Police conduct standards and accountability

Ethics & Morality in Police Conduct

If you were the supervising officer whose job it was to sign off on Ramos' police report, what would you do about the incident that took place two days before Thomas Lee's arrest?

As the supervising officer, my responsibility would be to reprimand both Officers

Graves and Kato informally. In the case of Officer Kato, I would have to consider a formal reprimand, depending on his prior history and the likelihood that addressing the impropriety informally would not achieve the desired result.

As to the report itself I would instruct Officer Ramos to rewrite his report paying closer attention to departmental procedures specifying that reports should not include extraneous information not directly relevant to the facts. The relevant facts are that the officer observed evidence sufficient to require a mandatory arrest pursuant to state domestic violence law. The statement of the arrestee as to what may or may not have occurred on a prior instance that is not documented in departmental records should be excluded from the arrest report of June 22nd.

Discuss the ethical issues raised by the actions of Officers Graves, Kato, and Ramos. In your discussion, make reference to the ethics displayed by the three officers.

Officer Kato improperly allowed his personal relationship with the subjects to interfere with departmental policy, procedure, and state law, (because this hypothetical state mandates arrest for domestic violence). Kato's assessment as an experienced officer and FTO lead him to form the opinion at the scene that the case against Lee was decent." Therefore, arrest was no longer subject to discretion of either officer. Officer Graves was obligated to effect the arrest but for Kato's interference.

Kato's actions merit, at the very least, informal reprimand against (1) allowing his personal familiarity with the subjects of a call for service to color his judgment and violate policy, procedure, and law; and (2) improperly influencing the response of the responding officer by virtue of his seniority and former FTO status with respect to a junior officer.

Officer Graves improperly consented to the unjustified request of Kato not to effect an arrest that was required by departmental procedure and mandated by state law.

Graves' conduct, while improper, is understandable in light of Kato's seniority and his former status as her FTO. Nevertheless, informal reprimand is likely to benefit the officer and the department more than formal disciplinary proceedings. While the actions of Kato are more serious in principle, I would recommend informal reprimand absent specific reason to believe that informal addressing of the matter might be insufficient to achieve the desired result in the future.

Officer Ramos did not violate any ethical or legal standards. His excessive detail in his police report is a routine matter of report writing proficiency common to young officers. Nevertheless, Ramos could be counseled informally as to the need to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant facts, particularly when unnecessary details could potentially expose the department to civil liability or other officers to unnecessary formal departmental scrutiny when informal counseling off the record would suffice to resolve apparent misunderstandings or miscommunications in the field.

Why are cases such as the one described here of importance to the public?

Discuss the competing interests involved in this case.

Cases such as the one described here are important to the public because failure to effect arrest where justified, or where specifically required could have grave consequences to public health, safety, and welfare. This is particularly important where the call for service involves physical violence, and even more so where the subjects and circumstances are conducive to continuation, repetition, or escalation, as in the case of domestic violence. This is precisely the underlying rationale for mandatory domestic violence arrests in many states.