A “homogeneous group” Working class and lower-middle class Conservative political views Assertiveness and physicality Taste for risk and excitement.

A “homogeneous group” Working class and lower-middle class Conservative political views Assertiveness and physicality Taste for risk and excitement Some say authoritarian – others, not

Looking for steady work with good benefits Idealistic, want to help others Prefer outside work – not be “cooped up” Lifetime interest (friends and relatives in law enforcement)

Police learn norms and values on the job,like other occupational groups

Recruits learn caution at the academy Police work can be dangerous Stories of officers hurt and killed Patrol work teaches powerful lessons Constant exposure to the unpleasant aspects of human nature Reality vs. altruistic, “helping” orientation Badge + gun ≠ compliance; almost anyone can prove dangerous Justice not always possible Some consequences Pre-existing characteristics interact with police environment Shortcuts to decision-making: profiling, the “symbolic assailant” Territoriality , solidarity, code of silence Police Issues: When Very Hard Heads Collide

Democratic values Balance of power between citizens and the State Public trust and confidence in the police Fairness to the weak – “the little guy”

Professionalism Avoid brutalizing the police Encourage craftsmanship and attention to detail

▪ Weak-willed or innocent may falsely confess to gain leniency▪ Witnesses may shape their testimony to what authorities want▪ Officers convinced of someone’s guilt might lie or shade the

truth Avoid the descent to misconduct

▪ “Slippery slope”: “grass eating” to “meat eating” Police Issues: The Usual Suspects

“Noble cause” of making the world safer Are “bad” means justified to get “good” ends? Police frustrated by laws and regulations

Miranda v. Arizona (1966): If custodial interrogation must read rights

Exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961): Illegally gathered evidence is inadmissible

Conduct that “shocks the conscience”: Due Process clause, Fourteenth Amendment

Right to counsel: Sixth Amendment Criminal and civil law, agency regulations

Police frustrated by moral standards imposed by outsiders. Police frustrated by practical obstacles

Uncertainty, lack of information Uncooperative victims, witnesses and suspects

Blog post: “You Can’t Manage Your Way out of Rampart”

So were Bentham and Mill Utilitarians acknowledge the rules of morality

but do not feel bound to them Utilitarians are much more concerned with the

consequences of behavior Utility (“greatest happiness”) to all concerned

Calculus of costs and benefits Short-term (act utilitarianism) Long term (rule utilitarianism)

Difficulties Predicting consequences Calculating cost and benefits Individual rights may be overlooked No moral compass

Categorical imperative (Immanuel Kant) Universality of decisions – same acts

would be taken regardless of circumstances Human beings are not just means to an end

Other tests Is one acting from a sense of duty? Is an act motivated or affected by self-interest? Is the decision based on underlying principles or on personal

preferences? Difficulties

In the real world, consequences of an act are important Pressures and expectations on police Severely limit police practices and techniques

▪ Lying and deception▪ Undercover

What’s the worst kind of error? Type 1: Arrest and convict the

innocent (guilty not charged) Type 2: Failure to arrest or

convict anyone, or mistakenlyexonerate or acquit the guilty

Crime control model Maximize efficiency of crime control Prone to type 1 errors

Due process model Getting it right is more important Prone to type 2 errors

Officer selection Personalities drawn into policing Weeding out unsuitable candidates

Workplace issues Pressures to produce (how work is measured)

▪ Police Issues: Too Much of a Good Thing? Meeting legal requirements for search and arrest Getting along with coworkers Citizen expectations Limited resources

Police culture Peer pressures “code of silence” Solidarity - “us” v. “them” mentality

• In September 1999 officer Rafael Perez wascharged with stealing three kilograms ofcocaine from an evidence locker. In a pleadeal he accused fellow officers of Rampart “CRASH” (anti-gang unit) of framing and beating suspects, planting evidence and covering up brutality, including unnecessary shootings.

• Investigation led to the dismissal of more than 150 felony convictions. $70 million was paid to persons, mostly gang members, who were unjustly arrested, beaten or shot. Nine officers were charged with crimes, including filing false police reports, and 23 were fired or suspended. Some of the convictions and firings were later overturned.

• Perez and his partner, Nino Durden, pled guilty to State drug charges for the cocaine theft and to Federal civil rights violations for covering up a shooting. Each served a total of five years.

• Blog post: “You Can’t Manage Your Way out of Rampart”

LAPD Board of Inquiry Report page 14: “While it isimpossible to substantiate completely, it appears that theapplication of our hiring standards was compromised when theseofficers were hired during periods of accelerated hiring in the late1980s and early 1990s. This is not to say that anyone intended todo so. But, one need only look at the pre-employment histories ofthese four people to see that something was seriously wrong when they were approved for hire. The fact that these men were hired with egregious information in their packages leaves only two explanations:

1)Recognize that erosion has occurred and shore up the systems to prevent it from recurring; or2)Insist that the application of our standards did not erode, which means that criminal conduct, drug dealing, financial irresponsibility and violent behavior are consistent with our standards.

Clearly, there has been erosion, the blame for which cannot be placed on one indivdual individual or group, but rather on a multifaceted system with competing interests. We must recognize that it has occurred and commit ourselves to never sacrificing quality for the expediency of numbers.”

Discussion about four of the fired officersIn March 2000 report by LAPD

On 2/9/06 a Federal court jury awarded$5 million each to LAPD Sgt. Edward Ortiz,former officer Paul Harper and former Sgt.Brian Liddy, who were fired in 2000 andtried for allegedly framing a suspect while working at Rampart.

After being acquitted or having their cases dismissed, each sued the City for malicious prosecution. They accused prosecutors, detectives and former Chief Parks of making them “scapegoats” by suborning false testimony from officer Rafael Perez in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence.

Ortiz and Harper went back on the force. Liddy is now working in private security.

In July 2008 the Federal awards to the three officers were upheld by the Ninth Circuit, which agreed that disciplinary policies encouraged filing charges against officers even if there was no probable cause.

Edward Ortiz — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned). One of three sued for malicious prosecution, shared a $15-million jury award.

Brian Liddy — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned.) Shared in $15-million award. Later fired for misconduct related to a narcotics arrest.

Paul Harper — Acquitted of obstructing justice, shared the $15-million award.

Michael Buchanan — Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned)

Manuel Chavez — Pleaded no contest to assault under color of authority for the 1996 beating of a gang member. Sentenced to 60-days in jail and three years probation.

Shawn Gomez — Pleaded no contest to filing a false report in the 1996 beating of a gang member. Sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to serve 400 hours of community service.

Ethan Cohan — Pleaded guilty to obstructing justice and filing a false report in the 1996 beating of gang member. Sentenced to one year in jail.

Outcomes for other key players, from the Los Angeles Times (7/12/06)

On February 28, 2005 19 persons, includingfive former cops, were charged withcommitting twenty robberies during 1999-2001.

Led by LAPD officer Ruben Palomares, theywore LAPD uniforms & used LAPD cars to stage phony raids, stealing drugs, guns and money from drug dealers and others.

Those charged include former LAPD officers William Ferguson and Jesse Moya, former LBPD officer Joseph Ferguson, and former LASD deputy Rodrigo Duran.

William Ferguson was appointed an LAPD officer even though his background check turned up five prior arrests for theft and burglary.

Many of those charged have pled guilty. Palomares, serving 15 years for trying to buy ten kilos of cocaine from DEA agents in 2001, is cooperating. He was originally fingered as corrupt by Rampart figure Rafael Perez, who encouraged investigators to check out all of Palomares’ arrests.

4/29/09 Atty. General report on Maywood PD It concludes that Maywood officers have

engaged in extensive misconduct Routine use of excessive force Lack of probable cause to justify searches and arrests Lack of cause to stop cars, punitive impoundments Sexual assaults by an on-duty officer Discouraging the public from filing complaints

Causes and enablers of these problems Hiring unqualified officers and those rejected from other agencies Poor supervision, including supervisory indifference to obvious

problems Lack (until recently) of a professional Chief

In June 2009 Maywood consented to a court order Revamped selection, training and supervision Install cameras at station & police cars, officers to carry digital

recorders

Slippery slope “Grass eating” - passively accepting gratuities “Meat eating” - actively seeking illicit gain

Causes Rotten apples: one infects others Environmental: political atmosphere allows corruption to flourish

Most serious corruption is drug-related Large sums of money Social ambivalence about drugs

Neutralizers Drugs are “victimless” crimes Drug dealers don’t deserve profits; taking money punishes them Officers are heroes -- they’re poorly paid and deserve more

Article: “The Craft of Policing” Police Issues: Before Jet Blue There was Major Dymovsky

Impoverished high-crime drug sales area Officer misconduct

Illegal drugs and alcohol abuse New officers “tested” to see if they “measured up”

“Tough on crime” - extralegal means to punish offenders Falsification of arrest reports, perjury

Burning money - “psychological” abuse of suspects Traditional corruption – payoffs, thefts of evidence, robberies of

drug dealers, resale of drugs, housebreaks disguised as “searches” Dumping ground for problem officers “Grass eating” to “meat eating”

Began with burning and flushing confiscated dope Progressed to selling dope to other dealers

Continuous dialogue within an agency “Supply side” issues

Officer selection Internal and external pressures Measuring performance

Agency climate Corrective or punitive? Distinguish between working mistakes & willful misconduct Communications must flow up as well as down Enhance bond between managers and subordinates

Supervision Quantity and quality Avoiding co-optation

Continued...

Technology Early warning programs Recorders, cameras

Agency guidelines Explicit boundaries Thorough and realistic Enforce through inspection Disclose results of internal inquiries

High-risk units Oversight by command staff Careful merit-based selection Rotation

Selection, training and supervision often fail Unsuitable candidates always slip through Internal controls ignored or insufficient Supervisors can’t be everywhere

Quantity v. quality Superiors just want numbers Craze for measurement and quantification far

outweigh quality concerns Means v. ends

Frustration over bad guys getting away with it Justification in media, culture and politics for

brutality (“Dirty Harry”) Problem of the “symbolic assailant”

Police Issues: Liars Figure The Craft of Policing