Phase 1 IP

Lucretia Rossi

CJUS600-1301A-01

Advanced Review of Criminal Justice

Professor Anthony Nici

January 14, 2012

RE: Police Misconduct

creates some unique problems that could easily lead to, and do somewhat encourage,

misconduct. Even the language of this militarization matters. “War on crime,” “crack down,” and

other military jargon being used in police forces today has actually shifted the way law

enforcement perceives itself. Crime is referred to in some departments as “insurgency,” or

“urban warfare.” When you combine this with the fact that many police officers are former

military, using combat zone jargon leads police to behave as though they are soldiers in a combat

zone. This leads to disregarding civil rights and using excessive force, because criminals, or even

citizens generally, are considered “the enemy.” Places where crime is high are called the “front

lines.” Military rhetoric used in reference to civilian crime has definitely had consequences. It

encourages, basically, state-sanctioned violence. It leads to police using a militaristic response to

crime. Also, the line between the domestic police and the military, which until recent years has

been a clearly-drawn line, is being blurred at an astounding rate. Police are increasingly using

military equipment, tactics, and training. In essence, police are increasing treating America’s

streets like foreign war zones. The opportunity for civil rights abuses, excessive force, et cetera

increase dramatically as this trend increases (Kraska, 2001). I personally feel that this is actually

endangering the American people, when the personnel who are entrusted to protect us are

increasingly indoctrinated, through loaded language and a militarized mindset, that America is a

war zone and we are the enemy.

Another challenge is improving detection of problem officers. Obviously, it’s not

working well enough. While there is no fool-proof way to detect all problem officers early,

police forces need to do better. Cases I’ve seen in the news and other sources over the years,

such as the Abner Louima case, LAPD’s now-defunct CRASH unit Rampart Scandal, a long
history of corruption and brutality at the New Orleans Police Department as a whole, and John

Burge, are example of the severe cases that reach the media. Many problem officers go for years

with little or no publicity while their misconduct is ignored or even covered up. Police

accountability in this area must increase. Also, such a system should be proactive, not reactive

(DeCrescenzo, 2009).

Another problem is “noble cause” corruption. While this is not a new problem, certainly,

this era of overcollecting of intelligence and Intelligence-Led Policing certainly increases the

opportunities for such corruption, especially in domestic terrorism units. For example, recently-

released documents I read showed a concerted effort by local police and the FBI to crack down

on peaceful, lawful protestors, as well as journalists covering such protests. A survey recently

found that officers consider “noble cause” corruption to be far less serious than corruption for

personal gain. “Noble Cause” corruption is rationalized and underplayed (Martinelli, 2006).

However, intentional crime and civil rights violations by sworn officers is not acceptable, no

matter what the rationale.

The increase in police scrutiny via cell phone recordings creates a two-fold problem for

two different factions of police executives. For those who believe in police transparency and

accountability, it creates a hassle because it can make an officer who is actually using reasonable

and necessary force look like a “bad apple,” if only part of the video is, for example, shown by

the media posted to sites like YouTube. While I agree absolutely that recording is a way to

prevent police misconduct and hold officers accountable, one has to wonder how many videos

tagged as “police brutality” show an officer wrestling someone to the ground, but don’t show the

person punching the officer first, for example. Also, I’ve seen many such videos labeled “police

brutality” when the officer used what I would definitely consider reasonable and necessary force.
On the other side of the coin, there is a dramatic increase in officers arresting citizens doing the

recording, even media photographers. They, even if standing clear across the street, are being

arrested on charges such as obstruction of justice or interfering with police duties. Some even

face up to fifteen years in prison for violation of wiretapping laws, even though courts have ruled

repeatedly that photographing a person in a public place is legal, including public officials

(Stanley, 2011). Also, wiretapping laws are being twisted to arrest such people. Even the U.S.

Department of Justice has openly stated that it supports the position that citizens have the right to

record police in their duties, under the First Amendment. In many states, the wiretapping laws

prohibit the recording of audio without the consent of all parties, but do not require consent if the

person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. This would certainly apply to police carrying

out their duties in public. However, these arrests are increasing nationwide, despite the fact that

the charges are usually dismissed or convictions reversed on appeal (Citizen Media Law Project,

2011). There is also a dramatic increase in officers destroying such recordings, then arresting the

filmer for obstruction. In other words, they are arresting people on false charges, and at the same

time destroying the person’s evidence of innocence. These two issues combined have led to the

public’s increasing mistrust of law enforcement. Correcting the issue of police blatantly

disregarding the law, as well as increasing public confidence in police, will be an uphill battle,

because it’s a cycle. Police are mistrusted because of their response to the recording, which leads

to more recording, which leads to a more hostile police response. From the public’s standpoint,

police are breaking the law so there’s no proof of their misconduct. If they had nothing to hide,

why be hostile to the idea of being recorded? I’m not saying that is necessarily an absolutely

accurate statement, but it is certainly reasonable.

accountability in general is public/citizen review boards. Internal Affairs and allowing the police

to police themselves simply isn’t working. It’s also clear to one who reads the news that police

are rarely prosecuted for misconduct, and even more rarely convicted. If one looks at the Abner

Louima case, the Rodney King case, or the New Orleans Police Department, all of those were

acquitted of local/state charges. It took a federal trial to bring these police to justice. Another

recommendation I would make would be not only increased prosecution of cases involving

police misconduct, but also prosecution of police officers and/or officials who do not cooperate

with the investigation, falsify reports, or otherwise try to “bury” it. Is that not obstruction of

justice and hindering prosecution? I would certainly be prosecuted for that. Honestly, the blue

wall will not go down until we refuse to accept that police are above the law. Period. This

includes the police department cultures. They have to change the culture of the department itself,

at all levels, before this mindset will subside, in my opinion.

Department culture is critical. A fabulous example of what happens when a department’s

culture is that police are not accountable for their actions and they all cover each other’s

misconduct is the federal probe of, and the history of, the New Orleans police department. It’s

rather frightening. One telling statement in the federal probe was something to the effect that the

citizens had more reason to be afraid of the police than they did the criminal element in the city.

This is a prime example of a longstanding department culture of disregard for the law.

Accountability and public service ideals ingrained in the culture at all levels would, logically,

lead to not only increased trust of police, but safer communities. Unfortunately, to the average

person like me, it seems that the shift is going increasingly further in the wrong direction.
 References

Kraska, P.B. (Ed.). (2001). Militarizing the American criminal justice system: The changing

roles of the armed forces and police. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press

DeCrescenzo, D. (2009). Early Detection of the Problem Officer. In R. G. Burns (Ed.), Critical

Issues in Criminal Justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Martinelli, T. J. (2006, October). Unconstitutional Policing: The Ethical Challenges in Dealing

with Noble Cause Corruption. The Police Chief: The Professional Voice of Law

Enforcement, 73(10). Retrieved January 11, 2013, from

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?

fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1025&issue_id=102006

Stanley, J. (2011, September 7). You have every right to photo. In American Civil Liberties

Union. Retrieved January 11, 2013, from http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-

every-right-photograph-cop

Citizen Media Law Project. (2011). Recording police officers and public officials. In Citizen

Media Law Project. Retrieved January 11, 2013, from http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-

guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials