Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense

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 a witness or their character relating to truthfulness;
• Opinion or reputation-based evidence relating to the character for truthfulness of the witness
• Earlier statements which are clearly inconsistent.
• Any information that points to the likelihood of bias by the witness
It is evident by now that the rules that govern the conduct of prosecutors at both state and federal level compel the prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence and any information that might signal to the credibility of a witness, including a law enforcement representative, to the defense, even when there is still no formal request for such disclosure. 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 lawsuits and a drain in the IT resources. Pornography is widely infamous for attracting visitors to sites that have the intention to access private and personal information without the owner’s knowledge. The action is, therefore a major cybersecurity risk too. Restrictions exist for state employees with regard to access to information infrastructure (Noble, 2003). The evidence to be disclosed by the prosecution if and when they access it is materially approving and can lead to a determination of a case beyond doubt regarding the culpability of a defendant. The officer under focus already has a past of untruthfulness since he lied about having used the computer in an appropriate way.
Possible implications for untruthfulness
Untruthful police officers have been historically disciplined by the Civil Service Commission. The commission has traditionally upheld the discipline of law enforcement officers by upholding their discharge when they are caught in cases of dishonesty. The commission has traditionally deferred the decision by the appointing authority to discipline officers caught engaging in untruthfulness. The commission has given the following reasons for such a stance.
• That the appointing authority acts within their rights to discipline police officers who fumble with the law enforcement rules of engagement because policing demands truthfulness. Nevertheless, police work commonly requires an officer to speak the truth even when such a move could cause embarrassment to a fellow officer or put to question a search (Kinnas v. Shrewsbury, 2010).
• Telling lies in a disciplinary investigation is sufficient ground for termination
• Untruthfulness and youthful indiscretion are somewhat different as far as considerations of rehabilitation are concerned. With respect to this case, the police department has the discretion to determine whether an officer’s past untruthfulness does not make them an incredible witness at the present moment” (Wosny v. Boston Police Department, 32).
• It is not possible for people to trust police officers unless they are confident that the officers uphold the highest level of truthfulness and integrity in enforcing the law. The legitimacy of the police department could be damaged a great deal when the public realizes that the police continue to keep in employment an officer who abused his power and lied under oath repeatedly.
• The police have an obligation to maintain security in the community within which they work. Therefore, the aspect of maintaining the trust of the public is critical in the accomplishment of their tasks. The police officers commit to uphold a much higher standard of behavior compared to ordinary citizens. A police officer must act in a way that draws honor and respect to the profession and not distrust.
Conclusion
The law enforcement officials are subjected to a higher standard compared to the citizens who they have committed to protect and serve. When the law enforcement agencies are under the spotlight, it is imperative to stick to the code of ethics that demands truthfulness. Since is already known in the public domain, demanding that a police officer comports to truthfulness is a matter of public policy, morality, ethics and, indeed, the law. It is evident that under the current case law, and the rules of conducting criminal processes before the state and the federal courts, the prosecution is under obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence plus the information that has import on the credibility of the witness such as a police officer, to the defendant even if such information has not been requested for. If they fail to comply, it could lead to a new trial.
Terminating a police officer caught lying is not unusual, especially in some jurisdictions including the New York and Arkansas State Police. The states embrace a zero tolerance to untruthfulness. However, such behavior is not treated the same way in some jurisdictions. An action such as untruthfulness and inappropriate use of infrastructure could lead to a range of sanctions that include administrative and criminal ones. Being caught in such a scenario jeopardizes an officer’s career and subjects them to public ridicule and mistrust. It is important for any law enforcement agency to be conscious of the effects of untruthful conduct. It is clear that the effect is devastating on the reputation of the police department in general and impeaches their witnesses in the course of the trial.
In the case at hand, terminating the services of the police officer engaged in abuse of the police computers and lying about it is the best step that will deter other officers from engaging in such conduct. It is also the best way to preserve the integrity of the police agency. The officer under focus is a habitual liar. He tried to conceal the truth when he was involved in an accident. He investigated himself in the traffic stop incident that led to a vehicle being damaged. He tried misleading his superiors on the facts of the case. He is, therefore, both untruthful and erratic. He is not suitable for duty because his aptitude to testify in a court of law is in doubt. In the case of Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court of the USA ruled that the prosecutor was obligated to release information that favored the accused when requested to do so. Consequently, if the officer was to testify as a witness in any court in a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor would be expected, and by law, to disclose any details he may be having and which exposes the defense counsel untruthfulness. One of the reasons why the officer would be dismissed is that he will have proven that he is dishonest and this would bar him from offering any service that would aid in enforcing the law. If the officer was reinstated or placed in any position of public trust, he would not be allowed to serve, as this would ultimately violate the public policy.


References
Abel, J. (2015). Brady's blind spot: impeachment evidence in police personnel files and the battle splitting the prosecution team. Stan. L. Rev., 67, 743.
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological science, 10(3), 263-266.
Lie. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie on 13 December 2018
Noble, J. (2003). Police Officer Truthfulness and the Brady Decision. The Police Chief, Vol. 70, no. 10.
Policy Regarding the Disclosure to Prosecutors of Potential Impeachment Information Concerning Law Enforcement Agency Witnesses (“Giglio Policy”), Office of the Attorney General (12/9/1996).
Reimund, M.E., (2013). Are Brady Lists (aka Liar’s Lists) the Scarlet Letter for Law Enforcement Officers? A Need for Expansion and Uniformity. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 3: No. 17; 1-6.
Legal cases
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
Kinnas v. Shrewsbury, MCSCD1-10-151 (2010)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
Wosny v. Boston Police Department, MCSCG1-15-83 (2015)