CJUS 530 - Final Essay
Kimberly Hall
Liberty University
Abstract
Over the past year, the law enforcement organizations have dealt with its struggles with
the overall effect officers’ dishonesty. In this paper it will seek to answer the question of, should
officers be terminated when they have been dishonest. Elliot Spector discuss in his article
“Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter of Public Policy”. In this paper it
will also be discussed of the impacts of officer’s dishonesty does have on the department, society
and officer’s family members.
Final Essay
Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County
“In Kitsap County, Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, the sheriff terminated
Deputy LaFrance for untruthfulness and erratic behavior” (Spector, 2007). What Deputy
LaFrance has done was committing several acts of misconduct, with also including dishonest.
The Kitsap County Sheriff Department has decided to terminate LaFrance for being untruthful.
“An arbitrator agreed that LaFrance had repeatedly been untruthful but was not convinced that
termination was the proper form of discipline; the arbitrator therefore ordered him to return full
duty” (Spector, 2007). Although with the Kitsap County Sheriff Department they did believe that
the arbitrator decision was contrary to the public, and that LaFrance should not be allowed to
return back to work.
With this case it did make its way to the appellate court. In the case it “relied primarily
on the sheriff’s conclusion that LaFrance was not fit for duty due to Brandy concerns about his
ability to testify” (Spector, 2007). In the Brady v. Maryland, it was a landmark case in the U.S.
history. In that case it ruled that withholding of evidence violates the due process; that it is
unlawful for prosecution to withhold evidence. “Put simply, LaFrance’s proven record of
dishonesty prevents him from useful service as a law enforcement officer” (Spector, 2007). In
that case the court ruled, if an officer(s) is found guilty of dishonesty and untruthfulness, “no
arbitration panel or judicial authority will be able to reduce the penalty” (Spector, 2007).
Spector’s Perspective
In the article, “Chief Counsel: Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a
Matter of Public Policy”, written by Elliot Spector he does address the importance of police
officers
being honest. Spector believed that every individual that is involved in the criminal justice
system does rely in police honesty. He also discussed the fact that police officers do lie about
their personal lives and has lied in the past, however the problem lies when the police officer’s
lies are in conflict with the policy and procedure of the job.
Spector has also discussed that there are some people who are that lying is a general part
of the law enforcement. “It is undeniable that officers lie while working undercover and very
often while conducting using trickery for legitimate law enforcement purposes” (Spector, 2007).
Though Spector believes that there should be a fine line between an authorized lie and prohibited
lies. Spector also believe that if officers are found lying intentionally on official documents,
“officers cannot work effectively and should therefore not be allowed to work in the law
enforcement profession” (Spector, 2007).
Personal View
In over the past years, the law enforcement agencies have struggled with the impact of
dishonest police officers in their department. It is believed that dishonesty prosecutes the
credibility of a police officer. For the job of a police officer is to protect the society and the
citizens. Therefore, if an officer is not honest, how can the people feel insure that their society is
safe. Being a police officer, they are held with a higher standard than a civilian. Therefore,
dishonesty and lies should not be tolerated in their job.
Many believe that when a police officer(s) is dishonest the safety of their society is
jeopardized. Dishonesty heightens the chances for police officers to make false statements, arrest
the innocents, lie on reports and even kill an innocent individual with the claim that they were
attacked first. In the society they depend on the police officers, and it would be very unfair to the
society if they have police officers working in the department that has a history background of
lying while on the job. For it is the gob of the supervisors, leadership, and police chief to put an
end to dishonest police officers that are serving in their force.
It is also understood that there is a possibility that the department can face an issue and
lose good officers due to this policy, however the rule is the rule, and no police officer should be
allowed to be exempt and get away with it. It is unfair to the officers if the policy only applies to
“bad officers”. For it is believed that if the officers are allowed to continue to work on the force,
after leadership are aware of intentional lies and dishonest from officers, the overall credit of the
agency is prosecuted. It can be challenging to believe an individual whose is known for lying.
Therefore, this policy does have a huge impact on the families of the personnel, for when an
officer is found guilty of lying and is terminated it not only impact the officers but also the
family as well. It is believed that officers should consider their families in every decision that
they make and how it can impact them and their family. For there are consequences of every
decision that they make, therefore, officers should make the right decision for their family and
themselves.
Reference
Spector, E. (2007). Chief’s Counsel: Should police officers who lie be terminated as a matter of
public policy. The Police Chief: The Professional Voice of Law Enforcement.
Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm
