a particular crime
• Deciding whether or not to seek a warrant to conduct a search
• Deciding whether to interrogate a possible suspect in the case and what tactics to use in the interrogation
Police supervisors and administrators use discretion in the following circumstances:
• Deciding who should be hired as a police officer
p.169
• Deciding whether or not to discipline or terminate a poorly performing police officer or other employee
• Deciding whether or not to create or revise policies of the department
• Deciding what priorities to give to legal infractions
• Deciding how the departmental budget should be allocated
The Anatomy of a Decision
Before going any further, let’s be clear about what constitutes a decision. A decision is when a person chooses a particular option based on consideration of the information available. Without options there cannot be a decision. Without the consideration of information, the selection of an option is just random, like a coin flip. Decision making is a mental process, and the result of the decision is an action or a behavior. For example, you can choose to either attend class or not. This is a cognitive decision. You are likely to base this decision on information of various types and from different sources. If your decision is to attend class, then you engage in the behavior of actually going to class
(see Figure 8.1).
Rightfully so or not, a good or bad decision is often determined by its outcome; bad decisions have bad outcomes, good decisions have good outcomes. However, seldom is the outcome of a decision known at the time the decision is made, although a particular result might be reasonably expected. Therefore, it is only after a decision is made that a person can tell with certainty if it was good or bad. For example, skipping class may turn out to be a bad decision because you missed a surprise quiz. A good or bad decision may also be determined by how that decision was made, especially what information was considered when making it. For example, your decision to skip class could be considered a bad one because you did not consider the professor’s attendance policy or that you might be having a quiz.
FIGURE FIGURE 8.18.1 The Anatomy of a Decision
p.170
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH POLICE DISCRETION
To develop an understanding of police discretionary decision making, it is important to appreciate its significance and potential problems. There are many issues to consider—seven to be exact. First, police discretion is an important issue because it can affect citizens in extremely significant ways. For example, when a police officer makes a decision, a citizen might get a ticket or be arrested. An arrest may have extraordinary effects on a person’s life—on his or her employment, marriage, or child custody, to name a few. In some circumstances police discretion can mean life or death for a citizen. As
discussed in Chapter 1, the police are inherently controversial. Fundamentally, this is because of the critical discretionary decisions officers have the authority to make. The decisions officers make are usually to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.
CAREER VIDEO A Police Department’s Experience with the Use of Discretion and Me dia Relations
Second, whenever a decision is made by a police officer, it could turn out to have a bad outcome and therefore be judged a bad decision. Police officers make decisions all day long. And, as noted above, bad outcomes in policing can be devastating for citizens and officers. For example, say a police officer decides not to make an arrest when a husband and wife are arguing, and later the husband kills the wife. Or an officer decides not to stop a jaywalker, and later that pedestrian is
struck and killed by a car. In some cases an officer uses justifiable force, but bad outcomes result (Exhibit 8.1). These decisions may have had justifiable reasons and been properly made, but they could still result in bad outcomes. This is in spite of the fact that sometimes the outcomes are beyond the control of officers.
Third, police officers may make bad decisions because of the way the decision was made, or because of the information that was considered when making the decision. A bad decision may be made due to lack of training, because the officer did not understand departmental policy, or simply as a result of an error in judgment. For example, a police officer could misinterpret a threat posed by a subject and use more force than necessary. In such a case, the bad decision might not be malicious in nature. Without malicious intent the action might not be considered criminal, but that does not necessarily make the decision any less bad in terms of the harm done. A bad decision could also be made with malicious intent. A police officer may deliberately treat people with certain characteristics more harshly than others. It would be naïve to ignore this possibility. The fact is some people are racist and/or sexist, and unfortunately these individuals may find their way into the police occupation. When officers’ decisions are based on these biases, it constitutes a major problem.
Fourth, good decisions made by officers are sometimes incorrectly interpreted by citizens as being improper, biased, or just plain bad. For example, if you get stopped and ticketed for speeding, you may believe you received the ticket because you are black or white, young or old, male or female, etc. In actuality you received the ticket simply because the officer saw you speeding and it is his or her job to enforce speeding laws. Or maybe you did receive the ticket because you are black or white, young or old, male or female. Sometimes it is difficult to determine the reason for an officer’s decision and whether it was properly made or based on ill-will. If citizens are treated unfairly—or even just perceive unfair treatment—it can have negative effects on police-citizen relations and on the community more generally. This important issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13.
p.171
Exhibit 8.1
The Ferguson Effect, Discretion, and Crime
In 2014 a white officer from the Ferguson (Missouri) Police Department, Darren Wilson, shot
AP Photo/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, J.B. Forb
es
PHOTO 8.2 Some of the destruction caused by rioters in the aftermath of the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Claims about the so-called Ferguson effect are not supported by research on the issue.
and killed an unarmed eighteen- year-old African American man named Michael Brown. The questionable circumstances of the shooting led to major disturbances and rioting in Ferguson and other U.S. cities. The incident gave birth to the Black Lives Matter movement and the slogan “Hands up, don’t shoot.” After an extensive investigation, a grand jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson on criminal charges, and more rioting occurred in the city. A later federal investigation of the incident concluded that Officer Wilson acted
in self-defense and he was again cleared of wrongdoing. Months after the incident, Wilson resigned from the Ferguson police force, and a new chief of police was appointed to the department. Lawsuits against the officer and the police department have been filed. Police officers in Ferguson and other cities have been attacked, shot, and killed in retaliation. President Barack Obama commissioned a task force to study
policing2 (see Police Spotlight feature), and loud calls for police reform, greater transparency, and the increased use of body-worn cameras continue to this day.
It has been argued that the public outcry over Ferguson and similar incidents has caused police officers to enforce the law less frequently— to essentially avoid those situations where force may need to be used. It has also been suggested that this lower level of law enforcement has led to an increase in crime and criminal behavior. This reasoning has been referred to as the Ferguson ef fect. To date, however, there is no solid research evidence that either of these arguments is valid on an ongoing, widespread, or large-scale basis.
Fifth, many decisions of patrol officers
occur in low-visibility situations, or those in which not many people can actually see what decisions were made. In many situations it is only the affected citizen(s) who sees the decisions of the responding officer or officers. Supervisors may not even see these decisions. Research has shown that in half of all encounters with citizens, only one officer
was present,3 and many of these encounters occurred in private places. This can create challenges when trying to control police discretion. Of course, an important exception to the low visibility of police discretion is when officer actions (decisions) are on video and made available for citizens to see.
Sixth, most often officers’ decisions are made on the spot without the benefit of time to collect information or to consider all the options available and all the potential consequences of the decision. This can contribute to bad decisions being made. Most police discretionary decisions need to be made immediately, not later in the day or next week. The speeding car, the dog that is about to attack, and the subject pointing the gun all need to be stopped now. Time spent collecting information and carefully considering that information prior to making a decision is a luxury seldom afforded to police officers. To the extent that patrol officers’ decisions are subjected to review and analysis, it is usually only after the decision has already
been made.
p.172
Finally, while police managers and executives also have discretion, their discretion is quite different than that used by patrol officers. The decisions of police executives are more likely to affect citizens in indirect sorts of ways, and those decisions are often subject to review and analysis prior to being made. In this sense, from the perspective of citizens, the decisions of police executives may be less problematic than those of officers; they may still be controversial and concerning, but not to the same extent as the decisions made by officers on the streets.
THE NECESSITY OF DISCRETION
Given the potential difficulties associated with police discretion, you might think the best solution is to eliminate it. However, this is not possible for several reasons. Discretion is necessary because of limited resources. Because of time and money constraints, police officers have to pick and choose the situations in which they enforce the law. For example, the jaywalker has to be ignored so the speeder can be ticketed. Or the speeder may have to be ignored so the drunk driver can be arrested. The burglary investigation has to be set aside so the homicide can be investigated. Even in situations where
discretionary decisions can be automated through technology, this issue is still present. For example, in instances where the police use automated traffic enforcement cameras to detect and cite motor vehicle violations, there are still limited resources for the deployment of those cameras. The cameras simply cannot be installed everywhere.
Discretion is also necessary because we believe that the police should be flexible when enforcing the law: All people should be treated equally, and yet an individual’s circumstances and motivations may reasonably be considered when making decisions. For example, most of us would probably agree that the physician who is speeding to the hospital to save someone’s life should probably be treated differently than the teenager who is speeding to impress his friends. The mentally ill offender should probably be treated differently than other offenders. If there was no discretion, everyone would be treated the same at all times. Discretion allows the police to provide appropriate responses to different people in different circumstances.
Finally, police officers are required to make so many complex decisions that it would be impossible to program every one of those decisions with specific instructions. It is not practical to think that the best decision
Bob Daemmrich/Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 8.3 Police discretion means the police selectively enforce the law. Discretion is necessary because of limited police resources and the complexity of many police tasks. In addition, individuals may require different treatment by the police given their circumstances.
in every possible situation could be dictated with specific rules. Further, even if certain discretionary decisions could be eliminated, other decisions would then be created. For example, as noted earlier, with automated traffic enforcement cameras some discretion is eliminated, such as the decision of which motorists should be stopped and cited, but other decisions are created, such as determining where the cameras should be placed and what types of traffic infractions should be cited. It is clear that the elimination of police discretion is not practical, feasible, or even possible.
p.173
Factors That In"uence the Discretion of Police Of!cers
The difference between a good and bad decision depends at least partly on the factors (or information) that form the basis of the decision. In particular, selective enforcement of the law (i.e., police discretion) is not a problem as long as all groups of people have equal protection under the law, and from the law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Considerable research has examined the factors that influence police decisions, and many conflicting findings have been the result. Part of the reason for the conflict is the studies were conducted at different times and in different places. Not all police departments operate in the same manner and have the same priorities and policies, and not all communities are the same in terms of their size and demographic composition. Therefore, conflicting research findings should not be surprising. Also, there is likely a complex interplay among many of the identified factors. One might expect certain factors to have an impact on officers’ decisions in some situations but not others. Listed below are the major groups of factors that have been considered when trying to explain police decision making.
WEB Police Officers’ Decision Making a nd Discretion: Forming Suspicion and Making a Stop CLICK TO SHOW
• Officer characteristics
• Situational factors, which include:
○ Suspect characteristics ○ Victim characteristics ○ Offense characteristics ○ Neighborhood characteristics
• Organizational factors, which include:
○ Organizational culture ○ Training and supervision ○ Standard operating policies (SOPs)
• Legal factors
• Community and political factors
Figure 8.2 illustrates the groups of factors that may influence the decisions of police officers.
OFFICER CHARACTERISTICS
Officer characteristics include sex, race, ethnicity, age, length of service, educational level, and attitudes. One might reasonably expect the characteristics of officers to make a difference in the decisions they make; however, perhaps surprisingly, research has generally shown officers’ characteristics have minimal
effects on their discretionary decisions.4
When exceptions to this are noted, they generally have to do with the sex and age of officers: Female officers tend to make fewer arrests and use force (or different
types of force) less often5 than male officers, and younger officers tend to make more arrests than older officers. One study found female officers were less likely to make arrests in the presence of fellow officers but more likely to make arrests
when being observed by supervisors.6
Although there are many good arguments in support of college education for police officers, research has produced inconsistent findings regarding the effects of higher education on officer decision
making and behavior.7 (See Research Spotlight feature.) Characteristics such as experience on the job and gender may
affect the attitudes of officers;8 however, attitudes seldom influence officers’
decision-making behaviors.9 This may be due to difficulties in accurately measuring officers’ attitudes (and behaviors, for that matter) and/or that other factors (e.g., policies, expectations of coworkers) are more important and override the influence of officer attitudes. Interestingly, though, research has shown that officers bring certain styles or role orientations to their job. These styles are at least somewhat based on officers’ characteristics and
personalities.10
p.174
FIGURE FIGURE 8.28.2 Factors That May Influence Police Discretion
RACE AND OTHER SUSPECT CHARACTERISTICS
Do police officers consider the demographic characteristics of suspects when making decisions about them? Particularly relevant here is the potential influence of a suspect’s race, gender, age, and ethnicity on arrest decisions. A 2014 meta-analysis of forty-two studies examining these variables concluded that
WEB The Ferguson Effect CLICK TO SHOW
black individuals, males, and Hispanic individuals are significantly more likely to be arrested. For race and gender (not ethnicity) this effect persists regardless of whether or not a study accounts for the seriousness of the offense, the amount of evidence, whether a suspect was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, whether the suspect used a weapon, the demeanor of the suspect, and/or whether the suspect committed a crime in front of the officer during the encounter. . . . These findings are relatively consistent regardless of when and where the
study takes place.14
AUDIO Police in Other Communities are Consumed by Ferguson CLICK TO SHOW
p.175
RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT
The Effects of HigherThe Effects of Higher Education on PoliceEducation on Police BehaviorBehavior
A recent study examined the relationship between the educational level of officers and three outcomes: propensity to arrest, to search, and to
use force.11 The data used in the analyses were collected as part of a larger study on police-citizen interactions in Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, known as the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN). Researchers rode with officers on patrol and analyzed 3,356 encounters between officers and suspects. The researchers were interested in those encounters in which arrests were made, searches were conducted, or force was used by officers. Information on officers’ education and other characteristics was obtained from interviews with the officers. The study found that (1) officer education had no influence on the probability of an arrest occurring in an encounter, (2) the educational level of the officer did not affect the likelihood of a search being conducted in an encounter, and (3) officers with some college or a four- year degree were less likely to use force compared to officers without college educations. However, the authors concluded that the study was “not capable of providing a satisfactory answer as to how and why education may or may not
A Question to Consider 8.1
Police Behavior and Higher Education
The study highlighted in the Research
Spotlight13 found the educational level of an officer did not affect the officer’s likelihood of making arrests or conducting searches, but it did affect the likelihood of the officer using force on citizens. Why do you think this is the case? What other behaviors or decisions do you think officer educational level might reasonably affect? Why?
matter.”12
However, the analyses showed that the race of the suspect was not a significant predictor of whether or not the suspect was arrested in domestic violence situations: Black and white suspects were equally likely to be arrested in these situations. This finding is interesting because the decision options for officers in domestic violence incidents are limited; often officers are required to make an arrest.
Another study, published in 2011, took a similar approach and analyzed forty research reports that examined the effects
of suspect race on the probability of arrest. The study also showed “with strong consistency that minority suspects are more likely to be arrested than white
suspects.”15 Indeed, most, but not all, studies of this issue have found evidence of
increased enforcement against blacks.16
This has led to, among other things, use of the phrase “driving while black” to describe the racial profiling of African American motorists. To be clear, however, these patterns of decision making do not necessarily mean police officers are racist or sexist; the reason for these patterns could not be specified by the research. In addition, even if racism or sexism do account for these findings, that of course does not mean all officers are so biased. The issue of suspect race and police use of force is discussed in detail in Chapter 11.
Another suspect characteristic that has consistently been shown to influence police decision making is the demeanor of the suspect; in particular, the degree of respect shown to the officer by the suspect. Informally, suspect demeanor is understood among police officers to be an important issue in how they treat suspects. In fact, some police officers have spoken of “POPO” (“pissing off a police officer”) or “disturbing the police” (instead of “disturbing the peace”) as a factor to consider in arrest decisions. Police officers observed and interviewed by Professor John Van Maanen identified some citizens
Mike Simons/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
PHOTO 8.4 Most studies show minority suspects are more likely to be arrested than white suspects even when the seriousness of the offense, the amount of evidence, and
as “assholes”—people who argue or do not
cooperate with the police.17 Research shows suspects who are defiant, uncooperative, rude, or disrespectful are much more likely to be arrested by the police or to have force used upon them
regardless of other factors,18 except for
mental disorders.19 Research has also shown black subjects are more likely to be viewed by white and black officers as disrespectful, noncompliant, and/or
resistant.20 The influence of respect on police decisions is not limited only to suspects but also to citizens more generally: Police officers are more likely to comply with citizen requests if citizens are
respectful of the police.21
p.176
other factors are taken into account.
VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS
When victim characteristics have an effect on police decision making, it is generally in certain situations or with certain types of crimes. In particular, when victims do not cooperate with the police, when they do not wish the police to continue an investigation, or when they do not want to pursue charges against the offender, the police are less likely to continue an
investigation22 or make an arrest.23 An important exception to this is the more serious the crime, the more likely the police are to take action regardless of victim wishes. This is also the case with domestic violence incidents. In addition, victim credibility or believability may have an effect on police decision making, although this may have more to do with the victim’s account of the crime than his or her characteristics. In essence, if there are questions about the truthfulness or credibility of a victim, the police are less
likely to pursue an investigation.24
OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS
The seriousness of the crime is a major factor in the decision making of officers. Regardless of any other factors, the more serious the crime, the more likely the
police are to make an arrest.25 However, it should be understood that seriousness is a
relative concept. What is a serious offense in one city may not be so serious in another. Seriousness is typically defined in terms of injury or the potential for injury to the victim, the amount of property loss associated with the crime, or more generally the amount of harm that results (or may result) from the offense. In many instances the seriousness of the offense can outweigh all other factors. For example, while being polite and respectful to a police officer during a traffic stop for an illegal lane change may get you a warning, being polite and respectful when stopped for going thirty miles an hour over the speed limit will probably still yield a ticket. The seriousness of the offense outweighs respect in the decision-making process.
The amount of evidence associated with the offense is also a major factor in the
decision making of officers.26 With stronger evidence that an offense actually occurred and a particular person committed that offense comes a greater likelihood of an arrest or other formal action, such as the issuance of a citation. This logic makes sense; evidence is needed to establish probable cause, and probable cause is necessary for an arrest to be made.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
The neighborhood area, or beat, in which
officers work has also been shown to influence the actions of officers. Arrests, uses of force, traffic stops, traffic citations, and SQFs are all more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods compared to
higher-income areas.27 Some offenses viewed as normal or not particularly serious in some areas are less likely to get police attention than those same offenses
might in other areas.28 For example, the police may ignore the presence of panhandlers in some areas of a city but not others.
SAGE NEWS CLIP Missouri – Ferguson Respons e
p.177
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Many studies have found the culture of the police organization (and occupation) has a substantial impact on the decision-making
©iStockphoto.com/Nuli_k
PHOTO 8.5 Police discretion and the actions of officers may vary based on neighborhood characteristics.
behavior of officers,29 but some officers adhere to, and are part of, this culture
more than others.30 The organizational c ulture refers to the “accepted practices, rules, and principles of conduct that are
situationally applied.”31 It consists of a network of shared norms, values, attitudes, and expectations. These factors can determine everything from what is considered a good joke to the value of various police tasks. The violation of these unwritten rules carries informal and unofficial sanctions, such as being the subject of ridicule or receiving timely backup when requested. The culture of a police organization—or any agency, for that matter—cannot be learned from a book; it is learned through experiencing the organization and the work of its members.
Several excellent and influential studies have attempted to document the culture of
the police.32 For instance, Elizabeth Reuss- Ianni developed a list of cultural “rules” that govern police officers’ conduct, based on research she conducted in the New York City Police Department. These rules include the following:
• Watch out for your partner first and then the rest of the guys working the shift.
• Don’t give up on another cop.
• Show balls (courage).
• Be aggressive when you have to, but don’t be too eager.
• Don’t get involved in anything in another guy’s sector (beat area).
• Hold up your end of the work.
• If you get caught off base (being somewhere where you are not supposed to be), don’t implicate anyone else.
• Make sure other officers (but not supervisors or administrators) know if another cop is dangerous or crazy.
• Don’t trust a new guy until you have checked him out.
• Don’t tell anybody more than they have to know—it could be bad for you and it could be bad for them.
• Don’t talk too much or too little.
• Protect your ass.
• Don’t make waves.
• Don’t give supervisors too much activity.
• Know your bosses.
• Don’t do the bosses’ work for them.
• Don’t trust bosses to look out for your
interests.33
p.178
Other scholars have focused on the critical role of danger and suspicion in the police
culture.34 It has been argued that these factors may affect the personality of police officers or the way they think and behave
more generally.35 The potential for danger is always present in police work; it is a defining feature of the job. Suspicion then becomes a survival skill for officers—a way of recognizing danger. Suspicion keeps police officers focused on detecting danger before it is too late. According to Jerome Skolnick, police officers come to identify sy mbolic assailants (people who may pose a danger) to help manage the potential for danger, and they do so with limited information. For example, when an officer sees a subject holding the waistband of his pants, the officer expects this means the subject is armed. Or the officer believes that the teenagers loitering at a bus stop
are not there to get on a bus but to rob someone or sell drugs.
Suspicion may also manifest itself in another way: Police officers tend to become suspicious of the motives and intentions of citizens. Given how controversial the police can be and the unique work demands of the occupation, officers learn their actions and responsibilities can easily be misunderstood by citizens. This encourages officers not to share details of their work, such as the methods used to try to control crime. The police have been known to develop an “us versus them” mentality and a so-called code of silence. When this code keeps officers from reporting on the misconduct of other officers, it becomes a barrier to the ethical operation of police departments and has serious implications for the control of police corruption. When it prevents police departments from sharing information with the community or seeking community input, it can create more distrust and misunderstanding on the part of community members. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 12.
TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs)
Effective management of police officers’ discretion requires that officers are
accountable to the official policies and procedures of the organization, which are also known as standard operating proce dures (SOPs). Policies and formal rules of police departments are supported by training and enforced by supervision, and violation of rules should lead to formal sanctions. Not surprisingly, then, many studies have shown police officer discretion is influenced by official departmental policies. For example, research has shown the implementation of a more restrictive shooting policy can
reduce firearm discharges,36 a restrictive high-speed pursuit policy can reduce the
frequency of pursuits,37 officers who work in agencies with more restrictive use of force policies use force less often than officers who work in agencies with more
permissive policies,38 and mandatory arrest policies can lead to more domestic
violence arrests.39
LEGAL FACTORS
The law shapes what the police do and how they do it. As we discuss in Chapter 9, there are many legal rules that govern how the police can conduct their duties. For example, the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requires police officers to inform suspects of their Miranda rights when in custody and prior to questioning. Terry v. Ohio (1968) allows the police to stop and frisk
subjects only when an officer has reasonable suspicion a subject is engaged in illegal conduct. Arizona v. Gant (2009) allows the police to search an arrested individual’s vehicle only if the individual could access the vehicle at the time of the search or if it is reasonable to expect the vehicle contains evidence of the offense. Perhaps the best example of how the law can affect police behavior is the Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). This decision prohibits police use of deadly force against fleeing suspects, including felons, unless there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat to officers or others. After this decision was incorporated into police department policy, it was found that shootings of fleeing suspects in Memphis,
Tennessee, were reduced to zero.40
p.179
COMMUNITY AND POLITICAL FACTORS
One of the primary reasons why every city has its own police department is so citizens can have more direct input into how their department operates. Citizens elect community leaders; community leaders appoint police officials. Thus, police leaders and departments should ideally be more responsive to the needs and priorities of citizens. This can lead to police departments being more lenient with the
enforcement of some offenses than others. Some police departments are most oriented toward service, some toward order maintenance, and some toward law enforcement. The orientation of the police should relate directly to the priorities and desires of community members. In this way community and political factors can influence the discretionary decisions of officers. Although this may seem reasonable, there is little research that has actually linked particular decisions of officers with community and political
factors.41
How Is Police Discretion Best Controlled?
As discussed earlier, it is not realistic or desirable to eliminate police discretion. Many of the decisions of police officers are very complex, there are too few resources to enforce all the laws all the time, and it is considered desirable for officers to be flexible in their decision making because what is appropriate treatment for one person may not be for another. Each of these factors makes the elimination of discretion not practical. Yet because of the potential to base decisions on unwarranted factors (e.g., subject race or gender) or to otherwise make bad decisions, there is a need to guide and control police discretion.
SAGE NEWS CLIP New Jersey – Newark Police D epartment
To understand the need to control police discretion is one thing; to actually do it is another. This has been a management challenge since police departments were first created and the first officers walked their beats. We will now discuss the latest thinking on how best to control the discretion of officers. These methods are not an absolute solution, but they represent the most effective options available today. They include (1) the implementation of organizational rules and policy (SOPs), combined with training and effective supervision; (2) the enhancement of officers’ professional judgment through personnel selection; (3) providing transparency in police operations; and (4) the incorporation of ethical standards into the culture of policing and police decision making.
ORGANIZATIONAL RULES AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
As noted, many studies have shown organizational policies affect the decision making of officers. It logically follows then that organizational policies should be used to control police discretion. Written policies can identify the actions that must be taken in certain situations, the actions that should not be taken in certain situations, and/or the factors officers should consider when making decisions in certain situations. Essentially, policies identify how a police department expects its officers to act in certain situations. As explained by the American Bar Association,
p.180
Police discretion can best be structured and controlled through the process of administrative rule making by police agencies. Police administrators should, therefore, give the highest priority to the formulation of administrative rules governing the exercise of discretion, particularly in the areas of selective enforcement, investigative techniques, and
enforcement methods.42
There are many examples of policy changes affecting officers’ behaviors. For
example, as already discussed, policies that restrict deadly force have been shown to reduce the frequency by which officers use such force, and policies that restrict high- speed pursuits have cut down on such pursuits.
Over the years most police departments have developed policies that address a wide range of officers’ decisions. There are rules about evidence collection, searches of subjects, uniforms and equipment, incident report writing, overtime, documenting injuries on the job, and operating departmental vehicles. It is fair to say that in an attempt to control police discretion, departments today have become very rule-oriented. An officer who was interviewed by Professor Peter Manning provided a critical view to the process of rulemaking in his department:
140 years of fuckups. Every time something goes wrong, they make a rule about it. All the directions in the force flow from someone’s mistake. You can’t go eight hours on the job without breaking the disciplinary code. . . . But no one cares until
something goes wrong.43
One must ask, however, if policies are so encompassing and effective at controlling police decisions, why are there still circumstances in which police officers misuse their discretion? This is a good
question, and there are several possible explanations. First, administrative rules have limitations. Many of the most important policies of police departments do not provide specific direction to officers; officers are still required to make judgments, often under conditions of limited time and information. For example, part of the pursuit policy of the Seattle Police Department states that “officers will cease pursuit when the risk of the pursuit outweighs the danger to the public if the
suspect is not captured.”44 What does that mean? How exactly is the “risk of the pursuit” measured in comparison to the “danger to the public?” Clearly, even with a policy, officers must still use discretion when deciding to stop or continue a pursuit.
As another example, the use of force policy of the Seattle Police Department provides some direction regarding when use of force is not allowed (Exhibit 8.2), but much of the policy consists of statements that require officers to use discretion to determine when force should be used (Ex- hibit 8.3).
It is important to realize that if policies are not supported by training, they are less likely to successfully control police discretion. Training can provide an interpretation of a department’s policy and serve as a basis on which police officers can model desired actions while
performing their job duties. However, if a policy is vague, specific direction through training will likely be difficult.
Finally, if administrative rules are not supported with supervision and enforcement, they are less likely to control police discretion. The supervision and direction provided by sergeants, who are officers’ first-line supervisors, is particularly critical. However, once again, if a policy is vague, enforcement will be difficult as conflicting interpretations of the policy may exist. In addition, sergeants are only one rank removed from patrol officers and therefore tend to have closer and stronger relationships with officers than mid- or high-level managers, such as lieutenants and captains. Their supervisory capacity may be diminished as a result. Due to the limitations of policies, training, and supervision, the challenge is to develop ways by which these factors can be made more effective in guiding police discretion.
p.181
Exhibit 8.2
Seattle Police Department Use of Force Policy: When Force Is Not Allowed
An officer may n o tn o t use physical force:
* To punish or retaliate.
* Against individuals who only verbally confront them unless the vocalization impedes a legitimate law enforcement function.
* On restrained subjects (e.g., including handcuffed or contained in a police vehicle) except in exceptional circumstances when the subject’s actions must be immediately stopped to prevent injury, or escape, or destruction of property. All such force shall be closely and critically reviewed. Subjects who are refusing to get out of a department vehicle may be removed from the vehicle after reasonable attempts to gain voluntary compliance have failed, subject to supervisor approval.
* To stop a subject from swallowing a substance that is already in their mouth: Officers may use reasonable force, not including hands to the neck or
insertion of any objects or hands into a subject’s mouth, to prevent a suspect from putting a substance in their mouth.
In the event that a suspect swallows a harmful substance, officers shall summon medical assistance.
* To extract a substance or item from inside the body of a
suspect without a warrant.45
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Seattle Police Department website
(http://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-
8).
Exhibit 8.3
Seattle Police Department Use of Force Policy: When Force Is Allowed
1. Use of Force: When Authorized
An officer shall use only the force reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to effectively bring an incident or person under control, while protecting the lives of the officer or others.
In other words, officers shall only use objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation, when necessary, to achieve a law- enforcement objective. The force used must comply with federal and state law and Seattle Police Department policies, training, and rules for specific instruments and devices. Once it is safe to do so and the threat is contained, the force must stop.
When determining if the force was objectively reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and therefore authorized, the following guidelines will be applied:
R e a s o n a b l eR e a s o n a b l e: The reasonableness of a particular use of force is based on the totality of circumstances known by the officer at the time of the use of force and weighs the actions of the officer against the rights of the subject, in light of the circumstances surrounding the event. It must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Factors to be considered in determining the objective reasonableness of force include, but are not limited to:
• The seriousness of the crime or suspected offense;
• The level of threat or resistance presented by the subject;
• Whether the subject was posing an immediate threat to officers or a danger to the community;
p.182
• The potential for injury to citizens, officers or subjects;
• The risk or apparent attempt by the subject to escape;
• The conduct of the subject being confronted (as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time);
• The time available to an officer to make a decision;
• The availability of other resources;
• The training and experience of the officer;
• The proximity or access of weapons to the subject;
• Officer versus subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/exhaustion and number of officers versus subjects
• The environmental factors
and/or other exigent circumstances; and
• Whether the subject has any physical disability.
The assessment of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving— about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
The reasonableness inquiry in an excessive-force case is an objective one: whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
N e c e s s a r yN e c e s s a r y: Officers will use physical force only when no reasonably effective alternative appears to exist, and only then to the degree which is reasonable to effect a lawful purpose.
P r o p o r t i o n a lP r o p o r t i o n a l: To be proportional, the level of force applied must reflect the totality of circumstances surrounding the situation at hand, including the nature and immediacy of any threats posed to officers and
others. Officers must rely on training, experience, and assessment of the situation to decide an appropriate level of force to be applied. Reasonable and sound judgment will dictate the force option to be employed. Proportional force does not require officers to use the same type or amount of force as the subject. The more immediate the threat and the more likely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the level of force that may be proportional, objectively reasonable, and
necessary to counter it.46
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Seattle Police Department website
(http://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-
8).
ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT THROUGH THE SELECTION OF OFFICERS
Officers with different traits and characteristics may bring different styles of police discretion to the job. If police leaders desire a particular style of conduct from officers, perhaps it would make sense to select candidates most likely to display that orientation. For example, if police leaders most desire a department of employees who act with integrity and in which ethical decision making prevails,
The Importance of Passion and Perspective for Police Of!cers
then the selection process should involve the identification of those applicants who have previously demonstrated in their lives high standards of character, integrity, and ethical conduct. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police training manual, “Past interests and activities of an applicant will often prove to be a far more accurate indicator of the values, attitudes, and overall character of the applicant than any psychological
screening test.”47 At the very least, if officer integrity is to be maximized, the background investigation of a candidate would seem to be one of the most important aspects of the selection process. As explained by the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department in its assessment of the LAPD,
p.183
GOOD POLICING
Not everyone has what it takes to be a good police officer, just like not everyone has what it takes to be a good student, a good painter, a good salesperson, a good garbage collector, or a good professor. Besides the skills necessary to perform the job well, police officers should have certain other qualities. Surprisingly, though, very little research has been
conducted on this issue. It has been argued that good police officers need two qualities: passion and
perspective.49 Passion refers to the desire to do a good job, to an enthusiasm for the job and everything it entails, and a particular understanding of the necessity of sometimes having to use coercive power. But passion has to be kept in check; that is the role of perspective. Perspective refers to an understanding of “the suffering of
each inhabitant of the earth”50 and the belief that “no individual is
worthless.”51 Perspective also entails a realistic understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the use of power and force to accomplish the goals of police work. Passion and perspective must be equally present for good police work to result.
The initial psychological evaluation is an ineffective predictor of an applicant’s tendencies toward violent behavior and the background investigation pays too little attention to a candidate’s history of violence. Experts agree that the best predictor of future behavior is previous behavior. Thus, the background investigation offers the best hope of screening out violence-prone
A Question to Consider 8.2
Personal Qualities of Police Officers
Along with passion and perspective, what other qualities would you argue are important for police officers to possess? Why?
applicants.48
Along this same line, reducing the frequency of use of force among officers was the major goal of leaders of the LAPD when it set ambitious goals of female officer recruitment in the 1990s. The idea was that female officers would be more likely to bring a “kinder and gentler” style to policing.
There are at least two problems with the selection of officers as a way to control police discretion. First, it is not entirely clear how or to what extent officer characteristics actually affect decisions. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say there are qualities that good police officers should possess (see Good Policing feature above). Second, police work can change a person’s behavior. Police officers may begin their careers well suited for the occupation, but the demands of the job may change the way they think, which could result in bad on-the-job decisions. As discussed in detail in Chapter 10, this
highlights the importance of monitoring officers’ job experiences and performance and developing programs to help officers deal with the psychological demands of the job.
POLICE DEPARTMENT TRANSPARENCY
The effective control of police discretion may be helped by departments taking steps to become more transparent in their operations. In large part this means departments share information with citizens and allow citizens to have input into how the departments operate. This is sometimes easier said than done as it requires the “code of secrecy” that may exist at the organizational level to be dissolved and a value of openness to be instituted in its place.
CAREER VIDEO Division Chief
Police Body-Worn Cameras
While some aspects of police operations should remain confidential, departments could reasonably share a great deal of information with citizens, including information about potentially controversial issues, such as use of force incidents and citizen complaints. Many police departments do provide such information. For example, in 2016 the San Jose (California) Police Department began releasing to the public department statistics on use of force. Chief of Police Eddie Garcia was quoted as saying, “We want to get ahead of the curve. . . . There’s more credibility with the community when
we do this outside of crisis.”52 Similarly, the Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Police Department, through its Fire and Police Commission, provides on its website reports detailing the nature and extent of police use of force incidents and citizen
satisfaction with the police.53 The Chicago Police Department has released information on over 28,000 complaints against its officers from 2011–2015, although it took a court order to make this
happen.54
p.184
TECHNOLOGY ON THE JOB
Technology can be used to contribute to the openness
and transparency of police departments. Of particular significance today is the use by officers of body-worn cameras. As discussed earlier in this chapter, police officers often use discretion in situations where no one besides the officer and the citizen see what actually transpired. Body-worn cameras have the potential to change that and to make police-citizen interactions visible to others, including the general public.
OPEN ACCESS VIDEO LAPD Outfits Every Officer with Body Cameras CLICK TO SHOW
JOURNAL Officer Perceptions of Body-W orn Cameras Before and After Deployment: A Study of Three Departments CLICK TO SHOW
Body-worn cameras are often deployed for the ultimate purpose of monitoring—and perhaps controlling —police discretion; however, ironically, the use of the cameras creates other discretionary issues for police officers, such as deciding when cameras should be on and when they should be off (Exhibit 8.4). Indeed, this issue is quickly becoming a major
REUTERS/Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 8.6 When the police share information with citizens, it may lead to citizens having more trust in the police and in increased police accountability.
factor in the use of these cameras. In addition, other technology is currently being developed to eliminate officers’ discretion as to when cameras should be operating, such as monitors that turn the camera on and off in response to an officer’s heart rate.
AUDIO Police Departments Issuing Body Cameras Discover Drawbacks CLICK TO SHOW
Citizens could also have a role in reviewing complaints against the police, as is the case in many departments that have civilian review boards, and departments could make information about their budgets
easily accessible to citizens. Police
departments could be more open to the media. They could develop partnerships with local universities for the purpose of conducting research on important issues, problems, and strategies of the police. They could allow student internships and ride-along programs. Each of these initiatives would essentially open police departments to the public, to the people the departments are supposed to serve and protect. If police leaders and officers knew their decisions and actions might be seen by outsiders, it might lead to more careful use of police discretion and contribute to greater accountability of officers to their communities.
CULTURAL VALUES AND ETHICAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Another method that may assist in the quest toward greater control of police discretion is a working understanding, appreciation, and implementation of ethics as a standard of conduct. Ideally, a commitment to ethical standards should provide officers with guidance in making difficult decisions in uncertain conditions.
JOURNAL Public Perceptions of the Justifia- bility of Police Shootings: The Role of Body Cameras in a Pre- and Post -Ferguson Experiment CLICK TO SHOW
p.185
Exhibit 8.4
Excerpts from the Chicago Police Department’s Body-Worn Camera Policy
Provided below are excerpts from the Chicago Police Department’s body-worn camera (BWC) policy, which relate to circumstances in which officers must and must not
activate the camera system.55
Ironically, body-worn cameras are designed to help monitor and control police discretion, but their use creates the need to address other discretionary decisions, such as when the cameras should be turned on and off.
Department members are permitted to record individuals:
1. if they are on the public way or in public view;
2. in private residences or in other places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and there is a lawful reason for the presence of law enforcement officers;
3. during routine calls for service.
Department members assigned a BWC will activate the system to event mode to record the entire incident for all:
1. routine calls for service;
2. investigatory stops;
3. traffic stops;
4. foot and vehicle pursuits;
5. emergency driving situations;
6. emergency vehicle responses to in-progress or just-occurred dispatches where fleeing suspects or vehicles may be captured on video leaving the crime scene;
7. high-risk situations, including search warrants;
8. situations that may enhance the probability of evidence-based prosecution;
NOTE:
If victims of incidents that are sensitive in nature request not to be recorded, the member will comply with the request and disengage the BWC.
9. Situations that the member, through training and experience,
believes to serve a proper police purpose, for example, recording the processing of an uncooperative arrestee.
NOTE:
Sworn members will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the provisions of this directive.
P r o h i b i t e d R e c o r d i n g sP r o h i b i t e d R e c o r d i n g s
The BWC will not be used to record:
1. in locations where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, such as dressing rooms or restrooms, unless required for capturing evidence.
2. sensitive exposures of private body parts, unless required for capturing evidence.
3. personal activities or other department members during routine, non-enforcement- related activities.
4. inside medical facilities, except when a situation arises that the member believes to serve a proper police purpose.
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : City of Chicago Police Department
website
(http://directives.chicagopolice.org/lt2015/data/a7a57b73-
14af4bb0-e1214-af4b-
b44b0d70f0964db3.html?ownapi=1).
Police officers’ conduct should be congruent with the law and it should follow departmental policy. In some instances departmental policy is based on law. As discussed earlier, however, the problem is that law and departmental policy may not provide sufficient clarity to be useful in guiding police decisions. The law is sometimes ambiguous. For example, pedestrian stops are to be based on reasonable suspicion, but what exactly constitutes reasonable suspicion? Similarly, policy is often ambiguous as well.
p.186
A Question of Ethics
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
In most police departments today, an understanding of the role of ethics is often limited to a discussion about the law enforcement code of ethics. The code of ethics of the Los Angeles Police Department reads as follows:
As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind —to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder, and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or
violence and never accepting gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession . . . law
enforcement.57
Based on this statement:
• What is your general impression of this code of ethics?
• If you were to summarize the code in three sentences or less, what would you say?
• What do you think is the main purpose of this code?
• Do you think this code actually serves this purpose? Explain.
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Los Angeles Police Department
website
(http://www.lapdonline.org/lapd_manual/code_of_ethics.htm).
Where there is ambiguity in the law and/or policy, ethical standards of conduct—
doing what is right—may fill the void. Ethical standards can also be a basis for formulating and enforcing policy. But there are at least two immediate and major problems with ethics in this regard: (1) What is “right” is not necessarily easily defined or prescribed, and (2) it is difficult to agree upon which ethical standards of conduct are proper and appropriate in different situations. Police leaders understand ethics should play an important role in guiding police discretion, but, probably for the two reasons identified above, most of them have hit a wall when it comes to figuring out what exactly should be done to make ethics more relevant in the decisions of officers. This was demonstrated in a survey of departments conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP).56 The survey found much concern about ethical issues in police work and about the need for ethics training in policing. In particular, respondents were asked to identify what they thought were the most important ethical issues in law enforcement today. A multitude of issues were identified, including the following:
• Cultural diversity/racism/sexism
• Corruption/gratuities
• Public trust
• Morals/personal values of officers/lack of values in new officers
• Honesty
• Abuse of force/abuse of authority
• Decision making
• Code of silence
• Off-duty issues/behavior
• Poor work ethic of new recruits
• Lack of a sense of responsibility
• Lack of role models
Respondents were also asked to provide a “working definition of ethics” used in their organization. Most simply provided the police department’s code of conduct or mission/vision statement (see A Question of Ethics feature).
To begin it must be understood that ethics is more than an understanding of a department’s code of ethics or the code of conduct. For ethics to become a basis of police action, efforts must be made far beyond putting words on paper or holding a training class or seminar. For ethics to impact decisions, police agencies must first establish an understanding among officers that displaying integrity and honesty and acting in a moral way is the way policing is conducted in that agency. Therefore, a police department needs to specify the values by which its members operate. For example, one police department identified the following eight essential values as being central to the operation of the
tom carter/Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 8.7 New police officers swear to uphold the code of ethics of their department.
organization:
p.187
1. Human Life: We value human life and dignity above all else.
2. Integrity: We believe integrity is the basis for human trust.
3. Laws and Constitution: We believe in the principles embodied in our Constitution. We recognize the authority of the federal, state, and local laws.
4. Excellence: We strive for personal and professional excellence.
5. Accountability: We are accountable to each other and to the citizens we serve who are the source of our authority.
6. Cooperation: We believe that
cooperation and team work will enable us to combine our diverse backgrounds, skills, and styles, to achieve common goals.
7. Problem-Solving: We are most effective when we help identify and solve community problems.
8. Ourselves: We are capable, caring people who are doing important and satisfying work for the citizens of
(the city).58
Each value was then defined further. For example, human life was broken down into the following:
• We give first priority to situations which threaten human life.
• We use force only when necessary.
• We treat all persons with courtesy and respect.
• We are compassionate and caring.59
The value statement of a department should not be limited to the thoughts and ideas of the police chief or his or her command staff. Rather, to the extent possible, it should represent the ideas and beliefs of the entire police department; this should provide more support and acceptance of the values as a basis for police conduct.
The department’s statement of values
should be the basis for everything the department and its officers do. It must become part of the culture by which the department operates. Selection criteria and processes, departmental policies, supervision, performance evaluation, discipline, officer assistance and support, and training should be built on an understanding of agency values. For instance, officer integrity should be a primary consideration in personnel selection decisions. Ethical standards should be clearly reflected in police department policies and procedures, and supervisors and field training officers should believe in and adhere to departmental values. A well-defined process of discipline is important as this is one way by which officers are held accountable to the policies and values of the department, and ultimately to the community they serve. This system of discipline should be reasonable and fairly administered and should include not only punishment for violations but also rewards for positive behavior. Violators should be disciplined; officers who perform well (in relation to the values of the department) should be recognized. The code of silence among officers should be understood as the enemy of proper conduct, especially when silence translates into protecting officers known to have engaged in improper behavior in terms of the law, departmental policy, or the values of the department. The code of silence is so
strong among some officers it can be a major hurdle in advancing a properly functioning department. Clear policies regarding conduct, proper supervision, and appropriate discipline can have a meaningful effect on this code. The code of silence as a feature of the police culture is also discussed in Chapter 12.
p.188
Instruction regarding ethical standards typically receives minimal attention in training curriculum, often because there is uncertainty about what exactly to train and how to conduct the training. Sometimes the argument is made that there is no one single standard of ethics and therefore ethics cannot be trained. This is not true. As explained in a report of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
A Question of Ethics
A Difficult Ethical Situation
The scenario below is a situation officers could confront at some point in their careers. How would you respond to this situation? Would it make a difference to know your department has a policy that requires the reporting of officer misconduct
and explains how such reports are to be made? How could this situation have been prevented? Are there any other factors that should be considered when deciding what to do in this situation? Or are there any other factors that would make a difference in deciding what response would be most appropriate?
Scenario: You are a police officer on patrol when another officer, a friend of yours, reports over the radio that he is in pursuit of a motorist. Shortly thereafter, the officer reports that the fleeing motorist crashed into a parked car. You are requested to respond to the scene. When you arrive you see the officer arresting the motorist, who has his hands cuffed behind his back and who is bleeding from a cut to his face. You then see the motorist spit toward the officer. The officer immediately reacts by punching the subject in the face. The officer then throws the subject to the ground and spits in the subject’s face. After lifting the subject to his feet and pushing him into the back of the squad car, the officer looks at you and says, “Sometimes you gotta teach scum a lesson.” What would you do?
Every police recruit should leave the
training academy with a clear understanding of what is expected of him or her in terms of professional ethics and personal morals. . . . An academy graduate who knows exactly what conduct is or is not acceptable is far less likely to make ethical mistakes and is one who understands clearly where the line in the sand is drawn and that there is no tolerance for those who cross it. . . . Ethics training in police recruit classes must be reality-based and must involve more than just a simple discussion of integrity. The training must be candid and involve free discussion of the potential problems and pitfalls that challenge police officers on the job. It must include discussion of the temptations that they will face, the stresses of police work, the effects of a career in law enforcement on
personal life, and related matters.60
This instruction should also involve a discussion of the value statement of the department as well as the policies and procedures relating to misconduct and the reporting of the misconduct of other officers. Difficult ethical situations become a little less difficult when it is known by officers that the reporting of misconduct is required by policy and the failure to do so is subject to appropriate discipline. Instruction regarding ethical conduct should not be limited to just the academy it
should be career long and suited specifically to the nature of officers’ job assignments.
Police discretion is necessary, but sometimes it may be misused. As a result, it is important that efforts be made to control it. There are many methods used to attempt this, although none of them are completely new and no one method is the definitive solution to the problem. Nevertheless, by implementing these strategies, police departments may incrementally move toward the more effective control of police discretion and, in the process, make officers and departments more accountable to the citizens they serve.
p.189
MAIN POINTS
• Discretion exists when a person makes a decision based on his or her own judgment. Police officers are required to use their judgment on a constant basis, especially when it comes to law enforcement situations.
• A decision occurs when a person chooses a particular option based on the consideration of available
information. Decision making is a mental process, and the result of the decision is an action or a behavior.
• Police discretion is an important issue because it can affect citizens in extraordinarily significant ways. Patrol officers generally have more discretion than police executives. Many decisions of patrol officers are not seen by people other than those directly involved in an incident.
• A bad decision may be considered bad because of its outcomes, the way the decision was made, or because of the information that was considered when making the decision.
• Most situations in which police must use discretion need to be resolved immediately.
• Discretion is necessary because of limited resources, the need for flexibility when enforcing the law, and because many decisions of the police are too complex to program with rules and instructions.
• Many factors have been shown to strongly and consistently influence the decisions of officers, including certain suspect characteristics, offense characteristics, and organizational factors.
• The concepts of danger and suspicion play a critical role in the police culture.
• Because of the potential to base decisions on unwarranted factors (e.g., citizen race or gender) or to otherwise make bad decisions, there is a need to control police discretion.
• Strategies to control police discretion consist of (1) the implementation of organizational rules and policy (SOPs), combined with training and effective supervision; (2) attempts to choose officers who display good professional judgment when hiring; (3) providing transparency in police operations; and (4) the incorporation of ethical standards in police decision making. Used together, these factors have the best chance of effectively controlling police discretion.
• Each of the strategies listed above has limitations. Perhaps that is why there are still instances of police misuse of discretion.
• Ethics is more than an understanding of a department’s code of ethics or code of conduct. For ethics to become a basis of police action, the effort goes far beyond a training session on the
topic.
• For ethics to impact decisions, police agencies must first establish an understanding among officers that displaying integrity and honesty and acting in a moral way is the way policing is conducted in that agency. Therefore, police departments need to specify the values by which its members should operate. All organizational processes should be based on the specified organizational values.
p.190
IMPORTANT
TERMS
Decision 169
Demeanor 174
Discretion 167
Ethical standards of conduct 185
Ferguson effect 171
Low-visibility situations 170
Organizational culture 177
Standard operating procedures (S OPs) 178
Symbolic assailant 178
Value statement 187
QUESTIONS FOR
DISCUSSION
AND REVIEW
1. What is police discretion? Why is it necessary? Why does it need to be controlled?
2. Under what conditions and circumstances do police officers use discretion? Why is this important?
3. What factors strongly and consistently influence the decisions of officers?
4. How would you expect the performance of a college- educated officer to differ from that of an officer without a college education?
5. What is the most significant limitation of SOPs as a way to control police discretion? Explain.
6. How do the concepts of danger and suspicion play a role in police culture? How do these concepts relate to each other? What significance do they have for police officers?
7. What is meant by police department transparency? How could it aid in the control of police discretion?
8. How might police body-worn cameras help control officer
discretion?
9. What is the most significant limitation of a police department code of ethics as a way to control officer discretion?
10. Explain what is necessary for values and ethical standards of conduct to have an impact on police discretion.
FACT OR
FICTION
ANSWERS
1. Fiction
2. Fiction
3. Fact
4. Fiction
5. Fact
6. Fact
7. Fact
8. Fiction
9. Fiction
10. Fact
p.191
DIGITAL
RESOURCES
h t t p : //e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / b ra n d lh t t p : //e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / b ra n d l
SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources for review, study, and further exploration, keeping both instructors and students on the cutting edge of teaching and learning.
