This paper presents findings from interviews with two experienced law enforcement professionals — an NYPD Detective Sergeant assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and an FBI Special Agent serving as a legal instructor at Quantico — on the subject of police ethics, misconduct, and training. Both subjects address the origins of unethical conduct, the evolution of policing standards since the Civil Rights era, the realism (or lack thereof) of academy-level ethics training, and whether ongoing training can reduce corruption. The paper concludes with a comparative analysis of their perspectives and the author's own conclusions about the importance of realistic training standards and federal oversight.
The following paper presents primary research conducted through structured interviews with two experienced law enforcement professionals. Both subjects agreed to participate under condition of anonymity. Each interview addressed a consistent set of questions covering professional background, the importance of ethics in policing, the causes of misconduct, the adequacy of ethics training, and whether ongoing training can reduce corruption. The results section compares and contrasts their responses, and the paper concludes with the author's own perspective.
Q: 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?
A: 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.
Q: What are your main responsibilities?
A: 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 related matters.
Q: As an 18-year NYPD veteran, you've probably had experiences along the entire spectrum of police conduct, including ethical issues. What is your perspective on the importance of personal and professional ethics and character in the field of law enforcement?
A: 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 are placed in positions of power relative to ordinary civilians simply because 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 gain. 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 were complicit in racial persecution, including the cover-up of the murders of Black citizens and of four civil rights workers from New York in 1964. At that time, it was not uncommon 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 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 versus 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 roughly 1965 and 1990. In my opinion, the other main factor resulting in positive changes in ethical police conduct relates more to technology and the fact that police procedures are now much more visible than before — both to the chain of command and to the general public through the news media.
Q: How so?
A: Thirty 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 than 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 one way or another. In fact, 30 years ago, even the police radio was relatively new. It is indispensable for saving officers' lives and helping them in tactical matters, but most police radio traffic is broadcast over frequencies capable of being monitored by modern news media equipment. Except for special secure tactical channels, just about anything said between officers over 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 changes since the late 1990s.
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" — for example, to make sure criminals don't escape punishment or to protect innocent victims from continued victimization. Sometimes, bad people manage to become police officers too, because they are skilled at hiding their bad side from public awareness. These types of so-called "bad apples" may abuse their lawful police authority from the outset, even planning to do so in advance of becoming 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 officers already inclined to perform their duties ethically than it is likely to shape the conduct of those inclined to do so less ethically. It is also unrealistic in many cases, presenting ideal standards of ethical conduct instead of realistic standards that reflect actual practices.
Q: Could you give me some examples?
A: Sure. Many police academy programs teach that accepting a free cup of coffee or a discounted meal from a local business is no different from taking 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 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, 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 accept a social invitation might result in consequences — meaning the relationship is effectively coerced. Instead of telling new officers they are never allowed to pursue a social relationship with anyone they meet in uniform, we should be devoting those efforts to educating them to distinguish situations where their 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 might actually arise. It is 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 have 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 most from ethics training in the academy probably don't need continual refreshers because they have already committed to exercising their professional duties 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 have been routinely violating professional ethics on duty.
Q: Do you think continual education and training in police ethics would reduce incidents of police corruption?
A: Again, it depends entirely on the type of continual education and training we are 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 are talking about a well-designed program that truly reflects the realities of policing — one 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.
"FBI instructor on constitutional ethics and oversight"
"Shared themes and divergences across both interviews"
"Author's conclusions on training and federal oversight"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.