Interview methods and practices

Law Enforcement - Interviews

LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEWS

Interview Subject 1 - NYPD Detective Sergeant:

Sergeant, thank you for agreeing to this interview under condition of anonymity.

Could you please synopsize your law enforcement background in as much detail as you are comfortable?

Sure. I got on with the NYPD 18 years ago, worked in anti-crime units and various street crime details, among other things, before going to a precinct detective squad. In 2001 I was promoted to Sergeant and a few months later, after 9/11, I was assigned to the NYPD-FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) working out of 26 Federal Plaza where I have been ever since.

What are your main responsibilities?

I work mostly in counterterrorism, our office follows up on investigative leads, identifies potential terrorist threats and possible tactical opportunities; my particular unit cultivates and debriefs confidential informants in those areas and things like that.

Q: As an 18-year NYPD veteran, you've probably had experiences along the entire spectrum of police conduct including ethical issues.

A: Certainly.

Q: What is your perspective of the importance of personal and professional ethics and character in the field of law enforcement?

A: Well, in my profession, it would probably be impossible to maintain modern police functions without a high degree of personal and professional ethics on the part of individual officers. As police officers, we're placed in positions of power relative to ordinary civilians simply we have the authority to arrest people and issue summonses that may cost them significant sums of money. That presents a very natural opportunity to abuse the lawful authorities of the position, whether as an expression of personal power or "ego" or as a means of illicit financial gains. In fact, going back to the Tammany Hall period of New York City history, the first few generations of NYPD officers were, in many cases, reflective of those times and no better than the corrupt politicians of that era.

Likewise, up until the latter part of the 20th century, many police agencies in the deep South of this country were complicit in racial persecution, including the cover up of the murder of blacks and of four civil rights workers from New York in 1964. At that time, it was not uncommon at all for municipal police departments in southern states to include

Ku Klux Klan members. Times have certainly changed for the better since then in terms of policing ethics. Q: Do you think that police are more ethical today, or were they more ethical ten years ago?

A: If you're asking me, specifically, about the last ten years, I would have to say that there really isn't all that much difference, necessarily, between the situation today and that of ten years ago. In my opinion, the biggest transformation in police ethics in the United States occurred a little earlier than that: perhaps in the post-Civil Rights era and the 1980s. In many respects, that was more a function of the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Miranda and the line of related cases that followed. The issues that arise most commonly in connection with ethics in policing have to do with selective enforcement, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, lawful vs. unlawful arrest, interrogation procedures, coerced confessions, and truthful testimony at trial. In the last ten years, those issues have not changed as significantly as in the period between say 1965 and 1990. In my opinion, the other main factor resulting in positive changes in ethical police conduct relate more to technology and the fact that police procedures are now much more visible than before, to the chain of command as well as to the general public through the news media.

Q: How so?

A: Well, 30 years ago, there was no such thing as dashboard cameras that captured and preserved police activity for subsequent review and evaluation. In the old days, what happened in the streets stayed pretty much in the streets. Nowadays, many police agencies use in-car cameras that cannot be controlled or switched off by the officers and the recorder is locked into a box in the trunk that only supervisors have access to. If for no other reason that professional self-preservation, police officers know that unethical conduct is now recorded for the official record and that it will come back to haunt them in one way or another. In fact, 30 years ago, even the police radio was relatively new. It is indispensable as far as saving officers' lives and helping them on the street in tactical matters, but most police radio traffic is broadcast over the air along frequencies capable of being monitored by modern news media equipment. Except for special secure tactical channels, just about anything said between officers on the air is recorded and open to subpoena in court. That also has a lot to do with the change in police ethics since the 1980s much more so than since the late 90s.

Q: Why do you think police officers sometimes become involved in misconduct?

A: Pretty much the same reasons that ordinary civilians sometimes become involved in professional misconduct and illegal activities. Police officers are people just like everyone else and they are susceptible to the same human failings and temptations as the rest of us. Good officers sometimes take illegal shortcuts to achieve what they consider to be "justice" such as to make sure criminals don't escape punishment or to protect the innocent victims from continued victimization. Sometimes, bad people manage to become police officers too because they're skilled at hiding their bad side from public awareness. These types of so-called "bad apples" may abuse their lawful police authority from the get go, even planning to do so in advance of becoming police officers.

Q: Do you think there is sufficient training devoted to ethics at the police academy level?

A: I think there is sufficient training devoted to ethics at the police academy level in some respects, but I also think some of those efforts are less well-designed than they could be.

In general, much of the ethics training in police academies is repetitive and more likely to be effective at shaping the professional conduct of those officers already inclined to perform their police functions and duties ethically than it is likely to be effective at shaping the professional conduct of those officers inclined to do so less ethically. It is also unrealistic in many cases in presenting ideal standards of ethical conduct instead of realistic standards that are reflective of actual practices.

Q: Could you give me some examples?

A: Sure. Many police agency academies teach that accepting a free cup of coffee or a discounted meal from a local business is no different from taking a an outright bribe to look the other way with regard to serious criminal activity. In reality, that is simply not the case: police officers in uniform command both respect and also appreciation from the average small business owner and refusing a simple cup of coffee would practically be an insult. In any case, it is an unrealistic standard that conflicts with reality. By equating that level of "corruption" with genuine criminal bribery and corruption, police academies may actually be undermining the goal of sensitizing new officers to the importance of avoiding more serious conflicts of interest. Another example would be departmental restrictions about dating anyone an officer meets while in uniform. In theory, the idea is that the uniform could suggest that refusing to provide a phone number or to accept a social invitation might result in consequences, meaning that the relationship is "coerced."

Instead of telling new officers that they are never allowed to pursue a social relationship with anyone they meet in uniform, we should be devoting those efforts to educate them to distinguish situations where their spoken words or actions might be misconstrued. Again, by presenting an unrealistically high standard that may be unnecessary, we may be undermining the effort to prevent situations where a legitimate issue of social coercion may actually arise. it's not much different from the old fable about crying "Wolf."

Q: Do you think police ethics training should be offered on an ongoing basis for all law enforcement officers?

A: Actually, in modern policing, ongoing police ethics training is already offered. The problem, as I've suggested, is that most police ethics training is more relevant to the classroom than it is realistic with respect to the street. Generally, in-service ethics training simply rehashes the same scenarios presented in the academy. The officers who benefited the most from ethics training in the academy probably don't need continual refreshers because they have already made their commitment to exercise their professional duties and responsibilities ethically from the start. If anything, the same ongoing training that benefited them in the academy would be almost insulting later in their careers. Conversely, the "bad apples" who chuckled through ethics training at the academy will be even more contemptuous of in-service ethics training when they've been routinely violating professional ethics on duty. Q: Do you think continual education and/or training in police ethics would reduce incidents of police corruption?

A: Again, it depends entirely on the type of continual education and training we're talking about: repeating simplistic ethical training scenarios originally presented in the academy is even less effective with respect to seasoned police veterans than with respect to rookies or trainees. On the other hand, if we're talking about a well-designed program that really reflects the realities of policing and that fundamentally distinguishes legitimate issues of corruption from trivial matters and unrealistic standards that are all but ignored on the street by veteran officers, then yes, I think continual education and training is essential in police ethics just as it is in other police services and functions.

Q: Thank you very much for your time Sergeant, I really appreciate your participation.

A: You're very welcome. I'd let you buy me a cup of coffee right now, but that would violate department ethical policy.

Interview Subject 2 - FBI Special Agent:

Q: Special Agent, thank you for agreeing to this interview under condition of anonymity.

Could you please synopsize your law enforcement background in as much detail as you are comfortable?

A: You're welcome. I graduated from law school in 1988 and practiced law as a public defender in Massachusetts for several years before switching to the prosecution side as an assistant district attorney. In 1996 I applied to the Bureau and graduated from the FBI Academy. From 1990 until 1994, I investigated various white collar crimes at the Detroit Michigan Field Office, and from 1994 until 2006, I worked at the New York City Regional Office in lower Manhattan. For the last 2 years I have been a legal instructor at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, where I provide instruction in Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure. Q: What are your main responsibilities?

A: As a legal instructor, it is partly my responsibility to make sure than new agents understand the protections afforded by the United States Constitution, both to protect the rights of citizens subject to criminal investigations as well as to ensure the success of our investigative efforts against legal defenses arising from unconstitutional practices and procedures that could undermine the efforts invested by the Bureau into criminal investigations.

Q: After practicing criminal law on both sides, you've probably had experiences along the entire spectrum of police conduct including ethical issues.

A: That's true, yes.

Q: What is your perspective of the importance of personal and professional ethics and character in the field of law enforcement?

A: Personal and professional ethics and character are absolutely essential throughout the field of law enforcement. In this country, police agencies work very hard to identify unsuitable candidates before they ever enter a police academy to receive training to become police officers. Granted, some agencies are better at doing so than others, but that is attributable mainly to the sheer size of the country and the thousands of individual agency standards applied by each agency. Budget is also an issue in that what is realistic for larger state and federal agencies may not be in the case of much smaller local police agencies. Nevertheless, all you have to do is consider the situation apparent in other countries by comparison to understand that, in principle, law enforcement in the U.S. upholds the highest standards, both in general, and also in particular with respect to ethical conduct anywhere in the modern world. Q: Do you think that police are more ethical today, or were they more ethical ten years ago?

A: Generally, I think that U.S. policing evolves on a continual basis in almost every way, including in ethical conduct. In that sense, I think police are generally more ethical today than last year, last year than two years ago, and this decade than last decade, and so on and so forth. In my opinion, the most significant changes were inspired by various Supreme Court decisions relating to proper police conduct and procedures in the last 30 or 40 years as much as by any other single element.

Q: Why do you think police officers sometimes become involved in misconduct?

A: Human nature applies just the same to police officers as to you or anyone else. All of us experience the same innate urges and temptations and none of that goes away when you take an oath to uphold or enforce the law. The difference between police who engage in misconduct and those who do not - or for that matter, between law abiding citizens and criminals - is not necessarily in our urges and temptations, but rather, in the degree to which we give in to those urges and temptations. However, when police officers engage in misconduct or criminal activity, it is much worse for several reasons.

Q: Such as?

A: First, police officers swear an oath to uphold the law; second, police officers receive training that makes them much more aware of the lines between what is legal and ethical and what is not; and third, however bad it is for an ordinary person to engage in criminal conduct, it is that much worse for someone to do under what is called the "color of authority" which means, essentially, misusing your powers and official authority to perpetrate crime. Q: Do you think there is sufficient training devoted to ethics at the police academy level?

A: Yes and no. At the federal level, ethical training is more or less consistent even among many different agencies in general. Because state and local agencies operate much more independently from each other and also from any uniform standards other than those imposed by federal law, there is much more room for error.

Q: Do you think police ethics training should be offered on-going basis for all law enforcement officers?

A: At the federal level, ongoing police ethics training is already provided; in fact, ethics training is already ongoing throughout the federal government, even in civilian agencies and occupations. At the state and local level, continuing ethics training may be offered, or not, depending on the particular agency and on state laws that pertain to police training. Undoubtedly, training makes a difference and ongoing training is preferable to one-time instruction only in the academy. Q: Do you think continual education and/or training in police ethics would reduce incidents of police corruption?

A: In some respects, yes; in other respects, not necessarily. The concept of ethics is really not all that complicated in principle. Just as in the general population, police officers who "get it" do so after minimal training while those who don't are not likely to do so after repetitive training. Civilians rarely live their lives lawfully for decades and then suddenly decide to engage in criminal conduct. Police officers don't often exercise a high degree of personal and professional ethics on the job and then suddenly misuse their lawful authority in a single isolated instance. More commonly, citizens who violate the law do so habitually and accumulate long criminal histories by the time they reach middle adulthood and police officers who operate unethically or criminally do so as a pattern rather than in isolated instances in a background of perfect conduct. In this regard, I think better candidate screening and supervisory oversight are more important than continual classroom-style training.