Police and public relations in modern society

Police Interviews

The author of this report has been asked to conduct two interviews of police officers with six basic questions being the crux of both interviews. To protect the anonymity of the officers as well as a way to get the most honest and complete answers, the identity of the officers as well as the departments they have or do work for will not be identified in any way, shape or form. The answers garnered were insightful, honest and illuminating. The perspective they offer is perhaps not nearly as known as it should be given the reporting going on as it relates to the incidents in Ferguson and other places where cops have been shot or allegedly unarmed and/or innocent people on the street have endured the same. While there are two sides to each story, both the police and the people have the right to have their voice heard and hopefully understood.

Analysis

Before getting into what was said in response to the questions, the questions will first be listed in the order in which they were asked. The first question was why ethics and characters are so important when entering a career in law enforcement. The second question asks the respondent whether they feel police are more or less ethical than they were a decade ago. The third question asks why police officers are often involved in misconduct. The fourth question is whether the respondent feels there is enough training pertaining to ethics and such during the police academy training and, if not, why this might be the case. Fifth, it is asked whether ethics should an ongoing training action item or not. Sixth, and finally, it was asked of the two respondents whether the education and/or training in ethics would reduce further incidents of police corruption. An non-explicit goal of the six questions above that was also covered was to cover four contemporary ethical issues that police face in the modern age.

The first respondent offered very specific and detailed answers to the questions offered. Regarding the first question, the respondent said that ethics was a very important trait for current and prospective police officers to be concerned with. The officer said that to carry out the responsibilities of a police officer, "turning the other cheek" and letting ethical matters slide is something that should not be condoned or allowed for. The officer stressed that irrespective of the subject of a crime, whether it be victim or perpetrator, there has to be an impartial following of the law regardless of what presumptions or preferences might otherwise come up. For example, a woman that is attractive should not be given a slide on a ticket or a crime such as theft if someone less "pretty" would get booked and/or charged. The same should hold true for friends and acquaintances, in the view of the officer. This also means that even when one's greed or interest is piqued, the good thing should still be done. The first officer used the example of a drug bust where a large amount of unmarked money is found. The entire sum of money discovered needs to be accounted for accurately and inventoried no matter how tempting it might be to pocket some of it. The first officers said that anyone taking the oath of a police officer should do so seriously and should not allow themselves to be tempted by doing the wrong thing even when getting away with it is almost a given. Indeed, a drug dealer or career criminal is not going to hold a lot of weight in a "he said/he said" proposition. However, internal affairs bureaus more than believe the "where there's smoke, there's fire" mantra and they will always keep an eye out for a pattern of allegations no matter how unsubstantiated any single accusation might seem to be.

As for the second question, the officer said that officers of today are indeed more ethical than they were ten years ago. However, the officer says the level of violence and strife has also risen so the rise in ethics has been a matter of necessity. It is almost daily occurrence to see an officer shot at, actually shot or even killed in the line of duty. The first officer says that, for example, the Ferguson officers are in an impossible position as they are vilified even though at least three cops have been shot or shot at since Michael Brown died, Michael Brown was verifiably someone who was wanted for strong-arm robbery and the forensics of the scene, at least it would seem, directly contradict some of the witness statements and common sense. Despite this, the officer who shot Brown is facing a grand jury. The officer says that if indeed the cop shot Brown unnecessarily then he should face discipline and/or charges. However, both the peaceful residents and the cops are in a terrible position. The officer did point to clear-cut cases of brutality or excess such as the shooting of unarmed man Amadou Diallo in New York some years ago or the beating of Rodney King that sparked a race riot in Los Angeles when the officers were acquitted despite a video clip that was nothing less than a smoking gun. However, the officer also pointed out that the body cameras that people are demanding are going to create many more issues for perpetrators rather than the cops as the former are the ones that are actively hostile towards the police for no good reason and/or are engaged in criminal behavior of some sort. The officer says the true test would be to have the cameras be non-obvious so the public do not see them.

Regarding the third question, the officer said that misconduct seems to come mostly from greed or self-preservation. Indeed, Darren Evans (the cop who shot Michael Brown) may or may not have known that Michael Brown was unarmed but if he did grab for Evans' gun (which is what is alleged), then Evans obviously had to react quickly yet violently and the consequences of that choice are still reverberating no matter how right or wrong the choice might have been. The officer says that there are other situations that put a cop behind the proverbial eight ball from an ethical standpoint. For example, if a cop makes a meager yet manageable salary and they have a sick kid that is not covered sufficiently (if at all) by insurance, they might be more prone to take money under the table such as money from drug dealing busts or bribes. This is obviously different from raw greed but it is obviously still wrong. However, it is not hard to see what motivations and emotions are in play in such a situation. Not all motives are inherently evil, said the officer, but it still is not right. As for the fourth question, the officer said that ethical training is indeed sufficient at the academy. The rub is that there has to be a very careful selection of officers initially and the officers that pass the academy, the fresh ones in particular, need to be trained by good officers, need to be held accountable by their training officers partners and need to understand that malfeasance of any kind will not be ignored or permitted. This response dovetails with the fifth question whereby the first officer says that ethics should indeed be an ongoing training initiative. It is not something that should be done in the academy and then forgotten about and it should also not be something that internal affairs or police leadership uses to beat the officers over the head. Of course, some ethics situations are obvious but some are lesser as one should examine the ethical issues of taking free coffee or food at restaurants or favoring the areas of friends and family when doing patrols when this is at odds with the assigned beats the cops are supposed to be looking after. The first officer's general point is that there should not be incessant ethics training or any sort of undercurrent that makes officers feel that they are perpetual suspects that will eventually be subject to a "gotcha" that is truly not malicious or evil. That being said, it should indeed made clear per the officer that it is always on the minds of management and the public and thus should also be on the mind of the officers on the street.

Finally, the officer spoke to the sixth question by saying that continued education does indeed reduce corruption as people are less likely to offend if they know it will not be tolerated and/or that people in power as well as regular officers are all on the lookout for colleagues that are doing something (or not doing something) that could bring controversy or disgrace to the department. As noted before, the first officer said that it should not be beat into the heads of the cops but there absolutely needs to be an air and feeling of doing the right thing the first time, all of the time. The linchpin of making that work, per the first officer, is cracking down on every single found instance of unethical or illegal behavior. Dropping the hammer on some but not on others, especially for like situations, is even more destructive than refusing to punish or monitor anyone. This would be unethical and/or illegal on the part of the police command and would set the entirely wrong tone for the entire department. Instead, there has to be a commitment to enforce the rules as written by the police commanders and the rank and file should be encouraged to do the same. The officer says that the "snitch" mentality often seen in the streets is sometimes alive and well and there is often a disdain towards "tattle tale" cops and Internal Affairs. However, this can be shut down with the right leadership and a message that any dirty officer will be expelled and/or charged when (not if) their deeds are discovered.

The second officer was asked the same questions as the first and much of the same answers were heard. Rather than rehash those by largely repeating what has already been said, the author will instead focus on what was different and additional to what the first officer said. On a tangent, the author of this report mentioned some of the specific ethical issues mentioned prior with the first officer. To recap, those included when to and when not to use force, whether shooting an unarmed suspect is ever acceptable, the different type of ethical failings that cops have and their causes (e.g. simple greed, family illness draining finances, etc.) and so on. The second officer added a few new examples to the fray. One example the second officer cited was the encouragement (or lack thereof) that officers should extend towards neighborhood watch programs in light of what happened in Florida with the Trayvon Martin situation. Indeed, George Zimmerman was ostensibly looking out for his neighborhood but many actively and hostilely question what he did and how wrong he was to approach or confront Martin even if Martin was up to no good. Another issue the second officer brought up was the active animus and hatred that some people have for police for no valid or logical reason. The officer pointed to Facebook and other social media sites that actually have forums dedicated to assailing the ethics and morals of cops in a broad-based and specific fashion. The officer's words sounded like a natural extension of what the first officer said about the Ferguson situation. There are certainly two sides to what happened between Evans and Brown and the latter seems to be favored a ton compared to the former.

The second officer then brought up two more issues that he felt were omnipresent as problems to many people and he just didn't' understand either one. The first one he cited was driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement. He noted that the general odds of catching someone driving drunk is extremely low. For sure, officers can see people driving impaired and citizens can do the same. However, this is often a matter of luck rather than a certainty as most drunk drivers make it home in one piece and are not caught. The author of this report actually did a little research and his observation was spot-on. Indeed, an LA Time article way back in 1994 noted that the odds of a drunk driver being caught is one in five hundred. That is literally two tenths of one percent. However, areas with different infrastructure, cultures and so forth may see odds closer to two thousand to one (Reyes, 1994). The officer continued by saying that this is why the DUI checkpoints are done. Due to rules of evidence and probable cause, officers are not allowed to cherry pick anyone unless they are clearly in violation of the law. This could be swerving and such but it could also be a burned out taillight or something like that. A checkpoint is done, and has been held as legal by the United States Supreme Court, because everyone is stopped and a driver's license is not a "right." Because catching people in the act other ways is extremely hard and rare, the checkpoint are much more effective. However, there are people that caterwaul all of the time and complain that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that it is the sign of a "police state" even though Supreme Court precedent has clearly said otherwise.

This segues to another outlier from the first interview. When discussing ethics and such, the second officer noted that so many members of the public are actively ignorant and foolish about what they are entitled to under the law and they will often use rules of evidence and so forth to avoid being caught doing something wrong or arrested. Of course, a lot of this stems from people just not wanting to own up to the fact that they are busted but this is not always the case. Even some law-abiding citizens are reflexively anti-police and this creates suspicion in the minds of police when none should exist. The officer says that even though a law-abiding citizen has the right to refuse a search without a warrant, taking stances like that is less than wise as it causes suspicion with the officer or officers present.

The officer cited the example of actress Daniele Watts and her recent run-in with the Los Angeles Police Department. The officer explained that there was apparently word that a woman matching Watts' description was engaging in sexual behavior in public. The officers responded to the scene and approached Watts. She and her boyfriend were both asked for their identification. The boyfriend, a white man named Brian Lucas, complied immediately but Watts refused to offer identification and screamed racial profiling. Of course, failure to identify is a crime in many jurisdictions and Watts was briefly detained until she eventually complied. She later stated that it was due to grudges against police officers that profiled her and her family when she was a teenager. However, the officer notes that Watts should have just offered her identification up front and it probably would have been a quick conversation unless the officers themselves saw something going on. An interesting note is that Watts admitted to the press later on that she was indeed sitting on her boyfriend's lap and was making out with him so there was apparently some credence to what the complaining witness aid even if no actual sex act was occurring. The officer said it was very much a rerun of what happened with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gate. Gates was locked out of his home and was trying to pry open his front door and a neighbor called police. Rather than show identification and prove he lived there, Gates got belligerent and was arrested as a result. Had Gates just calmly stated he lived there and then proved it, the officer said, he never would have been arrested and people outside the situation should keep their two cents out of it because Gates clearly got himself arrested unnecessarily.