Ethics and Misconduct in Law Enforcement
1. Define Ethics: The study of what is morally right and what is not or a system of accepted
beliefs which control behavior, especially such as a system based on morals.
Webster describes ethics as: “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral
duty and obligation or the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.
2. Identify the most common causes of unethical conduct and the most common crimes
officers commit are and are decertified for committing?
Research of officers who have de-certified as a result of unethical behavior tells us that there are
four common motivations of individuals who succumb to unethical conduct. The common causes
and examples of each are:
Anger (Battery and excessive use of force)
Lust (Sexual offenses, including rape and morals decency crimes)
Greed (Larceny, fraud/forgery, robbery, bribery, stolen property, and gambling)
Peer Pressure (D.U.I and drugs)
***Additionally, research shows that the most common crimes officers commit and are
decertified for are:
Making false statement/reports
Larceny
Sex offense other than rape
Battery
3. Identify the continuum of compromise?
The first phase in the continuum of compromise is known as Acts of Omission:
Another way of looking at this phase is when an officer does not do something he/she is
responsible for doing, such as turning a blind eye to traffic violations or other crimes,
failing to completely investigate criminal activity, failing to following up on
investigation, failing to complete all necessary paperwork, and failing to report another
officer’s unethical conduct. Acts of omission are exemplified by the officer who does the
minimum work to get by.
The second phase in the Continuum of Compromise is known as Acts of
Commission – Administrative . No longer does the officer just commit acts of omission,
he/she now begins to turn it administrative or policy violation. Examples of this phase are
: “carrying unauthorized equipment, and weapons, engaging in prohibits pursuits and
other activities, driving on duty, romantic interludes at work, not reporting accidents and
firing warning shots. Although acts of commission-administrative rarely put an officer at
risk of criminal prosecution, these acts damage relationships between the community and
law enforcement.
The Third Phase in the continuum of Compromise is known Acts of Commission-
Criminal . Common examples of this phase are: tampering with evidence, thefts, bribery,
submitting false or inaccurate overtime requests. These acts expose the officer to criminal
prosecution.
4. Identify common ways law enforcement officers rationalize unethical conduct?
Denial of a victim/denial of injury: The officer believes that if there is no victim for his
or her conduct, the officer did not do any real harm. Or with officer believes that nobody
was injured as a result of his or her conduct. An example is not officer stealing money
from a drug dealer. The officer justifies the action by believing the drug dealer did not
have a lawful right to the money, because it was unlawfully earned. Therefore, there is no
victim.
Victim of circumstance: The officer believes that he or she had not other choice but to
act in a certain way because everyone else is doing the same thing.
Higher cause: The officer believes that he and she must break certain rules or laws to
accomplish an important goal. The officer believes the ends justify the means. An
example is an officer conducting an unreasonable or unlawful search because he or she
believes certain crimes justify not following the rules.
Blame the victim: The officer believes that he or she would not have acted in a certain
way if the victim had not brought it upon himself/herself. An example is excessive use of
force on a drug dealer.
5. Identify consequences of unethical conduct? First, the officer may be subjected to
criminal charges for assault or some related crime. Second, the officer may be subject to
civil litigation, also know as a lawsuit, for the excessive used of force. Third, the officer’s
conduct has had a negative effect on the relationship between the community and law
enforcement. Fourth, the officer may be disciplined, demoted, or terminated. Fifth, the
officer may lose his or her certification as law enforcement officer. Sixth, the officer may
experience additionally domestic problems, such as divorce, due to the stress generated
by the unethical conduct. Finally, finding one name or picture on television or the focus
of a newspaper story about corruption is an overwhelming public humiliation for any
officer and his family even if later exonerated he can never recover. This will often lead
to suicide because each year considerably more officers commit suicide than murdered.
Many times these suicides are result of officer failure to deal with unethical acts in which
they are personally or summarily involved.
6. Identify in what size agency the code of silence exists, from what groups of
individuals the officer will feel pressure to keep quiet, the perceived consequences
for breaking the code of silence, and ways an agency can control or limit the code of
silence?
The code of silence does exist in Law Enforcement. It does not exist only in larger
agencies but can also be found in nearly every agency. The code of silence is more
prevalent and stronger than more other professions or jobs and it’s almost impossible for
an agency to determine how pervasive it exists within the agency itself. Officers feel
pressure from two groups of individuals to keep quiet about an incident. The first group
they feel pressure from it’s the individuals who commit the unethical act. The second
group they feel pressure from is someone not involved in the unethical act, including
from their own leadership.
***Officers feel one of the four potential consequences will fall onto them if they fail
uphold the code of silence. These four perceived consequences are:
The officer who was actually involved in the misconduct would be ether disciplined or
terminated.
The officer who did not uphold the code of silence would be the one being terminated.
The officer who did not uphold the code of silence would not be accepted and would be
shunned.
Their administration would not do anything about the incident even if reported.
***There are many ways an agency can control or limit the code of silence. Some
suggestions are:
Have officers attend good ethic training and make it regularly.
Have the administration be more consistent with holding officers accountable.
Promote an atomopshere of open communication between officers and leadership
Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of unethical conduct.
Protect the officer who comes forward with the information of another officer unethical
conduct.
7. Identify the areas of ethical concern that social media presents to the law
enforcement officer. There are two primary concerns with the ethics of social media. The
first area for concern is how the message reflects on the agency image. A growing
concern among law enforcement leadership is the public trust in the professionalism of
the agency due to the officer’s online activity. The second, is the officer credibility.
Information that a law enforcement officer posts on the internet may be used to impeach
or call into question their credibility at trial.
8. Identify South Carolina laws governing officer misconduct, conduct that can cause
an officer to be denied a certification, and conduct that can cause an officer to have
his/her certification revoked.
There are many acts of misconduct for which an officer can be denied certification.
South Carolina Reguation 38-004 states : The Department may deny certification based on
evidence satisfactory to the Department that the candidate has engaged in misconduct. For
purposes of this section, misconduct means:
Conviction, plea of guilty or no contest or admission of guilt to a felony, a crime
punishable by a sentence of more than one year, or a crime of moral turpitude in this or
any other jurisdiction;
Unlawful use of controlled substance
Repeated Use of Force with public or prisoners
Dangerous or unsafe practices involving firearms, weapons, and or vehicles which
indicate either a willful or wanton disreguard for the safety of persons or property
Physical or psychological abuses of members of the public or prisoners
Misrepresentation of employment related information
Dishonesty with respect to his or her employer
Untruthfulness with respect to his or her employer
In considering whether to deny certification based on misconduct, the department may consider
the seriousness, the remoteness in time and any mitigating circumstances surrounding the act or
omission constituting or alleged to constitute misconduct. SC Regulation 38-016 gives reasons
why an officer certification can be revoked. A law enforcement officer pursuant to the provisions
of R.38-007 and R.38-008 shall have his or her certification as a law enforcement withdrawn by
the Department upon of anyone or more of the following events:
The officer is found to have falsified any application for certification and training based
upon which the officer was admitted for training.
The officer is founded to be ineligible for service as a law enforcement officer because of
his or her failure to meet prerequisite qualifications for training and certification, as set
by law, even though such ineligibility is not discovered until after the officer’s initial
certification.
The officer is convicted of a criminal offense under the law of any jurisdiction which
would by the laws of this state disqualify the officer from obtainment of certification as
provided for in R.38-007 and R.38-008.
9. Identify the concept of “crimes of moral turpitude”. Immigration law has used the
term “moral turpitude” in its criminal grounds for exclusion since 1891.15 Whether a
crime involves moral turpitude has been determined by judicial and administrative case
law rather than statutory definition. In general, if a crime manifests an element of
baseness or depravity under current mores if it evidences an evil or predatory intent it
involves moral turpitude. Certain crimes such as murder, rape, blackmail, and fraud have
been considered crimes involving moral turpitude. Whereas crimes such as simple assault
have not been considered into involve moral turpitude. The most common elements
involving moral turpitude are:
Fraud
Larceny; and
Intent to harm persons or things.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
