Law enforcement organizational culture

Law Enforcement Organizational Culture

The state policing agencies have come under harsh criticism, resulting in some state police agencies coming under review by the federal government. After a four-year hiatus, the federal government will review the state police agencies for systemic constitution violations. The 2020 Black Lives Matter following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville warranted the local police departments to come under review of the federal government to examine the organizational culture that could be causing such abuse of power (“U.S. V. City of Los Angeles - Consent Decree,” 2021). Under federal review, the local police department must meet court-ordered benchmarks of training, accountability, and revised use-of-force policies. While there have been concerns about its conduct, the New York Police Department (NYPD) has not come under the federal government, a testament to responsible policing policies and responsiveness to the local communities.

Leadership and Mission

The mission of the NYPD is to “enhance the effectiveness of the police department; increase public safety; protect civil liberties and civil rights; and increase the public’s confidence in the police force, thus building stronger police-community relations” (“Inspector General for NYPD,” 2021). The values upheld by the NYPD are protecting the lives and property of citizens, impartiality while enforcing the law, preventing crime and aggressively following the violators, maintaining a high strand of integrity, and upholding the dignity and value of human life by applying the law with courtesy and civility. An organization’s mission and core values are the default guiding principles in policy and its implementation, determining the approach to using force and the relationship between the police and their respective communities.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) comes under the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) following the discovery of the rampant area corruption in the agency, excessive force, unreasonable seizure and search, and false arrests. Consequently, the LAPD and the DOJ entered into a consent decree to promote police integrity and prevent misconduct resulting in the denial of citizens’ rights, immunities, and privileges rendered by the constitution (Bruneau, 2000). The decree emphasizes the management and supervisory measures to uphold civil rights, adherence to due procedures, investigations, documentation, review, management of confidential informants, integrity audits, and community outreach and public information. While the LAPD denies these allegations, the DOJ has presented compelling evidence that led the City council and the mayor, forming a Consent Decree Task Force (CDTF) that is required to plan, coordinate, track, monitor, and report on the LAPD’s compliance with the decree’s provisions.

The LAPD’s leadership is guided by its mission “to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life” (Dunn, 2008). Its core values are offering service to Los Angeles communities, revere the law, purveyor to leadership, uphold integrity in its speech and actions, respect the people, and ensure the quality of service through continuous improvement. The differences between the leadership of NYPD and NYPD are in their orientation in the enforcement and core objectives in their missions. The NYPD focuses on protecting the rights, privileges, and dignity accorded to the citizens. At the same time, LAPD pays more attention to preventing crime and securing the lives of the citizens (“Counterterrorism - NYPD,” 2021). The similarities of the two departments lie in their core values. For example, the NYPD and the LAPD both intend to uphold the dignity and value of human life by applying the law, respectively. However, the implementation and adherence to the core values are evident in the organizational culture, given the LAPD is under review by the DOJ while the NYPD is not.

Operations and Accountability

The LAPD operations are overseen by the inspector general, Mark P. Smith, and his three assistants. The Board of Police Commissioners supervises all LAPD operations under the leadership of the inspector general. The California Public Records Act mandates each state and local agency to make its records publicly available for inspection unless disclosure is limited for the public. Further, the Act requires the local state agencies to duplicate disclosable public records on paper or in an electronic format (“U.S. V. City of Los Angeles - Consent Decree,” 2021). With time the role of the LAPD has required collaboration with the United States Secret Service, FBI, Los Angeles’ entertainment studios, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Dignitary Protection Unit. Such collaborations are most effective in accomplishing tasks allocated to subgroups, such as the Threat Management Unit.

The standard operation of cases involves the preliminary investigation, usually beginning with the patrol officers likely to be first responders to distress alarms. The police are required to fill in the police report forms as required. The detectives in the department receive these reports and conduct further investigations that begin with another interview with the victim, witness, or other involved parties, gathering evidence, assessing the evidence, and managing the case strategy development. Once a formidable case is built, the detectives write search warrants and subpoenas to meet the challenges associated with the development of common interest (Dunn, 2008). Knock and talk policies are given preference in the process of gathering evidence as well as issuing warnings to the relevant parties. The face-to-face form of engaging the suspects has been perceived as a form of intimidation, although the LAPD holds this strategy is not employed to badger, bully, or threaten the suspect. Restraining orders are an issue in case the suspect’s behavior is an issue of concern. The suspects are arrested and prosecuted if they are a threat to the public or if the charges held against them are substantial and evidence to support the allerions is formidable.

The NYPD has a similar standard operating procedure. However, these differences emerge in the organizational culture in how the two departments approach patrols, conduct investigations, and conduct prosecutions and investigations. For example, the NYPD police officers are held accountable if they do not abide by the standard procedures stipulated in their manuals that are summarized and similar to those of LAPD. The public is invited to file complaints of failure to follow the proper protocols during an officer’s arrest, patrol, or misconduct investigation (Farkas et al., 2020). The strict approach to the management of discipline of the officers in each department explains why the LAPD is under oversight by DOJ while the NYPD is not.

The CCRB is responsible for holding accountable any officers who fault the standard procedures or act contrary to the department’s values. Conversely, while the LAPD shares a similar procedure, the implementation varies due to a leisure faire attitude towards the set procedure and policies. For example, the LAPD, City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners have been alleged to continually and collectively engage in unlawful conduct due to the lack of suitable management procedures and practices (“U.S. V. City Of Los Angeles - Consent Decree,” 2021). Notably, the NYPD’s leadership sets an ideal in procedures and management practices lacking in LAPD (More et al., 2012). This challenge has proved the inefficacy of the accountability bodies, such as the professional standards bureau, force investigation, and the internal affairs division. Further, to ensure accountability, the LAPD and the DOJ got into an agreement to create the CDTF that would hold the LAPD, City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners accountable. Consequently, the attitude of the leadership is mirrored in either department’s officers and resulting in the DOJ placing the LAPD under oversight to correct the poor management strategies.