Ethical violations in professional practice

¶ … Police Use 'Fake News' in Sting Aimed at California Gang," ABC news reporter Melley (2016) describes a recent and unusual tactic used by Santa Monica Police Chief Ralph Martin. The story details how Police Chief Martin issued a press release that was picked up by the Santa Monica Sun. The press release said that two gang members had been arrested. It later turned out the press release was false, issued by the Police Chief in order to entrap other members of the gang. Investigators later deemed the fake press release legal, even if it does raise serious ethical issues about the behavior of the Chief of Police. "There was nothing illegal about what police did, but it could raise questions about the department's future credibility," said one journalism professor interviewed for the story (Melley, 2016). Harming the credibility of the police could in itself be considered a significant ethical violation on the part of the Department's chief -- its leader and its representative as interface between law enforcement and the community. In an era in which trust between citizens and law enforcement has already become dangerously eroded, this act does continue to undermine police credibility.

The reasoning behind the action was, according to the chief, to serve in a sting operation. Sting operations "routinely use ruses to lure deadbeat parents, traffic-fine scofflaws and people wanted for all kinds of outstanding warrants to collect prizes they think they've won," (Melley, 2016). However, police codes of ethics mandate that police "protect the innocent against deception," (Grant, 2002, p. 11). If a person is innocent until proven guilty, then the use of deception is patently unethical, especially from an officer in a position of leadership. Deceiving the general public and the media is also unethical, because, as one newspaper spokesperson said, the Chief of Police "used a public system paid for with public dollars to present false information to the public," (Melley, 2016). The role of the media in this case is multifaceted and varied. The police used the media to accomplish their self-serving goals, showing great disrespect of the media on the part of law enforcement. The ends do not always justify the means; there were other ways to catch the gang members. However, the police chief defends his own actions using a utilitarian framework: if the consequences worked out, then the ends do justify the means. In response, the media serves its role as disseminating all the facts of the case to the public, in order to expose the ethical infraction and show to what lengths police departments are willing to go to achieve their goals.

The interest groups concerned actually extend to the entire nation. All Americans are hurt when (a) the police undermine their own credibility by manipulating the media; (b) media credibility is undermined because the public cannot trust that any information is true; (c) police do not respect the media enough to even ask them to run the press release. The "real" story, not the fake press release, was both informative and persuasive. The journalist justifiably feels like the police violated trust. There is an unspoken contract between law enforcement and the media, that they will work together to promote public safety. As Melley (2016) puts it, there is a "symbiotic relationship between the media and police." The police chief did not act in accordance with the ethical tenets of the profession.