Police Officer and Lying

¶ … law enforcement agencies have often struggled with officer dishonesty and the impact such an action leaves not just in the criminal justice system, but more specifically in court proceedings. When an officer lies, their credibility may be threatened due to their previous dishonest comportment. Agencies must, on a continued basis, disclose information to prosecutors concerning the issue of officer dishonesty if the officer in question must testify against a defendant.

That defendant must also be made aware of the instance of officer dishonesty and if this is not done, the agencies and officers may be held accountable as well as potentially lead to dismissal of charges against the defendant. An example of this was seen in Brady v. Maryland. The landmark case of Brady v. Maryland demonstrated the effects of withholding information or evidence in case proceedings by the decision of the prosecutors to not submit Boblit's confession as evidence.

As a result of the court ruling, the 'Brady disclosure' came into effect and requires prosecution must disclose what can be identified as 'material exculpatory evidence' to the defendant. This kind of evidence includes physical evidence, witnesses or statements that could impeach a prosecution witness' credibility. Police officers that have been dishonest are nicknamed 'Brady Cops' because of 'Brady disclosure'.

They are given this name because if any of those cops were to serve as witness in a court proceeding, the prosecutor would have to let the defense know the police officer was dishonest at one point. This not only creates conflict among police officers and prosecutors, but in how law enforcement manages dishonest police officers. Therefore, should someone catch a police officer lying, then the best decision would be dismissal.

Messing with court proceedings is just one bad moment in a series of moments that can happen once a police officer has been recognized as dishonest. Police officers should be terminated because dishonesty leads to distrust and misinformation among police officers as they, under the collective knowledge doctrine, rely on valid information offered to them by other officers. If that information is based on a lie, then it can cause a ripple effect among those involved in collecting the information.

For example, supervisors have access to the collected information, and must render decisions based on such information gained. The information network also extends to citizens. Citizens may develop a distrust of police officers if they discover police officers can lie and not face consequences. Such distrust can also reach the court system. Prosecutors need honest reports, affidavits, and statements when pursuing cases. When judges assess warrants, they must rely on honest information.

Finally, jurors determine the innocence of guilt of someone based on testimony given by a police officer and investigations performed by the police officer. At first it may seem unfair to dismiss a police officer for lying once, but they are held to a higher standard and their honesty is integral in the nature of their work. It is a price they must pay to ensure the stability of a criminal justice system. That price can come at a heavy cost.

Some personnel may have been outstanding officers during their career. They may have been exemplary in every way and then demonstrate weakness at one point in their careers. They lie and while their past indicates a great police officer, that one error in judgment could wipe it all away, especially if the police officer never faces severe consequences and continues on his or her job. New York City for example, has had dozens of police officers stay on the force even after they were proven liars.

This led to law suits by civilians against some of the officers like Larsen for brutality and false arrest (Lewis & Veltman, 2015). Letting seemingly good officers get away with lying may send the wrong message to such officers that they are above the law and could lead to corruption. Corruption is a problem that has gained some major traction in the criminal justice system. Many police officers are being blamed for use of excessive force, false arrests, and evidence tampering.

If public policy was followed and police officers were dismissed for lying and committing other similar offenses, perhaps the rate of corruption in law enforcement would dwindle. Who knows if this would happen, but it is important to note how police officers have changed in the way they handle civilians in recent years. Another aspect to examine is the impact dismissing an officer has on his or her family. Family of police officers may rely solely on the officer's income to maintain the household.

If a police officer is dismissed for lying, they lose their main source of income. The problem with being dismissed as a police officer is that police officer cannot go back to being a police officer. He or she would have to look for a different career in order to make money. These are the unfortunate consequences of police officer dismissal.

However, if honesty is made explicitly clear as grounds for dismissal, it is the responsibility of the police officer to adhere to the rules or face the consequences, no matter how dire they may be. If an agency ignored public policy and kept a police officer, which happens more often than expected, any time a police officer that has lied, is called to be a witness, their credibility is questioned. As previously mentioned with Brady disclosure, prosecutors must inform the defense of the police officer's previous history of lying.

Any testimony given would then be questionable in the eyes of the judge and possibly a jury. This kind of problem leads to a poor reputation for any agency that maintains lying police officers. Since police officers are relied upon to give testimony in criminal cases, the lying aspect could put a damper on any prosecutor's case. In conclusion, there is a lot a police officer is responsible for and that.