Should police officers accept gratuities from the public?

¶ … Police Accept Gratuities?

In the United States, some lower-paid professions such as waitresses or pizza delivery drivers rely on gratuities from their customers in return for good service as an important part of their overall earnings, while other professions such as doctors and lawyers, rarely or never receive gratuities since they are deemed adequately compensated for their services from the outset no matter how well they perform. When it comes to law enforcement, though, the issue of gratuities becomes murkier, with the iconic image of the police officer on the beat accepting an apple from a smiling vendor being contrasted more recently by high-profile cases of police officers who have accepted much larger cash "gratuities" in return for looking the other way or providing advance notice of police raids. Because these cases adversely affect the entire law enforcement community, it is therefore important to determine the propriety of police officers accepting gratuities.

Whether police officers should accept gratuities may depend in large part on the context in which the exchange is made. According to the various definitions provided by Black's Law Dictionary, a gratuity can simply be a harmless gift that does not carry any corresponding strings of obligation. In this regard, Black's first defines gratuity as "something acquired or otherwise received without bargain or inducement. Something given freely or without recompense; a gift" (p. 701). When applied to police officers, this definition is consistent with the provision of gratuities to other professions that also provide services to the community. For instance, Ivkovic (2005) notes that, "Is it really so wrong for police officers to accept gifts? After all, we sometimes give our garbage collectors, babysitters and mail carriers holiday presents. We send our kids to school with gifts for their teachers. Why is treating police to free cups of coffee, half-price meals, half-price admission to movie theaters or special discounts in stores any different?" (p. 4).

The next definition provided by Black's, though, indicates there can also be an unstated quid pro quo aspect to the provision of a gratuity which is "something voluntarily given in return for a favor or especially of a service, hence, a bounty; a tip, a bribe" (p. 701). These distinctions between a gift and a bribe become clouded, though, when it comes to the law enforcement community. In this regard, Ivkovic (2005) argues that any gratuity can lead to more corrupt practices in the future. For example, Kleinig (1996) reports that, "It is claimed that the acceptance of small gratuities such as cups of free coffee by police officers will increase the likelihood of, or lead by degrees to, or is not significantly different from, corruption of the worst kind" (p. 4). It is reasonable to suggest that the acceptance of a free cup of coffee by police officers, though, is not tantamount to "corruption of the worst kind," and the argument that gratuities are a "gateway drug" to more corrupt behaviors on the part of police is spurious at best. Police officers are just human, of course, and are subject to the same temptations that affect the human condition everywhere, but this does not mean that free coffee or discounts will lead them down the wrong path.