Introduction An effective police officer must be truthful. Increasingly, there is frustration informed by lack of integrity and support for the actions of discipline that are taken by the senior officers against those who breach the rules. Integrity and ethics must be at the center of an internal investigation. In case an officer is not truthful regarding their actions, positive reinforcement should be employed. Still, it must be made clear from the onset that untruthfulness is sufficient ground for termination of duty. If a law enforcement officer behaves or acts untruthfully, it damages the effectiveness of their work of policing. This paper seeks to point out the correct action to be taken against an officer who acts untruthfully in the case provided.

Legal cases

After 1963’s decision by the Supreme Court on the Brady case, prosecutors are obliged to make evidence available to the defense, even evidence that would favor the defense in the case where the evidence can determine guilt or otherwise because if they do not do so, the defendant’s right to a fair trial will have been violated (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). Cases that were decided later offered a wider reach to the Brady case and provided more guidance. One such case in mind is the Giglio v. United States (1972), which pointed out that apart from disclosing what it refers to as exculpatory evidence, implicating evidence on government witnesses should also be disclosed in the case where doubt is cast with regard to the witness’s credibility. It is, therefore clear in the Brady and Giglio cases that prosecutors are bound to provide evidence of exculpatory nature and even evidence that could be used by the attorney of the defense to implicate government witnesses.

The case between United States v. Agurs (1976) made it even harder for prosecutors after the Supreme Court determined that there was no need for defendants to make formal requests for the Brady type evidence. It, therefore means that even when there was no such request, prosecutors are obliged to disclose exculpatory evidence or any such evidence that could be useful to the defense (the United States v. Agurs, 1976). The Kyles v. Whitley (1995) expanded the obligations even further. It was determined that the prosecution was bound by legal ethics to learn of any favorable evidence in the knowledge of others acting on behalf of the government (p. 438).

The Kyles case determination entraps the prosecution team and members of law enforcement. It is the one that stipulates the duty by prosecutors have knowledge of material evidence that can be used to impeach the defendants and even that which can do the same for government agents and witnesses (Reimund, 2013). The Attorney General’s office issued a direction in the form of a policy relating to the disclosure to prosecutors of information that could be used to impeach witnesses of the law enforcement agency (1996). The policy defines impeachment to incorporate:

• Specific examples of the conduct of the witness acting with intention to cast aspersion on the credibility of such...

Failing to abide by these rules is sufficient basis for a retrial (Abel, 2015).
The Standard for Untruthfulness and analysis of the case

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “lie” is a verb which means: to make a statement that is untrue with the intention to deceive or to create a falsified impression so as to mislead (Lie, n.d.). Evidently, the term lie refers to a scenario that transcends just making an untrue statement. Indeed, there exist several lies categories. They include humorous lies, white lies, defensive lies, pathological lies, and aggressive lies (Ekman, O'Sullivan & Frank, 1999). In some cases, failing to speak up, omissions, or failure to write a clearly known falsehood all constitute lies. Furthermore, there are times when law enforcement is pushed to use lies so as to promote apprehension, investigation, and prosecution of a criminal.

One of the most important functions of law enforcement agencies is to promote cohesive and peaceful living and maintain a secure feeling among members of communities. Therefore, public trust is invaluable for police officers. The police officers must maintain confidence by the public as far as their integrity goes. Abuse of power by law enforcement agents must be avoided at all costs (Ekman et al., 1999). Law enforcement is therefore prohibited from engaging in acts that breach the trust by the public. Owing to the fact that not all lies will lead to the breach of public trust, and policies of the various departments, it is essential to determine the category of lies that can be allowed and those that violate policy and the law under departmental and public policies.

The inappropriate use of the computer by the police officer to access pornographic material on the internet for the purpose of personal entertainment and not work-related is wholly unethical. The action can negatively affect other people’s lives. Decisive and stringent action should be taken to warn other officers not to engage in similar acts. According to the policy of the department, the municipal computers should not be subjected to inappropriate or personal use. There is no formal or informal permission to engage in such activity. Therefore, the only way to protect the integrity of the department of police is to terminate the officer from duty. The key risks for such inappropriate use of computers are that it may result in grueling…