3
Honesty displays an officer’s moral context and dishonesty displays a lack thereof. Police
dishonesty causes public distrust. The public relies on officers to be honest and have integrity in
order to successfully complete the main goal of law enforcement, which is to protect and serve.
Police officers have the power and authority to deprive citizens of their freedom. Intentional
falsification can be detrimental to society, accused defendants, the officer, and his or her
department as a whole. Dishonesty creates a ripple effect creating larger disrupting waves to
society. Dishonesty can be the determining factor of a successful conviction, or a wrongful one if
any information pertaining to the case is falsified. The supreme court cases that broke the
grounds and set the foundation for holding police accountable in falsified practice and testimony,
Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. These cases set the mode of what can happen if
departments do not take the ethics of integrity seriously within their department policies and their
officers accountable for their actions.
3
Situations in law enforcement are almost never black and white, most of the time they are
full of gray areas. It is critical to explain deception in law enforcement. One gray area includes
deceptions. Deception by officers is an aspect of the job, but is only appropriate under certain
circumstances; the circumstance being during interrogation and undercover operations. “Police
will tell lies to uncove the truth; they will deceive, fabricate, and manipulate until the suspect
surrenders-method that is all legal” (Khasin, 2009, p.1030). Deception can cloud moral
discretion for some and may be practice beyond such interrogation/acceptable practices. Lies that
generally, do not breach consist of; white lies, humorous, and justifies by investigative necessity
(Atstupenas, 2016). The concerns within this essay are the lies that breach and violate public
trust and department policy.
Controversy develops when dishonest practices are acceptable and condoned by the
agency and the courts. This can create many issues within the department. “One of the strongest
reasons that police falsify in court is the simple fact that judges allow them to get away with it”
(Dorfman, 1999, p. 465). It is very imperative for a department to set policies and procedures on
dishonesty to hopefully prevent such negative circumstances from occurring. This goes show
that the ripple effect of falsifying information can impact many members of the criminal justice
system and society.
There is a form of fabricating that is appropriate for termination. Fabricating in court
testimonies, falsifying probable cause searches and seizures, and or arrest are serious
fabrications. Matters in law enforcement there are many gray areas, that includes the decision of
disciplinary action or termination in the event of an officer fabricating information. These “may
subject to legal sanctioning and or departmental punishments” (Hunt & Manning, 1991, p.55).
When an officer fabricates it is so grave that it can result in legal charges against that officer. The
officer should be dealt with on every level possible for his or he action. This is a serious matter
because he can cause a truly innocent person to be convicted of a crime he or she did not
commit.
3
The lies or fabrications that qualify for termination include; malicious, intentional,
deceptive conduct and it will forever tarnish the officer’s credibility. In law enforcement, there is
no second chance to make up for misconduct (Noble, 2003). Allowing such officer to remain on
the force after such act of dishonesty will not only ruin the officer but the department as well. An
officer’s testimony is what provides the most evidence in a criminal case (Dorfman, 1999). Since
Brady, it is the duty of the prosecutor to disclose an officer’s personal file to evaluate any past
dishonesty practices. This will allow trust to build in the criminal justice system. The court
should not only be tempted by the political power and popularity to hide such misconduct.
Within policy, it is key to educate the “difference between deceptive conduct and
deceptive misconduct” (Noble, 2003, p. 92). The willingness to deal with an officer’s
misconduct for the future years is up to the manager. A question the chief of police should ask is,
“whether he or she can stand in front of the community and defend the department’s position”
(Noble, 2003). This will aid in creating an effective policy. This questions holds weight and can
make a decision easier when having to terminate an officer for misconduct.
A police officer has the power to deprive one from freedom and ruin one’s life from
fabricating important details of a case. Intentional fabricating should not be given a second
chance and should be dealt with appropriately. It is imperative an officer holds integrity and
honesty to the highest level, it is the root to all decisions and actions. “For nothing is secret, that
shall not be made manifest, neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad”
(Luke 8:17, KJV). The deviant acts of law enforcement will come to light and be seen when it is
necessary.
3
References
Atstupenas, E.R. (2016). Truthfulness in law enforcement. Chiefs’ Legal Interest Column.
Retrieved from https://www.assumption.edu/sites/default/files/public_safety/MCOP
%20TRUTHFULNESS%20IN%20POLICING.pdf
Dorfman, D. N. (1999). Proving the lie: Litigating police credibility. American Journal of
Criminal Law, 26(3), 455-503. Retrieved from
http://wed.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=8&sid=2a780a3e-2490-4bb4-9a7f-3f65eb875cba%40sessionmgr101
Hunt, J., & Manning, P.K. (1991). The social context of police lying. Symbolic Interaction,
14(1), 51-70. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu
Khasin, I (2009). Honesty is the best policy: A case for the limitation of deceptive police
Interrogation practices in the United States. Vanderbilt Journal of Transitional Law,
42(3), 1029-1061. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
Noble, J. (2003). Police officer truthfulness and the Brady Decision. Police Chief, 70(10),
92-102. Retrieved from http://nebula.wsimg.com
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
