Police Officer Untruthfulness: Ethics, Law, and Termination

Introduction

An effective police officer must be truthful. Increasingly, there is frustration informed by a lack of integrity and insufficient support for disciplinary actions taken by senior officers against those who breach the rules. Integrity and ethics must be at the center of any internal investigation. If an officer is not truthful regarding their actions, positive reinforcement should be employed; however, it must be made clear from the outset that untruthfulness is sufficient ground for termination of duty. If a law enforcement officer acts untruthfully, it damages the effectiveness of their work in policing. This paper seeks to identify the correct action to be taken against an officer who acts untruthfully in the case provided.

Legal Cases Governing Disclosure and Witness Credibility

After the Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors are obliged to make evidence available to the defense — even evidence that would favor the defense — when that evidence can determine guilt or innocence. Failure to do so violates the defendant's right to a fair trial (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). Cases decided subsequently broadened the reach of the Brady ruling and provided additional guidance. One such case is Giglio v. United States (1972), which established that, in addition to disclosing exculpatory evidence, prosecutors must also disclose impeachment evidence relating to government witnesses when that evidence casts doubt on a witness's credibility. It is therefore clear from Brady and Giglio that prosecutors are bound to provide both exculpatory evidence and any evidence that defense counsel could use to impeach government witnesses.

United States v. Agurs (1976) further heightened prosecutorial obligations when the Supreme Court determined that defendants need not make formal requests for Brady-type evidence. This means that even in the absence of such a request, prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence or any evidence that could be useful to the defense (United States v. Agurs, 1976). The obligations were expanded even further in Kyles v. Whitley (1995), which determined that the prosecution is bound by legal ethics to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on behalf of the government (p. 438).

The Kyles ruling implicates the entire prosecution team and law enforcement personnel. It stipulates that prosecutors have a duty to be aware of material evidence that can be used to impeach defendants, as well as government agents and witnesses (Reimund, 2013). The Attorney General's office subsequently issued a policy directive on the disclosure to prosecutors of information that could be used to impeach law enforcement agency witnesses (1996). That policy defines impeachment evidence to include:

It is evident that the rules governing prosecutorial conduct at both the state and federal level compel prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence and any information bearing on the credibility of a witness — including a law enforcement officer — to the defense, even without a formal request. Failure to comply with these rules is sufficient basis for ordering a retrial (Abel, 2015).

Standards for Untruthfulness and Case Analysis

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word "lie" as a verb means: to make a statement that is untrue with the intention to deceive, or to create a false impression so as to mislead (Lie, n.d.). The term therefore refers to a scenario that transcends simply making an untrue statement. Several categories of lies exist, including humorous lies, white lies, defensive lies, pathological lies, and aggressive lies (Ekman, O'Sullivan & Frank, 1999). In some cases, failing to speak up, making omissions, or failing to document a known falsehood all constitute lying. Furthermore, there are circumstances in which law enforcement officers are expected to use deception in the lawful apprehension, investigation, and prosecution of criminals.

One of the most important functions of law enforcement agencies is to promote cohesive and peaceful living and maintain a sense of security among community members. Public trust is therefore invaluable for police officers. Officers must maintain the public's confidence in their integrity, and abuse of power must be avoided at all costs (Ekman et al., 1999). Law enforcement is prohibited from engaging in acts that breach that public trust. Because not all lies necessarily constitute a breach of public trust, and because policies vary across departments, it is essential to distinguish which categories of lies may be permissible and which violate departmental policy and the law.

The police officer's inappropriate use of a departmental computer to access pornographic material for personal entertainment — rather than for work-related purposes — is wholly unethical. Such conduct can negatively affect other people's lives and warrants decisive action to deter similar behavior by other officers. Under departmental policy, municipal computers must not be subjected to inappropriate or personal use, and no formal or informal permission exists for such activity. Termination is the appropriate measure to protect the integrity of the police department. The key risks associated with such computer misuse include costly lawsuits and a drain on IT resources. Pornography sites are also widely known for exposing visitors to malware designed to access private information without the user's knowledge, making this a significant cybersecurity risk as well. Restrictions exist for state employees regarding access to government information infrastructure (Noble, 2003). Any evidence disclosed by the prosecution regarding this conduct is materially significant and can bear directly on the determination of culpability. The officer in question already has a history of untruthfulness, having lied about his use of the computer.

Conclusion

Law enforcement officials are held to a higher standard than the citizens they are committed to protect and serve. When law enforcement agencies face public scrutiny, adherence to a code of ethics that demands truthfulness is imperative. Requiring a police officer to comport themselves honestly is a matter of public policy, morality, ethics, and law. Under current case law and the rules governing criminal proceedings before state and federal courts, prosecutors are obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence as well as information bearing on the credibility of a witness — including a police officer — to the defendant, even in the absence of a formal request. Failure to comply could result in a new trial.

Terminating a police officer caught lying is not unusual, particularly in jurisdictions such as New York and the Arkansas State Police, which embrace a zero-tolerance approach to untruthfulness. However, such conduct is not treated uniformly across all jurisdictions. Untruthfulness and inappropriate use of government infrastructure can lead to a range of sanctions, both administrative and criminal. Being caught in such circumstances jeopardizes an officer's career and subjects them to public ridicule and loss of trust. It is essential for any law enforcement agency to be aware of the consequences of untruthful conduct, which are devastating to the reputation of the police department and impeach its witnesses during trial proceedings.

In the case at hand, terminating the police officer who abused departmental computers and lied about it is the most appropriate course of action. It will deter other officers from engaging in similar conduct and is the best means of preserving the integrity of the agency. The officer in question is a habitual liar: he attempted to conceal the truth following an accident, investigated himself in a traffic stop incident that resulted in vehicle damage, and misled his superiors about the facts. He is both untruthful and erratic, and his fitness to testify in a court of law is in serious doubt. As established in Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are obligated to disclose information favorable to the accused. Consequently, if this officer were to testify as a witness in any criminal proceeding, the prosecutor would be legally required to disclose to defense counsel any information exposing the officer's dishonesty. One of the principal reasons for dismissal is that the officer's demonstrated dishonesty would bar him from rendering any service that aids in enforcing the law. If reinstated or placed in any position of public trust, he could not lawfully serve in a manner consistent with public policy.